Shining Sun - In Memory of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i

Sub Title: 

A Translation of “Mihr-i Taban”

The book consists of two main parts. The first part includes an introduction and a memorial focusing on 'Allamah's life, and the second part is a series of discussions that the author of the book, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tehrani had with the 'Allamah. The discussions are based on the Noble Qur'an. Even though both the author and 'Allamah Tabataba'i are among the top Shi'a figures of the twentieth century, the book is not based on Shi'a narrations in particular.

Miscellaneous information: 

Shining Sun - In Memory of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i A Translation of “Mihr-i Taban” Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani Translated by: Tawus Raja British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: 978-1-904063-40-7 (pbk) © ICAS PRESS, 2011 This edition first published in 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of ICAS Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the foregoing should be addressed to ICAS Press. ICAS Press 133 High Road, Willesden, London NW10 2SW www.islamic-college.ac.uk

Translator’s Introduction

In the efforts that you make,

Never settle for anything less than the essence .

The author’s advice to those involved in the translation of his works

***************

About the Book

Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani wrote this book, Mihr-i Taban, right after ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s death in 1981. Ayatollah Husayni Tihrani – who also earned the honorific title of ‘allamah (most learned) – was among the closest and most brilliant students of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i in Qum. Not only did ‘Allamah Tabataba’i teach him philosophy, but he was also his first spiritual guide, who initiated Husayni Tihrani into spiritual wayfaring and gnosis. One can indeed feel the mystical light and the spiritual composure that are conveyed through the lines of this book. The close relationship and the long terms of acquaintance that the author had with ‘Allamah enabled him to write this unique work on ‘Allamah’s life and thought.

The book consists of two main parts. The first part includes an introduction and a memorial focusing on ‘Allamah’s life, and the second part is a series of discourses that the author had with ‘Allamah in person, written after having been tape-recorded. This latter part has been divided into several chapters based on the subject of the discourses (Chapter 3 onwards). They are presented in the form of questions and answers, and the topics of discussion are independent of one another. The discussions are heavily based on the Noble Qur’an, and that shows the extent of knowledge and familiarity of both the ‘Allamah and the author with the Holy Book. In other words, even though both scholars are among the top Shi’a figures of the twentieth century, the book is not based on Shi’a narrations in particular.

Readers not familiar with Islamic philosophy might find parts of Chapter 4 (Philosophical Discourses) slightly technical, but supplementary notes have been provided to clarify and summarise the discussions. There is only one section under Chapter 7 (Scientific Discourses) on the science of abjad letters that specifically requires knowledge of the Arabic alphabet. The original text of the Qur’anic verses, narrations, and poems mentioned in the book have been provided in the indices for those interested. These indices are followed by informative notes on the prominent figures mentioned in the book. Diacritics were dropped from the transliterations throughout the text, except for the part on the abjad letters and a few other places where diacritics were absolutely necessary. However, a glossary of key transliterated terms with diacritics has been provided at the end to clarify any ambiguities.

The translations of the Qur’anic verses, narrations, and poems are by the translator, though he has particularly benefited from Arberry’s and Pickthall’s translations of the Qur’an. The quotes from the Qur’an have been referenced within the text. The first Qur’anic number is the chapter number (surah) and the second one is the verse number (ayah). The names of the poets have also been mentioned at the end of the translated poems. Other citations have been referenced in the endnotes, and have been mostly researched by the translator. Like many other Muslim scholars, the author used long annotations and honorific titles and phrases of praise. To make the work more coherent, some of these titles and a few parts of the book that were deemed to be less relevant to the main content were dropped or abridged in the translation. Among these parts was a small chapter on ethical discourses.

All website references listed in the footnotes were correct at the time of publication.

About the Author

Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani was born in Tehran in 1345 AH (1926) in a family of religious scholars. He received his early religious education under the instruction of his father at home, and at the same time he pursued modern education and graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering from the German Technical School in Tehran. Despite his achievements in the modern sciences and the chance of continuing his education abroad, he chose the path of religious sciences, and thus he migrated to Qum for advanced studies in 1364 (1945).

He was among the first pupils of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i in Qum. Not only did he participate in ‘Allamah’s regular courses on philosophy and Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir) that were open to all, but he was also among ‘Allamah’s select circle of students who pursued theoretical and practical mysticism with their teacher and master (ustad). Sometimes the author would spend up to eight hours a day with the ‘Allamah at his house, just like a family member. During the seven years of his stay in Qum, the author also studied under Shaykh Murtada Ha’iri, Sayyid Muhammad Damad, Sayyid Rida Baha’ al-Dini, Sayyid Muhammad Hujjat, and Ayatollah Burujirdi.

After reaching the rank of ijtihad, the author departed for Najaf based on ‘Allamah’s advice in 1371 (1951). He stayed another seven years in Najaf, where he studied with Shaykh Husayn Hilli, Sayyid Abu al-Qasim Khu’i, Shaykh Aqa Buzurg Tihrani, and Sayyid Mahmud Shahrudi. Following ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s instruction, the author sought spiritual guidance from Shaykh ‘Abbas Quchani, and also frequented Sayyid Jamal al-Din Gulpayigani. He also used to observe night vigils on Wednesday nights (nights of Thursday) in the Mosque of Sahlah.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i was authorised by his master, the late Sayyid ‘Ali Qadi, to serve as a spiritual guide on his behalf, and it was in this light that the author totally submitted to ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s instructions. However, the author was yet to meet another student of the late Qadi in Karbala’, Sayyid Hashim Haddad, who had completed all of the spiritual journeys and had reached Divine Unity and Guardianship (tawhid and wilayah), just like the late Qadi himself. The author had heard ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s respect and admiration for Haddad when he was in Qum, and thus he already had a great yearning to meet Haddad when he was departing for Najaf.

Finally, the author came to meet Haddad in a pilgrimage to Karbala’ – an acquaintance that eventually made another Haddad out of the author. Thus, he continued his spiritual journey under the instruction of Sayyid Hashim Haddad. The author also came to know and meet Shaykh Muhammad Jawad Ansari – who was living in Hamadan – and took spiritual guidance from him based on the instruction of Sayyid Hashim Haddad. In 1377 (1958), despite his willingness to stay in Iraq, the author followed the advice of Haddad and Ansari, and returned to Iran to head the Qa’im Mosque in Tehran. During his stay in Tehran, he kept his connection with his master, and visited Karbala’ and Hamadan several times.

During his twenty-three years in Tehran, the author actively sought social and political reform in order to bring about an Islamic society. He has expounded on his activities and his relationship with Ayatollah Khomeini in his book, Wazifah-yi Fard-i Musalman dar Ihya-yi Hukumat-i Islam (Tehran, 1410/1989).

After the Islamic revolution, in 1400 (1980), the author moved to Mashhad by the order of his spiritual master – Sayyid Hashim Haddad – and dedicated himself to teaching and writing. He felt that with the people’s revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic, it was now the duty of the scholars to teach the people about real Islam, and purify the beliefs and practices of the public of that which is not genuine. That is why he freed himself of other affiliations for intense cultural and scholarly activities during his fifteen years of stay in Mashhad.

He was truly a prolific writer, covering a wide range and great depth of Islamic sciences, and truly deserving the title ‘allamah – as ‘allamah signifies one’s expertise in a variety of Islamic sciences, whereas Ayatollah signifies one’s expertise only in Islamic law (i.e. ijtihad). Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani passed away in Mashhad in 1416 AH (1995). His funeral prayer was performed by Ayatollah Bahjat, and he was buried in Inqilab Courtyard (sahn-i inqilab) on the foot side and behind Imam Rida’s tomb.1

Closing Remarks

At the end, the translator is most grateful to the Almighty Allah for enabling him to carry out this task. He is also grateful to the means by which Allah provided His grace – all the individuals who helped, supported, and contributed to this work, particularly the friends and colleagues in Mashhad and London. May Allah accept this effort, forgive the mistakes and shortcomings, and pardon the translator and his parents.

It is apt to close with one of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s poems that is not mentioned in the book. He narrated:

When I was studying in Najaf, there was a disruption in my connection with Iran, I lost my means of income, and we had a hard time meeting the necessities of life. Our problems were further complicated by the extremely hot temperature during half of the year. One day, I went to see my master, Ayatollah Qadi, and opened up my heart to him. When I returned from his presence, I was feeling so light and free, as if I had absolutely no sorrow. There, I composed his advice as follows:

Struck by sorrow, that came like a thief,
My heart was torn by sadness and grief.
My master’s advice is that which I sought,
For him I described my sorrow and my thought.

He held in his hand the mirror of truth;
He was wise as an old, and fresh like a youth.
He said, ‘O, my son, enjoy and be free;
The world is passing, so this is the key:

Never ascribe existence to yourself,
Your being is vain like that of an elf.
Why be depressed for that which you miss?
You’re not the owner, so soar up in bliss.

It belongs to Him; He can take or lend;
In all you shall see the hand of your Friend.

Laugh if you want, or cry and moan;
The Decree is the same, it’s written in stone.

The Will of Allah is that which occurs;
The wish of your heart is not what occurs.’2

‘And my accomplishment is only by Allah; in Him I trust and unto Him I turn.’ (11:88)

Tawus Raja

1. See Mu’assasah-yi Tarjumah va Nashr-i Dawrah-yi ‘Ulum va Ma’arif-i Islam, Ayat-i Nur (Mashhad: ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, 1427/2006) and ‘Notes on the Life and Career of ‘Allamah Tihrani’ (available at ); and lectures in Persian by the author’s son, Sayyid Muhammad Muhsin Husayni Tihrani (available at, ). For a more detailed study of the life and works of the author in English, see the translator’s introduction of Kernel of the Kernel (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), which is another work by the author, translated into English by Mohammad H. Faghfoory.

2. ‘The Life of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’, .

Part One

1. Introduction

I seek refuge in Allah, from the repelled Satan
In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

May Allah’s greatest mercies be upon our master Muhammad and his pure progeny; and may their enemies be far from Allah’s mercy forever. And there is no movement and no power save by Allah, the Supreme, the Magnificent.

The best and highest praises be to God, Who guides mankind by His Lordly manifestations from the darkness of ignorance to the heights of knowledge and unity (tawhid). And may the most ample mercies be upon the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad, son of ‘Abdullah, and upon his successor, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, his eleven descendants, and especially upon the Imam of our Time, al-Hujjat ibn al-Hasan, may our spirits be sacrificed for him.

And may the choicest blessings be upon the pure souls of the upright scholars and thinkers of Islam, who train the pupils of the path of salvation, and direct them to the Threshold of Unity and the exalted stations of God-reliance (tawakkul), satisfaction (rida), entrustment (tafwid), and submission (taslim). And particularly upon our recently-deceased master, the missing figure of knowledge and ethics, the matchless teacher and ‘allamah [lit. ‘most learned’], Ayatollah Hajj Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i Tabrizi. O Allah, enter him into Thy highest mercies and blessings; amen, O Lord of all.

In following the practices of the rightful Imams, these scholars have strived to raise the flag of tawhid in zealous hearts. They have conveyed the message of faith and certitude to the far coastlines and profound depths of the wakeful souls.

‘Knowledge rushed them toward true insight, and they embraced the spirit of certitude. They found easy what was difficult for the extravagant souls, and became intimate with what frightened the ignorant. Their bodies were in this world while their spirits had clung to the Supreme Realm. Only those are Allah’s heirs on earth, who call to His religion. Oh, Oh! How I yearn to meet them!’1

These are the words of Imam ‘Ali describing the divine scholars, who are Allah’s proofs on the earth.

‘They preserve the Divine signs and Lordly proofs from becoming old, rejected or wiped out. They are very few in number, but very high in rank and merit. Allah protects His signs and proofs by them, until they entrust them to their equivalents and plant them in the hearts of their likes.’2

‘Allamah Tabataba’i exemplified Imam ‘Ali’s above description. He was a protector of the hawzah (seminary) and its students, and a promoter of knowledge, ethics, faith, and forbearance. With his departure, the world of knowledge was hit by sorrow and the society of scholars was deeply grieved. Truly ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s ethics, insight, and knowledge illustrated those of the pure Imams. His face was a reminder of those noble lights, and his approach and practice resembled their saintly spirits.

I, this humble being, have made use of Ayatollah ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s thoughts throughout my Qur’anic, scientific, mystical, and philosophical writings. Therefore his precious teachings are readily available. In what follows, I have presented some of what I know about him in a relatively extensive memorial, to honour his pure departed soul. It is titled Mihr-i Taban (Shining Sun).

May Allah assist the travellers of the path of sincerity and the vision of the Exalted Deity to advance toward their destination. May Allah keep up their efforts until they achieve their goal, by means of studying the description of great figures such as our outstanding master, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i. O Allah, resurrect him with Muhammad and his pure progeny, protect his descendants in his absence, and assist, strengthen, and support the followers of his school on the path of salvation. And O Allah, assist us and all of our brothers with benefits and blessings from his writings and his soul.

Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani
Mashhad, the sanctified city of Imam Rida (peace be upon him)
Friday, 26 Rabi’ al-Awwal, 1402 AH (21 January 1982)

1. Nahj al-Balaghah, Saying no. 147.

2. Ibid.

2. Memorial

My First Encounter with ‘Allamah Tabataba’i

It was in 1364 AH (1945 CE) that I, this nondescript being, went to the splendid city of Qum for religious studies. I got a room in the school of Ayatollah Hujjat, later known as the Hujjatiyyah School, and started my studies there. The school’s building was very small, and therefore Ayatollah Hujjat had acquired several thousand square metres of adjacent land to expand it. He wanted to build a great centre for the students, following the traditional style of Islamic schools. It would include many residential rooms, classrooms, a mosque, a library, a cellar, a water storage area, and other facilities in a suitable, healthy, spacious, and delightful environment.

The Ayatollah was not happy with any of the various designs proposed by the engineers from Tehran and elsewhere, until one day we heard that a sayyid (a descendant of the Prophet) from Tabriz had come and outlined a plan that had gained Ayatollah Hujjat’s attention and approval. Thus I was eagerly anticipating seeing this sayyid.

Meanwhile, I was also very eager to study philosophy. At the time, the great scholar and philosopher Ayatollah Mahdi Ashtiyani had come to Qum and was intending to teach philosophy. He had been there for a few months and had promised one of our close friends to set up a private philosophy course for us based on the Manzumah of Sabzivari. We were just about to start that course when he suddenly changed his mind about staying in Qum and returned to Tehran.

Right about then, we found out that the sayyid from Tabriz who had come up with the design of the school was known as ‘Qadi’ and was an expert in mathematics and philosophy. We were also told that he had started a philosophy course in the hawzah of Qum. So my desire to meet him was further increased, and I was looking for some excuse to go to his house and visit him. Finally, one day, a friend of mine came to my room and said, ‘Mr Qadi is back from visiting Mashhad. Let’s go see him.’1

Thus we we went to his house, only to find out that we had already seen this ‘renowned sayyid’ in the streets. We had never realised that he was a man of scholarship, let alone profound scholarship! He used to walk in the streets of Qum with an appearance and clothing that was below average: a very small turban of blue burlap, an open-front clerical robe, and no socks. Likewise, his house was very simple and substandard. We hugged, sat down, and started talking about various subjects. We were amazed by this man, and it became evident to us that he was truly a cosmos of knowledge, wisdom, and insight:

The man of knowledge, even as a loner,
A universe he is, sitting in a corner.
(Adib-i Pishawari, d. 1349/1930)

A course on philosophy by ‘Allamah Tabataba’i

In that meeting, we developed a great regard and fascination for him and asked him to set up a private philosophy course for us so that we could discuss and debate freely and resolve our ambiguities. He kindly accepted. After we returned, I saw the fellow students who were also interested in studying philosophy.

‘How was Mr Qadi?’ they asked.

‘In response,’ I replied, ‘I shall recite the poem that Abu al-’Ala’ al-Ma’arri composed regarding Sayyid al-Murtada, when he was asked the same question after visiting him:

If you ask about him, then you shall know:
Were there any flaws in him? The answer is no!
You’d see mankind in a man alone,
And the time in an hour and the Earth in a zone.’2

Thus he started teaching philosophy in the school’s lecture hall. Even though the course was supposed to be private, other students found out about it; therefore, on the first day, the lecture hall was already filled with about one hundred students. Although the lectures consisted of many debates and discussions, the level of discussions was kept at average due to the large number of participants. Thus I used to walk him home after class and debate on the way in order to clarify further ambiguities.

And so my passion and enthusiasm for him increased. He was a simple and humble yet honourable man of good conduct. He was very friendly to us and used to treat us like a kind brother and a compassionate friend. In addition to the formal lessons, he used to come by my room every day to talk about the Noble Qur’an and other religious topics for one or two hours. Besides philosophy, he taught us a full course on traditional astronomy (hay’ah)3 and also started a course on Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir).

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s style of teaching

Gravity, grandeur and serenity were deeply rooted in ‘Allamah Tabataba’i. Streams of knowledge gushed from him like water from an active spring. He used to answer questions gently and quietly. Sometimes our debates and arguments would elevate in heat and intensity, but he was never affected by that whatsoever, and not even for once did he raise his voice higher than his usual pitch. He always maintained that courtesy, gentleness, tranquillity and gravity, and never lost his temper.

Sometimes he used to talk about the great men and saints (awliya’) and different schools of mysticism. He particularly used to talk in detail about his teacher and master of spirituality and divine teachings in Najaf, the unmatched chief of the mystics, Ayatollah ‘Ali Qadi (may Allah be pleased with him). These discussions were truly pleasant and interesting. In addition to his formal lectures, I used to meet him other times, and our meetings would sometimes take up to two or three hours a day.

My passion and zeal for him reached such a level that I moved out of my room in the school and rented a room near his place, in order to be closer to him and benefit more from his presence. He used to teach us ethical and mystical subjects on a regular basis, starting one or two hours before sunset, and sometimes going well into the night. In the spring, I used to meet him in Bagh Qal’ah – near his house – along with one or two other friends. He would talk to us about the manners and practices of saintly Islamic philosophers, the approaches of men of ethics, and the spiritual journey and wayfaring of the grand gnostics. He would especially discuss the states of the late Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli Hamadani and his outstanding pupils such as Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i Tihrani,4 and others. He also used to talk in detail about the manners and styles of the late Sayyid ‘Ali ibn Tawus, Sayyid Mahdi Bahr al-’Ulum, and also his own teacher, Mr Qadi (may Allah be pleased with them all). These discussions really helped us in our search for knowledge of religion. And indeed, had we not met such a great man, we would have been deprived of everything, in this world and the next. Thus all praise is to Allah and all great blessings are from Him.

Therefore, in addition to my formal courses at the school (hawzah) such as jurisprudence and the principles of jurisprudence, I was always committed to meeting with him and benefitting from his presence, whether in philosophy, ethics and mysticism, or Qur’anic exegesis, in which he had a novel style. This was the case until 1371 (1951) when I went to the noble city of Najaf to continue my studies and benefit from the city of knowledge of Imam ‘Ali (peace be upon him).5

While I was in Qum, we also asked him to teach us Qaysari’s commentary (sharh) on Ibn al-’Arabi’s Fusus al- Hikam and Mulla ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-Kashani’s commentary on Ansari al-Harawi’s Manazil al-Sa’irin, but he kept postponing that. We realised that he was not very interested in teaching these subjects, because every time, he would digress to elaborate on the verses of the Holy Qur’an. However, he taught us a complete course on spiritual journey and wayfaring (sayr wa suluk) based on the style and methodology attributed to ‘Allamah Bahr al-’Ulum,6 which we found very exciting and pleasant.

‘Allamah’s Review of the philosophical and mystical letters of Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i and Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Gharawi Isfahani

On weekends, ‘Allamah used to hold a session for a select circle of students, numbering from ten to fifteen, where he would discuss the series of letters between Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i and Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Gharawi Isfahani (may Allah be pleased with them). He would first elucidate the subject matter, and the he would elaborate on his own view.7

The series of letters consisted of a total of fourteen letters on the unity of God’s Essence. There were seven letters by Ayatollah Karbala’i, who argued from a mystical point of view, and seven letters by Ayatollah Isfahani, who argued from a philosophical stance. The letters were written in response to one another, and each of these great men had used his utmost knowledge of mysticism and philosophy in order to disprove his opponent’s arguments.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i intended to write annotations on each of these letters and title his annotations ‘Reviews’ (muhakimat). However, he only did so for the first six letters and stopped when I left for Najaf to continue my education. On the several occasions that I returned for a visit, I requested him to finish his annotations, but he kept putting it off, and his tasks and illness prevented him from doing so until he passed away.8

He was a great man of Allah, not only in philosophy and tafsir, not only in understanding the traditions (hadith) and their real meanings – whether in religious beliefs or practices – and not only in his pre-eminence in other intellectual (ma’qul) and transmitted (manqul) sciences; but also in tawhid, divine gnosis, intuitions of the heart, mystical unveilings, and divine visions. The manifestations of God’s Essence were realised and established in every dimension of his soul. If one were to sit with him and observe his continued silence, he would think that the ‘Allamah was empty of all thoughts. But in fact he was so engaged in lordly illuminations and divine hidden visions that he could not descend from the height at which he soared.

It was incredible that, while carrying the load of divine mysteries, he observed all the outward practices in this world of multiplicity (kathrah) and did justice to both realms. The elevation of his soul did not impede him from carrying out his duties in teaching and training students, nor did it stop him from defending the precinct of the religion, its divine rituals, the sacred laws of Islam, and the Divine Universal Guardianship (al-wilayat al-kulliyyah al- ilahiyyah) of the Shi’a Imams.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s eminence in knowledge and practice

Not only was Ayatollah ‘Allamah Tabataba’i a man of outstanding knowledge, but he was also a man of practice. His actions were based on spiritual emanations and inner purity. He had combined in himself scientific and intellectual merits, intuitions of the heart and conscience, and practical virtues of the bodily limbs. He was a man of truth; every aspect of his being demonstrated and had realised the truth.

His calligraphy was among the finest. In the last years of his life, his writing was disturbed due to his trembling hand because of the weakness of his nervous system; but, even then, his writing demonstrated his expertise in this art. He once said, ‘When I look at some of my writings from my youth, I wonder, “Is this my handwriting?”’

Among the occult sciences, he was adept in geomancy (raml) and the science of letters (jafr), but he was never seen practicing them. He was also a real expert in the science of numbers (‘ilm al-a’dad) and the different methods of counting numbers using abjad letters.

Moreover, he was a master of traditional astronomy (hay’ah), to the extent that he could easily create a calendar, and as already mentioned, he taught us a complete course on the subject. Furthermore, he was well-versed in algebra, geometry, and arithmetic. But since I had fully studied mathematics – including arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, and so on – in modern schools, there was no need for me to re-study them with him.

He had studied mathematics in Najaf with Sayyid Abu al-Qasim Khunsari,9 one of the great mathematicians of his time. According to ‘Allamah, ‘Sometimes when the professors of mathematics at Baghdad University faced a problem that they could not solve, they used to come to Najaf and ask Sayyid Abu al-Qasim to solve it.’

In addition, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i was an expert in Arabic literature, semantics (ma’ani), eloquence (bayan) and rhetoric (badi’). He was an authority on Islamic law and principles of jurisprudence, with an accurate and progressive grasp. He had studied the two subjects for about ten years with scholars such as the late Ayatollah Na’ini, the late Ayatollah Gharawi Isfahani and also Ayatollah Sayyid Abu al-Hasan Isfahani.

His instructor in philosophy was the late Sayyid Husayn Badkubah’i. It was under his tutelage that ‘Allamah – along with his brother, the late Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Tabataba’i Ilahi – studied philosophy in Najaf. They studied many texts including Ibn Sina’s Shifa’ and Mulla Sadra’s Asfar and Masha’ir. The late Hakim Badkubah’i had a special regard for ‘Allamah and paid special attention to him. He ordered ‘Allamah to pursue mathematics in order to strengthen his intellect and demonstrative reasoning.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s spiritual master: Ayatollah Qadi

He studied ethics, divine gnosis, and hadith under the instruction of the unmatched mystic, the Sign of the Truth, Sayyid ‘Ali Qadi (may Allah’s mercy be upon him). ‘Allamah followed his instructions in spiritual journeying and wayfaring, combating the base soul and asceticism according to Islamic law.

The late Qadi was one of ‘Allamah’s relatives in the noble city of Najaf. He was involved in educating and training devout students and those who eagerly aspired towards vision of the Worshipped One. In that region, he was the sole expert in this field, and so ‘Allamah used the term ustad (teacher and master) only in reference to him. It was as if compared to the late Qadi, all other teachers were insignificant, despite their knowledge and academic status.

However, if there was any talk of his instructors and teachers in public meetings, ‘Allamah would not name Mr Qadi due to his incredible respect for him. He would also not mention Mr Qadi along with other scholars. That is why there is no mention of Mr Qadi amongst the list of ‘Allamah’s teachers in his short autobiography, published in the introduction of the collection of his letters and articles, titled Barrasi-ha-yi Islami (Islamic Investigations).10

Likewise, in his autobiography, ‘Allamah did not write about his night vigils and worship in the Mosques of Kufa and Sahlah. He only writes that he used to pass many nights, especially in the spring and summer, studying until sunrise. This firstly shows how shallow and worthless it is to talk about one’s worship, night prayers, invocations and meditations in an article for a general audience – particularly from such a man, who did not take even one step toward fame or pride, and in whom all roots of show and egoism were burnt.

Secondly, this is in accordance with ‘Allamah’s emphasis on hiding the secrets as one of the crucial requirements for the spiritual journey toward Allah.11 It would have not been justifiable from him to refer to his supererogatory worship while they were among the secrets between him and the Living Upright Lord! He obviously performed his obligatory morning prayer, although he never mentioned it in his autobiography; and so is the case with his other obligatory and supererogatory worship.

Nevertheless, whenever appropriate, he would not hesitate to talk about the late Qadi, alluding to him with a special honour and respect. For instance, in the prologue to his annotations on the series of letters between the two scholars, Ayatollahs Karbala’i and Gharawi Isfahani, ‘Allamah writes:

‘...Later on, he [Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i] underwent training and instruction from the great master, Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli Hamadani (may Allah send mercy upon his soul). He spent many years in the late Akhund’s company and surpassed the Akhund’s other pupils, becoming his top student [in mysticism]. He attained a high standing in both exoteric and esoteric sciences.

After the late Akhund’s death, the late Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i settled in the noble city of Najaf, where Imam ‘Ali is buried. He engaged in teaching jurisprudence and also became an authority on divine gnosis and spiritual training. Many prominent scholars and righteous men launched into the path of perfection as a result of his instruction. They forsook physical and carnal obsessions, achieved the Eternal Abode, and became inhabitants of the Precinct of Intimacy.

Among them was the honourable sayyid, the Sign of the Truth, expert in jurisprudence and hadith, the original poet, the master of the scholars, the late ‘Ali Qadi Tabataba’i Tabrizi. He was born in 1285 [1868] and passed away in 1366 [1947]. He was the teacher of this humble being in mysticism, jurisprudence, hadith and ethics. May Allah elevate his rank even higher and pour his blessings upon us.’12

‘Allamah’s reverence and passion for Ayatollah Qadi

Truly our teacher, ‘Allamah, had an intense zeal and enthusiasm for his master, the late Qadi. He sincerely felt small and insignificant compared to his master and found a world of magnificence, mystery, tawhid, and virtue in the late Qadi.

One day, I offered him some fragrance, which he took in his hand. Then he paused a bit and said, ‘It has been two years since our teacher, the late Qadi, has passed away, and I have not used any fragrance ever since.’ Even until these recent years, whenever I gave him a bottle of fragrance, he would cap it and put it in his pocket. I never saw him using fragrance, even though his teacher passed away thirty-six years ago.

It is also remarkable how ‘Allamah and his teacher, the late Qadi, both lived eighty-one years.13 ‘Allamah Tabataba’i was born in 1321 (1904),14 and passed away three hours before noon on Sunday, 18 Muharram 1402 (15 November 1981) – 81 years, just like the late Qadi. This is much like the case of the Messenger of Allah and his successor, Imam ‘Ali, who both lived 63 years (peace be upon them and their family).

‘Allamah’s mystical education under the tutelage of his master, Mr Qadi

Our teacher and master, ‘Allamah, narrated:

When I went to the noble city of Najaf for education, I used to frequently visit the late Qadi due to our blood relationship. One day, I was standing in the school [courtyard], when the late Qadi came passing by. When he reached me, he put his hand on my shoulder and said, ‘My son! If you want this world, perform the night prayer (salat al-layl), and if you want the Hereafter, perform the night prayer!’ This statement influenced me so much that from that time until my return to Iran, I kept the late Qadi’s company day and night, for five years. Not even for a second did I neglect the opportunity to benefit from him. And from the time of my return to my motherland until his death, we remained in touch through mutual correspondence by mail, whereby the late Qadi gave me instructions, as the master-student relationship dictates.

‘Allamah used to say, ‘Whatever we have is from the late Qadi.’

The late Qadi was a great mujtahid,15 but he was committed to teaching at his own house, where he taught several series of courses in jurisprudence. Moreover, he used to lead congregational prayers for his students at his house, and his prayers were unhurried and took quite long. He used to pray the sunset prayer right at sundown, but the optional follow-ups that he used to perform before the night prayer (‘isha’) used to take quite a time.

In the holy month of Ramadan his pupils used to gather in his house for the sunset prayer. Some of them used to wait for the red line to disappear from the sky (about 15 minutes) before breaking their fast. Thus they had requested Ayatollah Qadi to wait before performing the prayer. However, he had his samovar on and used to break his fast right at sundown.

For the first twenty nights of the month of Ramadan, he used to lecture for his students, and they had warm friendly gatherings. His students used to come to his house for the lectures four hours after sunset, and the sessions would last for about two hours. But there were no sessions during the last ten nights, and nobody saw him until the end of the month. Wherever his pupils searched for him – in Najaf, Karbala’, the Mosques of Kufa and Sahlah – they could not find any trace of him. Thus was his style every year until he passed away.

Furthermore, the late Qadi was exceptionally talented in Arabic. It is said that he knew forty thousand Arabic words. He used to compose Arabic poetry with such excellence that even Arabs could not realise that the poet was non-Arab. One day Ayatollah ‘Abdullah Mamaqani told the Qadi, ‘I am so proficient in Arabic language and poetry that if a non-Arab composes an Arabic poem, I can tell, regardless of how articulate and eloquent the poem is.’ Having heard this, the late Qadi started reciting parts of a long Arabic ode, within which he inserted some lines of his own which he composed at that instant. Then he asked Ayatollah Mamaqani to identify which verses were composed by a non-Arab, but he could not.

In addition, the late Qadi was highly competent in Qur’anic commentary and exegesis (tafsir). Our late teacher, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, related:

It was the late Qadi who taught us this style of interpreting the verses of the Qur’an by one another. We follow his method and style in tafsir. Moreover, he was very bright and open-minded on the traditions reported from the Infallible Imams. We learnt our method of comprehension of traditions, called fiqh al-hadith, from him.

The late Qadi’s style in spiritual training

With regards to the purification of the soul, ethics, spiritual journey and wayfaring on the path of Allah, intuitions of the heart, spiritual unveilings (mukashafat), and genuine visions (mushahadat), the late Qadi was unique in his era. He was the Salman of his time, and the translator of the Qur’an [into practice]. He was like an enormous mountain, full of divine secrets, and was dedicated to training students in this field. He used to advise and guide a select group of students in his daily private sessions. A large number of eminent individuals advanced on the path of reality and truth and achieved exalted stations as a result of his instructions. They turned out to be among the righteous servants of Allah, with purified and liberated souls. They were illuminated by the light of tawhid and passed beyond the realms of multiplicity and facades (kathrah and i’tibar).

Among them were our honourable teacher and master, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, and his brother, Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Ilahi (may Allah’s mercy be upon them). They were partners and companions at every stage and station. They constantly supported each other and were always together, as birds of a feather flock together.

There were also many other great men who flourished under the late Qadi’s instructions and supervision, such as Muhammad Taqi Amuli, ‘Ali Muhammad Burujirdi, ‘Ali Akbar Marandi, Sayyid Hasan Masqati, Ahmad Kashmiri, Ibrahim Sistani, ‘Ali Qassam, and the late Qadi’s honourable appointed successor, Ayatollah ‘Abbas Hatif Quchani. Each of them was a bright star in the firmament of virtues, monotheism, and gnosis. May Allah reward their splendid efforts.

In divine gnosis, the late Qadi was himself a student of his father, Sayyid Husayn Qadi,16 who was amongst the prominent students of the reviver and transformer, Ayatollah Mirza Muhammad Hasan Shirazi (may Allah’s mercy be upon them). Mirza Shirazi was a student of Imam-Quli Nakhjawani, who was in turn a student of Sayyid Quraysh Qazwini.

It has been narrated that when Sayyid Husayn Qadi wanted to return from Samarra’ (where Mirza Shirazi lived) to his hometown, Azerbaijan, Mirza Shirazi gave him a short piece of advice upon departing: ‘Each day, reserve one hour for yourself!’ Thereafter, in Tabriz, Sayyid Husayn became deeply engaged in spiritual matters. The next year, when some businessmen of Tabriz travelled to Samarra’ and met Mirza Shirazi, he asked about Sayyid Husayn Qadi. ‘The one hour that you had advised him,’ he was told ‘has taken up all his time. He is in intimacy with his Lord day and night.’

When the late ‘Ali Qadi went to Najaf, he joined the circle of Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i and carried on the path of Allah under his supervision. In addition, the late Qadi associated with the pious ascetic, Sayyid Murtada Kashmiri (may Allah be pleased with him). However the late Qadi was not a pupil of his, but only accompanied him to benefit from his spiritual states and virtues. But in their approaches to gnosis (‘irfan), there was certainly a great distinction between the late Qadi and the late Kashmiri.

In the spiritual journey, Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i followed the approach of his teacher and master (the late Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli Hamadani), and that was gnosis of the soul (ma’rifat al-nafs). In order to achieve this gnosis, they stressed the importance of muraqabah (self-vigilance, watchfulness).17 Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli was a student of the exalted jurist, the late Sayyid ‘Ali Shushtari, who was Shaykh Murtada Ansari’s teacher in ethics (akhlaq), but his student in jurisprudence (fiqh).18

The mystical instructions of the late Qadi were based on the shariah (Islamic law) as well as esoteric and inner aspects of different forms of worship, like constant spiritual presence in prayers and sincerity in actions. Thus he prepared and purified the hearts of his pupils for receiving inspiration from the unseen realm.

He had rooms in the Mosques of Kufa and Sahlah where he used to observe night vigils by himself on certain nights. He also advised his pupils to perform night vigils on specific nights in these two mosques. Moreover, he had recommended to his students:

‘In case you have an unveiling and see a beautiful vision while praying or reading the Qur’an, or at the time of invocation (dhikr) or meditation (fikr), or have any other vision of the unseen realm, do not be distracted; just continue with what you are doing’!

Our teacher, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, related:

‘One day I was sitting in the Mosque of Kufa and was engaged in invocation when a heavenly houri approached me from the right. She was holding a goblet filled with heavenly drinks for me and was seeking my attention. Just as I was about to take notice of her, I suddenly remembered my master’s advice, and thus overlooked and ignored her. So the houri got up and approached me from the left, holding out the goblet. Again I did not pay any attention to her and turned away. Thus the houri departed with dismay. Since then, whenever I remember that scene, the memory of that houri’s disappointment troubles me.’

The virtues of Ayatollah Qadi

The late Qadi was an astonishing character in terms of his actions. The residents and especially the scholars of Najaf have witnessed fascinating stories from him. He had a large household and lived in utmost poverty, yet he was so much immersed in elevated stations of tawhid such as God-reliance (tawakkul), submission (taslim) and entrustment (tafwid) that his large household did not divert him a bit from advancing on the path of Allah. One of our friends from Najaf related to me:

One day I went to the greengrocer, where I saw the late Qadi bent over, handpicking some lettuce. But unlike what I expected, he was picking the wilted and undesirable pieces. I kept my eye on him until he gave the lettuce to the storekeeper to weigh. Then he hid the lettuce under his cloak and set off.

At the time, I was a young student, and the late Qadi was an elderly man. I followed him and asked, ‘Sir, I have a question! Why did you choose the undesirable lettuce, unlike everybody else?’

‘My dear son!’ the late Qadi replied. ‘This seller is an impoverished and deprived man, and I help him once in a while. But I do not want to help him by donation, so that first, he does not lose his dignity, character and honour; and second, so that he may not get accustomed to receiving charity, and thus not become indifferent and unproductive in his business. And it does not matter for us whether we eat soft and fresh lettuce or this lettuce. I knew that no one would buy this, and he would throw it away when he closes his store at noon.19 Therefore I bought it to prevent him that loss.’

The late Qadi’s merits are numerous, and discussing them here would involve a digression from the subject of this book.

The ancestors of the late Qadi and ‘Allamah Tabataba’i

From his father’s side, our teacher, ‘Allamah, is a descendant of Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba via Ibrahim ibn Isma’il Dibaj. And from his mother’s side, he is a descendant of Imam Husayn. Thus, he signed the books he wrote in Shad-Abad (near Tabriz) as Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Hasani Husayni Tabataba’i.

The chain of his ancestors is as follows:

Sayyid Muhammad Husayn, son of Sayyid Muhammad, son of Sayyid Muhammad Husayn, son of Sayyid ‘Ali Asghar, son of Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Qadi, son of Mirza Muhammad ‘Ali Qadi, son of Mirza Sadr al-Din Muhammad, son of Mirza Yusuf Naqib al-Ashraf, son of Mirza Sadr al-Din Muhammad, son of Majd al-Din, son of Sayyid Isma’il, son of al-Amir ‘Ali Akbar, son of al-Amir ‘Abd al-Wahhab, son of al-Amir ‘Abd al-Ghaffar, son of Sayyid ‘Imad al-Din Amir al-Hajj, son of Fakhr al- Din Hasan, son of Kamal al-Din Muhammad, son of Sayyid Hasan, son of Shihab al-Din ‘Ali, son of ‘Imad al-Din ‘Ali, son of Sayyid Ahmad, son of Sayyid ‘Imad, son of Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali, son of Abu al-Hasan Muhammad, son of Abu ‘Abdullah Ahmad, son of Muhammad al-Asghar (known as Ibn Khuza’iyyah), son of Abu ‘Abdullah Ahmad, son of Ibrahim al-Tabataba, son of Isma’il al-Dibaj, son of Ibrahim al- Ghamr, son of Hasan al-Muthanna, son of Imam al- Hasan al-Mujtaba, son of Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon them).

Note that Ibrahim al-Ghamr’s mother was the daughter of Imam Husayn. Therefore the Tabataba’i sayyids (the descendants of Ibrahim al-Tabataba) trace back to Imam Husayn from the mother’s side, since Ibrahim Tabataba was a grandson of Ibrahim al-Ghamr.

The late Qadi was son of Sayyid Mirza Husayn Qadi, son of Mirza Ahmad Qadi, son of Mirza Rahim Qadi, son of Mirza Taqi Qadi. And Mirza Taqi Qadi (the great-great- grandfather of Mr Qadi) was also the great-great-grandfather of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i. The rest of the late Qadi’s line of ancestors is the same as ‘Allamah’s.

All of ‘Allamah’s ancestors were religious scholars, up to the fourteenth generation. His sixth ancestor, Mirza Muhammad ‘Ali Qadi was the supreme judge (qadi al-qudat) of the region of Azerbaijan. The entire region was under his authority in jurisprudence and legal decree. That is why he and his descendants became known as Qadi.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s brother and their childhood

‘Allamah Tabataba’i lost his mother at the age of five and his father at the age of nine, leaving behind only him and his younger brother, Sayyid Muhammad Hasan. Thereafter, their guardian managed their life just as it was before their father’s death, so as to prevent any disturbance to their affairs. He hired a maid and a male servant for them, and kept a constant watch over their affairs, until the two minors gradually grew up and finished their elementary Islamic education in Tabriz.20 Meanwhile, they both achieved considerable proficiency in calligraphy.

‘On many days,’ our late teacher recalled, ‘my brother and I used to leave Tabriz and practice calligraphy in the nearby verdant hills, from morning until sunset. And later on, we set off for the noble city of Najaf together.’ In all stages of knowledge and practice, these two brothers were together. They were such caring friends and companions for one another – in hardship and ease – that it was truly as if they were one soul in two bodies.

Ayatollah Hajj Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Tabataba’i Ilahi resembled ‘Allamah in every respect. He was renowned for his knowledge, practice, forbearance, diligence, and truly ascetic lifestyle. He kept away from the captivated aspirants of this world. Instead, he maintained a status of meditation, presence and insight, found privacy and peace in solitude, and had bonded with the Majestic One. He was well-known for his power of intellect, his passion for the religion, and his devotion to the Household of the Prophet and following their path. He was also famous for his self-sacrifice in serving fellow human beings, particularly the helpless and the poor. All of Tabriz – and, in fact, all of Azerbaijan – identified him as an outstanding example of sanctity and purity.

‘Allamah and his brother stayed in Najaf for ten years. Together, they diligently studied jurisprudence, principles of jurisprudence, philosophy, mysticism (‘irfan) and mathematics. Then they had to return to Iran because of financial problems and disruptions in the earnings from their farm in Tabriz. Thus, they took up farming for nearly ten years in the town of Shad-Abad, near Tabriz, until their farm reached some stability in production. Then, ‘Allamah immigrated to Qum to protect the hawzah against the ideological attacks that the students were facing, and his brother settled and taught in Tabriz.

Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Ilahi used to teach philosophy in the hawzah of Tabriz, based on Ibn Sina’s Shifa’ and Mulla Sadra’s books such as Asfar. And whenever possible, he would assist eager wayfarers on the path of Allah, guiding them to their cherished destination. ‘Allamah’s brother, like himself, was a very simple, modest, and well-mannered individual. He had knowledge of divine mysteries and people’s insides and was also an excellent instructor.

‘Allamah used to praise and admire him frequently and had a special passion and affection for him. ‘In the noble city of Najaf,’ ‘Allamah said once, ‘we got hold of a manuscript of the Book of Logic (Mantiq) of Ibn Sina’s Shifa’, which had not been published yet. Together, we made a handwritten copy of the whole text.’ He also said:

‘My brother authored a book on the impact of different sounds and tunes on the soul, how lullabies cause children to fall asleep, and generally on the wonders and spiritual aspects of the world of music. Frankly it was a precious treatise, and a truly original and unrivalled work up until today. However, after finishing the treatise, he feared that it might be exploited and misused by the wicked offsprings of worldliness, unjust rulers, and irreligious governments. Therefore he completely destroyed his work’.

I, this nondescript being, did not have the honour to meet Ayatollah Ilahi. Although he resided in Qum for about a year, it was during the years of my study in the noble city of Najaf. Once I returned to Qum, he had returned to Tabriz, and he passed away after a few years. His body was brought to Qum and buried near the shrine of Hadrat Ma’sumah in the Abu Husayn cemetery. His death severely impacted ‘Allamah and intensified the problems with his heart and nervous system.

‘Allamah’s wife

His wife’s stroke and subsequent death was also a cause of serious distress and further aggravated ‘Allamah’s condition. ‘Allamah and his wife were very close. They had a pleasant life based on affection, integrity, and decorum. Losing her compassion and kindness was very upsetting for ‘Allamah. His response to my letter of condolence bears witness to this. In that letter, he praises Allah many times, and repeats sentences like ‘All praise is to Allah.’ Nevertheless, he writes, ‘With her departure, the pleasant and peaceful life that I had is over forever.’

This devout lady, who was also a descendant of the pure family of the Prophet, was Ayatollah Mirza Mahdi Tabrizi’s daughter. Her father and his five brothers were religous scholars and were the children of the late Ayatollah Mirza Yusuf Tabrizi. ‘Allamah’s wife (may she be blessed) was named Qamar al-Sadat, and her family name was Mahdawi, since her father (Mirza Mahdi) was known as Mahdawi. She passed away on 27 Dhu al-Qa’dah 1384 (31 March 1965).

‘Allamah described her as such:

‘My wife was a very pious and honourable lady. We married before I went to the noble city of Najaf for my education. During those years [in Najaf], we used to make a pilgrimage to Karbala’ every ‘Ashura’.21 One ‘Ashura’ day after we had returned to Tabriz, she was sitting at home and reciting Ziyarat ‘Ashura’. She recounted, “Suddenly my heart broke, as I remembered how we used to visit Imam Husayn’s holy shrine (haram) each ‘Ashura’ for ten years, but now we were not blessed with that grace anymore. Then all of a sudden I found myself in the haram, reciting the ziyarah while facing the noble tomb of the Imam, in a corner between the front and the head of the tomb. The details of the haram were just like before, except that as it was the day of ‘Ashura’, people had mostly gone to see the processions and groups of mourners and lamenters. There were only a few people standing at the foot-side of the Imam in front of the graves of the other martyrs, and some of the Shrine’s attendants were reciting ziyarah for them. As I became aware of myself, I once again found myself sitting at the same place at our home, reading the rest of the ziyarah.”’

This honourable lady is also buried near Hadrat Ma’sumah in the cemetery of the late Ayatollah Ha’iri Yazdi. On Thursday afternoons, when our teacher used to visit the deceased, he first used to visit her grave and then the grave of his brother.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s approach to philosophy

Our teacher was a deeply contemplative man. He would never pass over a subject easily and would not let go of an issue unless he had deeply inspected its every aspect and dimension. On many occasions when he was asked a general and simple question in philosophy, tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis) or hadith (tradition), he would not answer quickly with a few words and end the matter. Instead, he would pause a bit, and then discuss and analyze the different sides and aspects of the subject and the arguments for proving or refuting the issue, as if it were a formal lesson.

In philosophical discussions, he would not step out of the boundaries of demonstrative proof. And he used to clearly distinguish between arguments based on demonstration (burhan) versus sophistics (mughalatah), dialectics (jadal), rhetorics (khatabah) and poetics (shi’r). He would not leave a discussion without connecting all the arguments and conclusions to basic and established principles. Furthermore, he never mixed philosophical questions with matters of mysticism or spiritual intuition and vision. When teaching philosophy, no word of visions ever came up, and in this regard, he was totally unlike Mulla Sadra and Mulla Hadi Sabzivari.

When speaking on any discipline, he preferred to only use the topics and principles of that discipline, as opposed to mixing different disciplines. In fact, he was truly distressed by those who mingle philosophy, tafsir and hadith together, and by those who, after failing to prove their point by rational demonstration, resort to hadith and tafsir to prove their stand.

He sincerely admired the late Mulla Muhsin Fayd al- Kashani and maintained, ‘This man had embraced all sciences, and there are few people in the history of Islam with such extensive knowledge. Also, it is evident that he approached each discipline independently and did not intermix different fields.’ In his Safi, Asfa, and Musaffa Qur’anic commentaries, which are based on narrations, he never discusses philosophy, mysticism, or spiritual visions.22 One who reads Wafi, his book on tradition (hadith), would imagine that he was only a traditionalist (akhbari) who knew no philosophy. Similarly, in his spiritual and mystical works, he maintains the subject without digressing. At the same time, he was an expert in philosophy and a prominent student of Mulla Sadra.

‘Allamah’s philosophical views

Our teacher truly revered Ibn Sina and regarded him as stronger in philosophical arguments and demonstration than Mulla Sadra. Meanwhile, he was a proponent of Mulla Sadra’s philosophical approach in transforming Greek philosophy, and his new and original views in discussing subjects like the principality, unity, and gradation of being (asalah, wahdah, and tashkik of wujud). He truly valued the new topics and principles that Mulla Sadra’s discussions brought about, like the principle of the possibility of the higher realms (imkan al-ashraf ), the unity of the knower and the known (‘aqil wa ma’qul), transubstantial motion (al-harkat al-jawhariyyah), temporal createdness of the universe (al-huduth al-zamani), the principle that a simple reality is all things (basit al-haqiqah kull al-ashya’)23 and other related topics.24

‘Allamah Tabataba’i regarded Mulla Sadra’s philosophy as superior to the others, and closest to reality. He admired Mulla Sadra’s service to the world of science and philosophy by the philosophical topics that he pioneered, whereby he increased philosophical topics from two hundred to seven hundred.25 In addition, ‘Allamah extolled the fact that instead of merely following the Peripatetics, Mulla Sadra combined philosophy with inner illumination and vision of the heart. Moreover, Mulla Sadra matched both the intellectual and the spiritual with the teachings of religion.

In his books – including al-Asfar al-Arba’ah, al-Mabda’ wa al-Ma’ad, al-Hikmat al-’Arshiyyah, and many other works – Mulla Sadra has shown that there is no discrepancy between true religious beliefs, rational demonstration, and inner vision. These three spring from a single source, and confirm and reinforce one another. And this is the greatest service of this philosopher to the worlds of philosophy, religion, and spirituality. He opened the door and cleared the paths for those who are capable of reaching perfection and receiving divine blessings.

Although the root of this theory can be found in in the words of Abu Nasr al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi, Khwajah Nasir al-Din Al-Tusi and Shams al-Din ibn Turkah, it was this honourable, inspired, and pious philosopher who accomplished this significant task through his excellent method and original approach. ‘Allamah deemed that he breathed a new life into philosophy and prevented it from turning obsolete. Therefore, our late teacher saw him as the reviver of Islamic philosophy.

In addition, ‘Allamah deeply admired Mulla Sadra’s renunciation of the world, his spiritual practices to bond with Allah and purify his soul, his lawful austerities, his solitude in Kahak (near Qum) where he engaged in cleansing his inner self, and his emphasis on the importance of purifying the soul over everything else.

Moreover, ‘Allamah maintained that most of the objections made against Mulla Sadra and his philosophy were due to failing to understand what he really meant in his discussions. ‘Allamah had his own opinions about some of Mulla Sadra’s arguments; nonetheless, overall, ‘Allamah considered him the reviver of Islamic philosophy and a first-class philosopher like Ibn Sina and Farabi, while he considered Khwajah Nasir al-Din Al-Tusi, Bahmanyar, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ibn Turkah second-class.

Concerning wujud (existence, being), our teacher believed in the gradation of being (tashkik al-wujud).26 He also believed in the gnostics’ view of the unity of being (wahdat al-wujud) and did not consider the two views contradictory to each other. Rather, he saw that the latter expands upon the former, and that the unity of the gnostics (‘urafa’) is consistent with the gradation of being.

He used to teach several series of courses in philosophy – from the Asfar and the Shifa’ – in the hawzah of Qum, and was truly a prominent Islamic philosopher. In recent years, he taught a course on ‘advanced philosophy’ (kharij-i falsafah) for a select group of students, which resulted in the two books Bidayat al-Hikmah and Nihayat al-Hikmah (The Onset of Philosophy and The Closure of Philosophy).27

Everyone, even his opponents, admitted that he was the sole expert in Eastern (i.e. Islamic) philosophy in the whole world [at his time]. It is said that thirty years before the Iranians realised ‘Allamah’s brilliance, the Americans had discovered him and appreciated him more. They wanted to move him to the United States to teach Eastern philosophy. Thus they appealed to the Shah of Iran (Muhammad Rida), and the Shah asked the Grand Ayatollah Burujirdi (may Allah be pleased with him) about it. Ayatollah Burujirdi conveyed their request to ‘Allamah, but ‘Allamah declined.

The need to learn philosophy

Many scholars argue that it is better for students to first familiarise themselves with the narrations (sing. riwayah) of the Infallible Imams and only then study philosophy. However, ‘Allamah maintained that this view is just like the statement, ‘The book of Allah is sufficient for us.’28 Our narrations are full of deep and subtle rational topics that are based on philosophical and intellectual arguments. How can one enter the vast ocean of narrations without intellectual competence – which is achieved by studying philosophy, logic, ratiocination, and syllogism?

How can one reach certitude in faith, as opposed to following others or having doubts, merely through narrations? The narrations reported from the Infallible Imams are different from those narrations of the Sunnis and other sects and religions that are simple and comprehensible to everyone.

The students and companions of the Infallible Imams were at different levels of knowledge and intellect. Therefore the Imams varied their words according to their audience. Some of their narrations are simple and understandable by the common person, but most of the narrations concerning the fundamental beliefs and God’s unity are quite difficult and intricate. They used to explain these complex concepts only to a small group of their companions who were proficient in argumentation and debate, and who used to challenge the opponents of the Imams using deductive reasoning. Now how can one achieve certitude (yaqin) without having a firm foundation in intellectual sciences, rational arguments, and different kinds of syllogism and demonstration?

To illustrate the point, we bring up one of such multifaceted topics: God’s unity of Essence (tawhid al-dhat).

The verses of the Qur’an suggest the absolute unity of Allah

One distinguishing feature of Islam is its approach to God’s unity (tawhid). Though it seems quite plain, it is extremely complex and not easily digested by other schools of thought. They have recognised and admitted a straightforward sense of tawhid all right; but in spite of all their lectures, writings and studies, their secular and religious scholars and thinkers have not achieved anything beyond the numerical unity of God’s Sacred Essence.

This subject is among the most important themes in the Noble Qur’an; in fact, it is the root of all Qur’anic teachings. It illustrates the Qur’an’s originality, and is the foundation of everything discussed in the Qur’an in terms of beliefs, ethics, and laws. Moreover, the Qur’an challenges other religions and ideologies on this very theme and invites them to debate. It disputes and opposes not only idolaters, dualists, polytheists, materialists, and secularists, but also the celestial religions that have been distorted and characterise tawhid in a manipulated and spurious form. The Qur’an argues against them and calls them to debate the nature of the unity of the Truth (al-Haqq; i.e. Allah).29

The Unity of Essence of the Truth, the Majestic and All-Mighty, is not numerical; rather it is absolute and strict. It means that He is Absolute Being and Sheer Existence (sirf and mahd). If one presumes this sense of unity for Him, it would be impossible to even imagine any like for Him. An Absolute and Sheer Being would certainly be boundless in every aspect: in having a beginning or an end, in Its Essence and Attributes, and in intensity, number, and extent. It is such that in any respect, any other being (wujud) that is assumed would again be within that Absolute Being, and this contradicts the other being’s ‘otherness’ (ghayriyyah), separation, and independence. So ‘Any second being that you assume besides Him will return and reduce down to the First Being.’30 This idea is expressed in the narration:

[He is] One, but not as a number, [and] Upright, but without any support’ [i.e. He is independent of all; rather everything else depends on Him and on His might and power].31

It is also evident throughout the Noble Qur’an. Concerning the Essence of God, Qur’anic teachings reject all unities of number (‘adad), genus (jins), and species (naw’) – not to mention the Qur’an’s strong opposition to the Trinity.32 The tawhid proposed by the Noble Qur’an is such that with it, it would be wrong to even think of any plurality (kathrah), be it in His Essence or His Attributes. Any plurality that one assumes would actually be the selfsame One Essence. This is because God does not have any limits. His Essence is the same as His Attributes, and all His Attributes are identical (i.e. not distinct or exclusive) since His every Attribute is infinite, unbounded, and not confined or determined.

...High Exalted be Allah from that which they associate [with Him]. (27:63)

Be He Glorified above that which they attribute [unto Him]. (37:159)

This is why whenever the Noble Qur’an speaks of Allah’s Dominance it first describes Him as One and then mentions His Dominance. It means that His unity is such that it leaves no justification for anyone to even suppose a like for him, let alone the actual existence of a like and partner for Him. Observe the following verses:

... Are diverse lords better or the One and Dominant Allah? You and your fathers do not worship apart from Him but some names, which you have given them.... (12:39-40)

Allah’s Dominant Unity – which overcomes any partner that one assumes for Him – would leave nothing but some names for anything other than His Sacred Essence.

... Or have they set for Him partners who have created as He has created, and thus they cannot tell apart the creation of each? Say Allah is the Creator of everything and He is the One, the Dominant. (13:16)

... Whose is the kingdom today? It is Allah’s, the One, the Dominant. (40:16)

Allah’s Absolute Kingship (malikiyyah) does not allow for any owner (mālik) other than Him, and brings the other owner and its possessions under Allah’s Absolute Ownership.

Imam ‘Ali’s sermons concerning God’s absolute unity

The Master of the Monotheists, Imam ‘Ali, has explained this sense of God’s absolute unity in many of his sermons and speeches. There are many examples in Nahj al-Balaghah, such as:

Foremost in religion is knowing Him [God]; and the perfection of knowing Him is affirming Him; and the perfection of affirming Him is [to believe in] His Oneness; and the perfection of [the belief in] His Oneness is to regard Him pure; and the perfection of regarding Him pure is denying Him [extraneous] attributes. (Sermon 1)

All praise be to Allah, for Whom no state precedes another; so He is not First before being Last, and is not Apparent before being Hidden. Except Him, anything called one is little [i.e. its unity is numerical]; and except Him, every noble thing is humble. (Sermon 65)

All praise be to Allah, Who has proven His being through His creation; and has proven His eternity through the createdness [huduth] of His creation; and has proven that He has no similar through the similarities within His creation. He is embraced by the senses and is not blocked by the veils; because of the difference between the Creator and the created, and the Restrictor and the restricted, and the Master and the servant. He is the One but not as a number; and is the Creator but not through activity and labour. (Sermon 152)

All praise be to Allah, the Creator of people and the Expander of the earth, Who flows the streams in the lowlands, and grows abundant plants in the highlands. There is no beginning for His First-ness, and no end for His eternity. He is First and has always been, and is Everlasting and will always be. The foreheads are in prostration before Him, and the lips attest His unity. (Sermon 163)

He who describes how He is has not held His unity; and he who likens Him has not attained His reality; and one who typifies Him has not signified Him; and one who points to Him and imagines Him has not strived for Him. (Sermon 186)

And he has a sermon in response to Dhi’lab, who asked, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, have you seen your Lord?’ He replied, ‘[I feel] Pity for you O Dhi’lab! I would never worship a Lord I do not see.’ This is part of a long sermon which contains precious concepts about God’s absolute unity.33

And in another sermon he says:

His signs are what guide to Him, and His Existence is what proves Him. To know Him is to accept His Oneness, and [accepting] His Oneness is to differentiate Him from His creation, and his being different from them is in terms of attributes, not in being secluded from them . . . One whose total reality can be known is not a god. He [God] is the guide toward Himself, and bestows the knowledge of Himself.34

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s discussion on God’s absolute unity

‘Allamah Tabataba’i has elaborated on this subject in detail in al-Mizan.35 There, under ‘Historical Study’, he writes:

‘The beliefs that the universe has a Creator and that the Creator is One have ever been subjects of discussion among thinkers. Human nature is such that it attracts one to these beliefs. Even the religions of the polytheists, if analyzed in detail, are originally based on the unity of the Creator, except that they assumed some assistants for Him: ‘ . . . We worship them [idols] only that they may bring us near to Allah...’ (39:3). But that original belief in God’s unity was diverted later on and led to the belief in independent and autonomous gods, and thus Allah’s supremacy was forsaken.

Human nature calls to tawhid (unity) and guides to a Single, Magnificent and Grandiose God who is not limited in essence or attributes. However, this natural and intuitive sense of unity came to be neglected, in lieu of which numerical unity was established in people’s minds. This was partly because in everyday life, ‘one’ is a numerical concept. In addition, the religious and secular thinkers had to argue against the followers of idolatry, dualism and trinity. Thus, denying polytheism, which is a numerical concept, meant the reinforcement of numerical unity for God.

This is why the accounts of early religious philosophers – such as those in ancient Egypt, Greece, Macedonia, and so on – and those who came afterwards are characteristic of numerical unity of the Essence of the Truth. Even Ibn Sina clearly affirms numerical unity for the Essence of God in his Shifa’. And after him, up until about 1000 AH (17th century CE), all Islamic philosophers believed in God’s numerical unity. And so is the case with the theologians (mutakallimun); there is not much beyond numerical unity found in their works. This is while they obtained all their arguments from the Noble Qur’an; that is, they did not infer anything other than numerical unity from the Qur’an. That was a summary of the views of the thinkers in this field.

The Noble Qur’an is the foremost source to address tawhid. However, this subject has been widely neglected by those who have worked on the Noble Qur’an, including the exegetes, the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (sahabah), their Followers (tabi’in), and the later generations. The encyclopaedias of traditions (hadith) and the books of exegesis did not reach the real meaning of tawhid; neither through Qur’anic discussions, nor through rational arguments.

We have not observed anyone clearly removing the veils and obscurities from this topic, except what is particularly noticeable in the words of Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. Indeed his words have opened the gates to this subject and have uncovered it through the best, clearest, and most luminous proofs.

It is quite strange that after ‘Ali, people of philosophy, exegesis and tradition (hadith) did not address this subject until after 1000 AH (17th century CE). It was then that this subject reappeared in the words of Islamic philosophers, who themselves declared that they have got it from ‘Ali.36 That is why we only mentioned some of ‘Ali’s words, because elsewhere, we do not observe similar discursive arguments concerning the Oneness and the Absolute Existence (sirafat al-wujud) of God’s Sacred Essence, the Majestically Magnificent.’

Then ‘Allamah writes in a footnote:

‘Hereby it is apt if the heart of the intellectual, knowledgeable, and thoughtful man misses a beat due to the shock from the claim of some scholars and debaters that these sermons of Imam ‘Ali in Nahj al- Balaghah were not delivered by him, but were rather fabricated and added by Sayyid al-Radi.

I wish I could realise how these could be unauthentic when the minds of the scholars could not grasp these subtle teachings even after ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib lifted up the veils from them and cleared the path to them. The human intellect could not achieve such a deep understanding through the many centuries that were to come. Except ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, none of the Companions or their Followers could carry this load, reach its reality, and comprehend it.

In fact, those who try to reject [parts of] Nahj al-Balaghah by considering it forged are clearly implying that the realities of the Qur’an and profound intellectual principles are nothing but general teachings comprehensible by the common folk. They think that such subtle facts differ from other general concepts only in terms of complicated terminology and eloquent expression.’

We quoted this discussion from al-Mizan to clarify that what is reported in the sermons and narrations is not commonplace humdrum material. Many of these topics require a strong power of reasoning and comprehension. It was based on this observation that our teacher, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, deemed it necessary for one to strengthen his intellect, improve his deductive reasoning, and, more generally, study logic and philosophy. He considered the study of philosophy necessary as the sole guide to understanding the intellectual treasures of the Household of the Prophet.

Besides, the authenticity of our narrations is due to their rationality. Hence, only referring to the narrations and obeying them while forsaking intellectual reasoning involves a contradiction, and that is unacceptable. In other words, the reported narrations are not justifiable unless they are deductively established and comply with the intellect. And when it comes to the intellect, anything that is rationally proven should be accepted. Thus, it would be a contradiction if one adheres to the narrations but rejects intellectual arguments, for that is to invalidate the premise, which nullifies the subsequent conclusion.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s annotations on Bihar al-Anwar by ‘Allamah Majlisi

‘Allamah Tabataba’i truly valued Bihar al-Anwar by ‘Allamah Majlisi (my great-grandfather on my mother’s side), and considered it the best Shi’a encyclopaedia of traditions. He especially admired ‘Allamah Majlisi’s ordering of the chapters and topics, and the way he organised the sections of each volume, with each section starting with the relevant verses from the Qur’an, then continuing with the relevant narrations of the Infallibles and, if necessary, followed by comments and clarifications after each narration and also at the end of each section.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i maintained that ‘Allamah Majlisi defended Shi’ism and revived the narrations of the Imams. His knowledge, diligence, and scholarship are laudable, and his methods of discussion and proof and disproof in Mir’at al-’Uqul reflect the academic excellence of this knowledgeable jurist and his great efforts.

However, in spite of all his expertise and insight in the science of narrations, he was not adept in subtle questions of philosophy – as opposed to Shaykh al-Mufid, Sayyid al-Murtada, Khwajah Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and ‘Allamah al-Hilli, who were among the Shi’a theologians that defended and safeguarded Shi’ism. Thus he erred in some of his assertions, and this degrades this encyclopaedia of Shi’ism. As a result, it was decided that for the new edition of Bihar al-Anwar, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i would review the book and add annotations wherever needed, so that this precious book may preserve its intellectual credibility.

The cessation of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s annotations on Bihar al-Anwar

This plan was carried out, and he annotated the first six volumes of the new edition. However, some individuals were not willing to accept his explicit rejections of one or two of ‘Allamah Majlisi’s stands. Thus, due to outside pressures, the person in charge of publishing the new edition asked ‘Allamah Tabataba’i to write less in certain cases and forego some of his objections.

But ‘Allamah Tabataba’i did not agree, and said:

‘In Shi’ism, Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq is more important than ‘Allamah Majlisi. So if ‘Allamah Majlisi’s discussions and commentaries result in intellectual and scientific objections against the Honourable Infallibles, we do not sell the Infallibles for Majlisi. And I will not reduce one word from what I see necessary to be written as annotation.

Hence, the remaining volumes of this precious book (Bihar al-Anwar) were published without ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s annotations.37

Here we cite two of ‘Allamah’s annotations which led to the cessation of this task, and we leave the judgment to the readers and the scholars.

Two of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s annotations on Bihar al-Anwar

The first one is his annotation on page 100 of the first volume (Beirut, 1983), where ‘Allamah Majlisi provides several definitions for intellect (‘aql). ‘Allamah Tabataba’i rejects those meanings and explains:

‘One who is acquainted with this field would know that these definitions that ‘Allamah Majlisi (on whom may Allah have mercy) has presented as the conventional and established meanings of intellect are neither accepted by the experts in the field, nor by ordinary people.

There are two causes for his misunderstanding here. The first is his mistrust and negative view toward those who approach intellectual subjects through philosophical arguments and rational demonstration.

The second cause is his approach to the interpretation and understanding of traditions, which involves assuming all reported traditions to be at the same level, and that is the level comprehensible by the general public. And that is the level of most of the traditions reported from the Imams in their response to people’s questions.

But we know that there are also many noble concepts mentioned in the traditions, which point to certain realities that are only comprehensible by exceptionally bright minds and intellects. So the assumption that the traditions are all at the same level has mixed the brilliant teachings of the Imams with the more basic ones. Those outstanding assertions have thus been spoiled for having been degraded, and the more basic and simple topics have also been misunderstood, due to not being set apart from the more advanced ones.

But those who asked questions from the Imams were not all at the same level of knowledge and acumen. In addition, many topics may be taken at different levels of subtlety and precision. The Book of Allah and the Tradition (sunnah) of the Messenger of Allah clearly affirm that the teachings of religion have different stages, each stage relating to a certain group of people. Neglecting these stages will result in the loss of true knowledge.’

The second one is his annotation on page 104 of the first volume. There, ‘Allamah Majlisi argues that immaterial intellects (al-’uqul al-mujarradah)38 are rationally impossible, and claims that only the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud) is immaterial. Thus he considers the philosophers’ discussions redundant and pointless here. He also proposes that the meaning of ‘intellect’ (‘aql) in the traditions might be the Light of the Prophet, from which the Lights of the Imams emanated. Here, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i comments:

‘The philosophers’ employment of rational arguments is not redundant or pointless. First, they have proven that the legitimacy of the external and apparent aspects of religion hinges on the reasoning offered by the intellect, and the intellect is unbiased in its approach to rational arguments [whether they are religious or not]. Therefore if a claim is backed by rational demonstration, the intellect is bound to approve it.

And second, the external and apparent aspects of religion are derived from the apparent meanings of the words. But this is only a conjectural derivation [as opposed to certain proof ]. Conjecture and speculation fall short of the assurance and certitude arising from demonstration.

Furthermore, employing intellectual demonstration to establish the fundamental beliefs (usul al-din) and then dismissing the intellect due to a few singly narrated traditions (ahad)39 on intellectual topics is an instance of rejecting the premise based on the conclusion reached from that very premise. That is an obvious contradiction – and Allah is the Guide.

Hence, if the external and apparent aspects of religion contradict the intellect, they would first of all invalidate themselves, for their validity hinges upon the intellect.

For those who are not well-experienced in deep intellectual discussions, the solid approach and religious precaution (ihtiyat) would be to act based on the external and apparent meaning (zahir) of the Book of Allah and the traditions narrated by multiple paths (mustafidah).40 They should leave knowledge of the truth of the matter to Allah, and avoid engaging in profound intellectual discussions – whether in support or opposition.

They should not support these claims because supporting them involves the risk of misguidance, and that entails permanent damnation. And they should not oppose them because that involves making a claim without [sufficient] knowledge. That would be to support the religion in a way that is not approved of by Allah. It also involves making contradictory claims, as one can see in the arguments of the author [‘Allamah Majlisi], may Allah’s mercy be upon him. Wherever he has made an objection against the experts of this field (of philosophy and intellectual sciences) on the subjects of the Beginning or the Resurrection (mabda’ and ma’ad), he has himself made the same mistake or a bigger one. We will refer to instances of such contradictions as they come up.

His first contradictory claim is this very issue, where he criticises the philosophers of religion for claiming the existence of immaterial intellectual beings (al- mujarradat al-’aqliyyah). But then he affirms every aspect of immateriality (tajarrud) for the lights of the Prophet and the Imams. He does not realise that if it is impossible to have any instance of an immaterial being other than Allah, then merely changing the names of the immaterial intellect and calling it light (nur), nature (tinah) or similar names will not change the rule of impossibility.’

Those familiar with rational demonstration and deductive reasoning realise that every single assertion of this godly sage (‘Allamah Tabataba’i) in the above discussion is logical and demonstrative. They will thus realise what he means when he says that adopting the external and apparent aspects of the narrations without being equipped with intellectual arguments is equivalent to the statement that ‘The book of Allah is sufficient for us’.

In Shi’ism, ijtihad41 preserves the religion from becoming obsolete and outdated. Ijtihad prevents blind submission (ta’abbud) to certain ideas that are accepted and considered undisputable at one time, but whose flaws become obvious later on. Concerning the rituals (ahkam), if the words of anyone other than Allah, the Prophet, and the Infallibles are taken for submission by others (i.e. if a few individuals are given the right to extract rulings but not others) then that is blocking the way of ijtihad and results in the catastrophes and downfalls that Sunnism fell into [for closing the gate of ijtihad]. And it is utterly meaningless to be a follower in fundamental beliefs (usul), because the rule of both the intellect (‘aql) and the narrations (naql) is that one must employ intellectual arguments for these matters. And ‘Allamah’s argument in the above annotation is something that all scholars agree upon (ijma’).

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s effort to unite the philosophies of the Orient and the Occident

After completing a course of philosophy based on Mulla Sadra’s al-Asfar al-Arba’ah, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i sought to reconcile Eastern (i.e. Islamic) and Western philosophy. He held that if discussions are based on demonstration and valid arguments, it is impossible to reach different conclusions regardless of the school of thought that one comes from. Therefore we should look for the source of disparity between Eastern and Western philosophies and clarify it.

He believed that even though the natural sciences can be proven experimentally, one must investigate the causes behind experimental results. For example, one must explore why heat can be transformed into kinetic energy and move a mechanical device. Likewise, what features of kinetic energy make it possible to extract heat? And what is in mechanical energy that lets one obtain electrical energy by means of a generator and by setting the wheels of a machine in motion?

There are precise formulae for the transformation of one form of energy into another, but what causes these transformations? Furthermore, the empirical and natural sciences are based on experience, which does not conflict with philosophical sciences and intellectual arguments, which are based on reasoning and demonstration. Each of these subjects proceeds within its own boundaries without contradicting or interfering with the other.

For this purpose, he initiated certain meetings on weekend nights (Wednesday and Thursday evenings). These meetings were attended by a number of scholars, some of whom were acquainted with modern science. He also ordered me, this humble being, to attend.

The meetings were held for quite a long time, and they continued after my departure to the noble city of Najaf. At that time, the results of the discussions were going to be published in a collection called Metaphysic. But later on, some of our highly knowledgeable friends joined the group, such as the late Shaykh Murtada Mutahhari (may Allah bless him). Thus the meetings resulted in the publication of a very valuable book named Usul-i Falsafah va Ravish-i Ri’alism (Practical and Philosophical Principles of Realism).42 It responded to many doubts, questions, and sophistries put forward by Westernised thinkers. Our honourable teacher (the author) sent the first and second volumes of the book to me in Najaf. The book had informative footnotes by the late martyr, Ayatollah Mutahhari, who had edited it. May Allah send mercy upon our grand teacher and our honourable companion (Ayatollah Mutahhari), and upon all of our friends from those days, by Muhammad and his pure progeny.

The composition and methodology of the al-Mizan exegesis

The approach of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i to tafsir (Qur’anic commentary and exegesis) is that of the late Ayatollah ‘Ali Qadi, ‘Allamah’s teacher and master in mysticism and divine esoteric sciences. It consists of interpreting the verses of the Qur’an based on the other verses of the Qur’an, which is to extract the message and meaning of a verse of the Qur’an from the Qur’an itself. The late Ayatollah Qadi authored a commentary based on this method, from the beginning of the Qur’an to Chapter 6 (Surah al-An’am), and he taught the Divine Book to his disciples based on this approach. Our late teacher, ‘Allamah, repeatedly said, ‘We have this method of commentary from the late Qadi.’

When ‘Allamah was in Tabriz, he wrote a concise commentary on the Noble Qur’an, from the beginning up to Chapter 7 (Surah al-A’raf), and he used to teach tafsir based on that commentary and a collection of his notes. Later on, he decided to write an extensive commentary which would address all of the needs of the contemporary world and include historical, philosophical, ethical, social and tradition-based (rawa’i) discussions in a new style.

Allah honoured and assisted him with this task and he wrote al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (The Scale in Exegesis of the Qur’an) in twenty volumes.43 This tafsir was initiated around 1374 (1955) and was completed on the Night of Qadr, 23 Ramadan 1392 (30 October 1972). While writing al-Mizan, he used to teach it to the students at the hawzah of Qum, and many notable figures used to benefit from his lectures.

The merits of al-Mizan over other exegeses

The primary advantage of al-Mizan over other commentaries is that it explains the verses of the Qur’an with the help of the other verses. That is, it interprets the Qur’an by means of the Qur’an. This is according to many narrations that imply, ‘Truly some parts of the Qur’an describe some other parts of it.’44 The Qur’an is a single message because all of its verses were sent down from the same origin. Therefore the overall meaning of a verse is not confined to its position in the text. Rather, the entire Qur’an resembles one speech, delivered by a single speaker, and any two of its sentences could explain and relate to each other. Thus, if there is an ambiguity in the meaning of a verse, it will be clarified by referring to the other verses on that topic or similar topics.

This tafsir aims at obtaining the meaning of the Qur’an from the Qur’an before anything else, and sets that as basis. Then, according to that basis, it assesses the plausibility of the other meanings proposed by the external sources. This is exactly the opposite of the approach where one sets his own impression of the meaning of the verses as basis and then tries to mould the Qur’an to one’s own ideas. Many commentaries have followed the second approach. But in fact, they are not commentaries; rather, they are attempts to impose personal impressions of various meanings, external findings, narrations, and philosophical, scientific, social and historical ideas onto the Noble Qur’an.

It is evident that this method will cause the verses to lose their content and status, because then anyone from any discipline would attempt to tally their views with the Qur’an and prove their own ideas using the Holy Book.

There are many exegeses of this sort on the whole or parts of the Qur’an. But this approach is equivalent to distorting and disfiguring the Book; it is to kill the Qur’an and spoil its value. The meaning of the Qur’an should be obtained from itself, and this has been perfectly carried out in al-Mizan.

Among the other merits of this tafsir is that it considers the broad and general definitions of the terms and phrases, as opposed to the particular, earthly, and commonplace meanings that typically come to one’s mind. It also distinguishes the secondary meanings and broader applications of a verse from its primary and apparent theme.

Among other qualities of al-Mizan is that in addition to Qur’anic discussions, it discusses various other topics such as narrations, sociology, history, philosophy and the sciences, each of which are presented separately without being mixed in with the other topics. And thus al-Mizan has adequately discussed the issues of the contemporary world and has addressed the prevalent ideas of our time. It has analysed their compliance with the sacred religion of Islam, identified their strengths and weaknesses, and explained their validity or invalidity. It thoroughly answers the objections and charges made against Islam by the atheists, infidels, and various Eastern and Western ideologies.

The Qur’an speaks of its own significance:

... Most truly it [the Qur’an] is a decisive word [between truth and untruth]. And it is not vain talk. (86:13-14)

And most truly it [the Qur’an] is a sublime book. Falsehood comes not to from before it nor from behind it; [it is] a revelation from One All-Wise, All-Laudable. (41:41-2)

Al-Mizan also defends the Shi’a school of thought through its profound and subtle discussions and by identifying the real position and implication of each verse. It clearly and rationally establishes the Universal Guardianship (al-wilayat al-kulliyyah) of Imam ‘Ali and the Pure Imams. This is done through lucid and eloquent language, without the bigotry or fanaticism of the Age of Ignorance (jahiliyyah). It presents an incontrovertible and irrefutable commentary purely based on the verses of the Qur’an, and also using the narrations reported by the Sunni authorities such as Suyuti in al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir al-Ma’thur. It also points out the views of contemporary Sunni Egyptian exegetes (without naming them) and clarifies their weak points and mistakes.

Al-Mizan goes through ethical discussions in detail, but in gnostic (‘irfani) discussions, it conveys a world of precision and subtlety in a short sentence. It stimulates the reader to strive for the vision (liqa’) of Allah and his original home. Al-Mizan unites the exoteric and esoteric meanings of the Qur’an and combines the intellectual (‘aqli) and transmitted (naqli) sciences, where each plays its own role and has its own place.

Al-Mizan in Islamic schools and academic societies around the world

This tafsir is so fascinating, delightful, and appealing that can be presented to the world as a proof of Islamic and Shi’a doctrines. It can be sent to the adherents of other religions and schools of thought as an invitation to Islam and the Shi’a sect.

And indeed that is what happened when it was published: al-Mizan was spread around the globe. It reached Paris and the United States, in addition to the abundant copies that were sent to Islamic countries. It has been subject of studies and discussions, and has brought about honour and pride for Shi’ism in academic societies.

Al-Mizan is one of a kind in its extensiveness, addressing subtle topics, and standing against the verbal sophistries of the opponents of religion. One would be justified in claiming that such a tafsir has never been written in Islamic history. Our teacher was an expert in many sciences and inherited the knowledge of many true scholars. He had mastered various practical and theoretical disciplines. May Allah reward him and grace him with His blessings.

Thence, if he was amongst the intimates.Then [for him are] respite, superb provision and a bountiful heaven. (56:88-9)

I, this humble being, am acquainted with over thirty Shi’a and Sunni exegeses of the Qur’an. But I have never found any tafsir as sensible, delightful, and complete as al-Mizan. Given al-Mizan, one can more or less dismiss the other exegeses. I am not the only one claiming this; many outstanding scholars, distinguished thinkers, and people of erudition and research hold this view, either explicitly or implicitly. My close friend and fellow schoolmate, Sayyid Musa Sadr (may Allah liberate him from captivity and prolong his life) once told me that the matchless Lebanese scholar and writer, Shaykh Jawad Mughniyyah, said, ‘Ever since I have received al-Mizan, my library has become dormant; [instead,] al-Mizan is always on my desk.’

Al-Mizan should be taught in the theological schools

One day, I, the lowest being, told my honourable teacher, ‘This tafsir has not yet found its place in the hawzahs, and its real value has not been recognised. If this tafsir is taught in the hawzahs and they carry out ongoing debates, studies, reviews and analyses on it, then its value may be realised [only] after two hundred years.’

On another occasion I told him, ‘When I study this tafsir, in certain cases where you deduce the meaning of the verses by linking them to each other like a chain and evaluating them with one another in a sequence, I can think of no expression save that the pen of revelation was writing through your hand!’

Thereupon he shook his head in denial. ‘This is kind of you! I have not done anything!’45

‘Allamah’s other books include al-Tawhid (Monotheism), consisting of three treatises: (1) Tawhid (Monotheism), (2) Asma’ Allah Subhanah (The Names of Allah, Glorified is He), and (3) Af‘al Allah Subhanah (The Actions of Allah, Glorified is He). This book has been published in one volume, together with his treatise al-Wasa’it (The Instruments) and his book al-Insan (Mankind) which itself consists of three treatises: (1) al-Insan Qabl al-Dunya (Man before this World),

(2) al-Insan fi al-Dunya (Man in this World), and (3) al-Insan Ba’d al-Dunya (Man after this World). The volume is titled Haft Risalih (Seven Treatises).46

He also wrote the treatise al-Wilayah (Guardianship) which explains the last stages of man’s wayfaring to the Threshold of the Worshipped One, annihilation (fana’) in His Essence, and attainment of the status of servitude (‘ubudiyyah).47 Another work is his treatise, al-Nubuwwah wa al-Imamah (Prophethood and Leadership). All these nine treatises are in Arabic. Among his books in Persian are Shi’ah dar Islam, Qur’an dar Islam, and Vahy ya Shu’ur-i Marmuz? (Revelation or Mystic Consciousness?).48

‘Allamah Tabataba’i believed that true Islam had not been introduced to Europe and the United States. All orientalists who had travelled to Islamic countries had communicated with Sunnis, had only gone to Sunni countries, and had used Sunni books on Qur’anic exegesis and history. In hadith, they used the books that are found in major Sunni libraries, like the Sahih of al-Bukhari, Malik’s Muwatta’, and the Sunans of al-Tirmidhi, al-Nisa’i, Ibn Majah, and Ibn Dawud. The orientalists had adopted these books as their reference for Islamic Studies, and had thus introduced Islam to the world from a Sunni point of view. Based on this approach, they viewed Shi’ism merely as a branch of Islam. Hence they had not studied Shi’a works in exegesis, history, tradition, philosophy, and theology. That is why Shi’ism had not been introduced to the world, even though Shi’ism is the only sect that reflects true Islam. Shi’ism is the real fulfilment of the Tradition (sunnah) of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family). The Tradition of the Prophet is reflected in the guardianship (wilayah), and thus Shi’ism is the only sect that has followed the Messenger of Allah. It is the true realisation of Islam in terms of beliefs and actions.

History books (and other books) of the Sunnis contain numerous points which can be criticised for their invalidity, misrepresentation, or distortion. In addition, certain matters have been ascribed to the Messenger of Allah that do not fit the character of a prophet, not to mention their denial of the Prophet’s infallibility (‘ismah). Thus, Islam has not appeared in the West with its true face, and that is why it has not caused the Westerners to incline towards Islam. But things are quite different in Shi’ism.

The Shi’a books view the Messenger of Allah as absolutely infallible and clear from all mistakes, sins, and slips. They do not ascribe anything to him that contradicts the status of a prophet.

Furthermore, according to Shi’ism, the Pure Imams are impeccable and deserving to be the caliphs and successors of the Prophet. On the other hand, Sunni sources – in history, exegesis and tradition – authorise allegiance to an imperfect, even unjust leader, and require others to obey such a leader. That is why the noble caliphate and succession to the Messenger of Allah turned into a great kingdom like the empires of Rome and Persia. The Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs committed every offence and wrongdoing under the guise of being the ‘successors’ (sing. khalifah) of the Prophet. That is why the Europeans have not been attracted to Islam yet. They will definitely convert to Islam if they realise that the conduct of the caliphs was against the Tradition of the Messenger of Allah, and that Islam was in fact introduced to abolish these kinds of regimes.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s interviews with Henry Corbin, Chair of Shi’a Studies at Sorbonne

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s interviews with Henry Corbin put ‘Allamah to a lot of trouble, as he had to travel in ordinary buses all the way from Qum to Tehran only to meet with him. He did this to introduce the reality of Shi’ism, to reveal the genuine face of the guardianship (wilayah) of the Imams, and to present the characteristics of a true Shi’a.

These interviews were truly a significant service to Islam and Shi’ism, as Henry Corbin used to fully record the discussions. In addition to making the reality of Shi’ism known by spreading the discussions in Europe, Corbin himself truly defended and supported Shi’ism in his speeches and at conferences. He was wholly determined to introduce Shi’ism in Paris.

Corbin believed that the only genuine sect that had not yet expired was Shi’ism, because of the fundamental Shi’a belief in the existence of a living Leader (imam): Hadrat Mahdi Qa’im Al-i Muhammad (‘the Guided and Standing Imam, from the family of Muhammad’).

That makes Shi’ism the only living sect. The religion of the Jews expired with the death of Prophet Moses and that of the Christians with the ascent of Prophet Jesus, and that of the other Muslims by the demise of the Prophet Muhammad. But Shi’ism considers its leader and guardian alive and connected to the spiritual realm and divine inspirations.

Corbin himself was very inclined to Shi’ism.49 He was significantly moved by his meetings with ‘Allamah, and by the teachings of Shi’ism, especially the noble Shi’a belief in Imam Mahdi. According to ‘Allamah, he frequently used to read the supplications of al-Sahifah al-Mahdiyyah and weep. Corbin’s acquaintance and interviews with ‘Allamah Tabataba’i started in 1378 (1959) and continued for over twenty years.

In a meeting that I, the lowest being, had with ‘Allamah on 18 Sha’ban 1399 (13 July 1979), he said:

‘It has been a few months since Monsieur Henry Corbin, professor of Shi’ism at Sorbonne University, has passed away. He had numerous meetings with us for his research on Shi’ism. He was an unprejudiced man and had a pure heart. He believed that among all religions in the world, only Shi’ism is thriving, active and alive; and the others, without exception, have exhausted their lifespan and do not evolve and progress.

The Jews do not believe in a living leader and director (nor do the Christians and Zoroastrians). They do not rely on a living source and are merely content to follow the Torah, Gospel, Zand and Avesta, and seek their perfection within these boundaries. And the same is with all of the Sunni sects, who view their perfection solely based on the Qur’an and the Prophet’s Tradition. However, Shi’ism is an active and living religion. It maintains that the leader and head of the community should be alive, and one can achieve perfection only by reaching the sacred status of the Imam. This inspires progress, movement, and love’.

He added:

‘One day I told Corbin that in the sacred religion of Islam, absolutely every land and every location is a place of worship. If one wants to perform prayer, recite the Qur’an, make prostration or supplicate, he can do so wherever he is. The Messenger of Allah said, “All of the earth has been made a place of prostration and source of purity for me [my religion].”50 However, this is not the case in Christianity, where worship is limited to the church and to a specific time, and worshipping outside the church is not approved of.

Therefore, if a Christian person wants to call God at some time, say, in the middle of the night in his bed at home, what should he do? Should he wait until Sunday, when they open the church, so that he can go there for supplication? This cuts a servant’s bond with God.

“Yes, this is an issue in Christianity,” Corbin replied. “But al-hamdu lillah (all praise be to Allah), Islam has preserved the connection between the created and the Creator at every time, location and in every personal condition.”’

‘Allamah continued:

In the sacred religion of Islam, if a person feels like it, he can call on Allah right there. And since Allah has [numerous] beautiful names (al-asma’ al-husna) such as the All-Forgiver, the All-Compassionate, the Sustainer, the Vengeful, and others, one would call Allah with the attribute that he finds most relevant to his need and desire. For example, if he wants Allah to pardon him and forgive his sins, he should use the names of the All-Forgiver, All-Forgiving, and Forgiver of sins (al-Ghafūr, al-Ghaffār, and Ghāfir al-dhanb).

However, in Christianity, God does not have al-asma’ al-husna, and is only referred to as God, the Lord, and Father. So what do you do if you want to call upon God through a specific name?

He [Corbin] replied, “I recite al-Sahifah al-Mahdiyyah in my prayers.”51

‘Allamah also related that Corbin frequently used to recite al-Sahifah al-Sajjadiyyah and weep.

‘Allamah’s publications

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s interviews with Corbin were published in four languages: Persian, Arabic, French and English. The first Persian volume was published as the yearbook of Maktab-i Tashayyu’ and was reprinted the following year.

As of today, ‘Allamah’s books Kitab-i Shi’ah (The Shi’a Book), Risalat-i Tashayyu’ dar Dunya-yi Imruz (Shi’ism’s Mission in Today’s World),52 Pursish-ha-yi Islami (Islamic Questions), and Islam va Insan-i Mu’asir (Islam and the Contemporary Man) have been published. Another publication of his is the book Hukumat dar Islam (Government in Islam), originally in Persian but also translated into Arabic.

He also wrote a treatise on miracles (i’jaz), and a treatise titled ‘Ali wa al-Falsafah al-Ilahiyyah (‘Ali and the Divine Philosophy), originally in Arabic but also translated into Persian. In addition, he composed precious glosses (sing. hashiyah) on Mulla Sadra’s al-Asfar al-Arba’ah, which have been published in the latest edition of Asfar as annotations, totalling nine volumes. He also wrote glosses on Kifayat al- Usul (by Akhund Khurasani).

Finally, he wrote Sunan al-Nabi (The Customs of the Prophet) which has been published along with some additions [and Persian translation] by one of the scholars.53 He also wrote the treatise Burhan (Demonstration), and many unpublished treatises on subjects such as abstractions (i’tibariyyat), sophistry (mughalatah), analysis (tahlil), and combination and derivation (tarkib wa mushtaq).54

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s manners, ethics, and modesty

What I know of my friend, should I say or not?
What others know not should I say or not?

I hold many secrets in my heart and soul;
A bit of that many should I say or not?

The talk that I had with you the other day,
What about today, should I say or not?

Of the flower’s beauty and the nightingale’s love,
In the ears of the thorn should I say or not?

The traits of that who lives in this place,
All over the place should I say or not?

(Maghribi)

How can I write about our teacher’s mysticism and ethics? What can I say about the person to whom I owe my life, my being, and my every breath? My knowledge of God, the Prophet, and the Imams is all due to his diffusions and grace. Allah gave us everything when He gave us ‘Allamah Tabataba’i. No words can explain his exhaustive spiritual magnificence. He soared in the heavens at the same time that he carried out his worldly occupations.

He was most lenient and soft on us rash and impudent students. He used to accompany us like a tall father who bends, takes his child’s hand in his own, and walks at the child’s pace. He educated and dealt with each of us based on our personal talent, character, penchant, aptitude, and pace, be that fast or slow. His heart was filled with Divine Secrets, yet he had a smiling, cheerful, and open face, a silent tongue, and a soft voice. He was constantly in thought; and, occasionally, delicate smiles appeared on his lips.

Our dear teacher and master! After you, we must indeed say what Imam Sajjad said at his father’s grave: ‘After you, as with this world: it is dark; and as with the hereafter: it is luminous due to the light of your face.’55

This man was a world of splendour. He used to sit on the ground by the school’s courtyard just like a young student. He used to come to Faydiyyah School around sunset, where he would perform congregational prayer behind the late Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Taqi Khunsari, just like the other students.

He was so modest, courteous and observant of good manners that I repeatedly used to tell him, ‘You have so much manners and politeness that this will make us rude and ill-mannered [toward you]! For God’s sake, think of us!’ For forty years until the time that he has passed on, he was never seen leaning on a pillow or cushion in any meeting. Rather, he always used to sit politely in front of the visitors, a bit apart from the wall, and in a lower position than that of the visiting guest. As his student, I used to frequent his house, and of course I wanted to sit in an inferior position than his, out of courtesy. But it was not possible whatsoever. He would stand up and say, ‘In that case I shall sit at the entrance, or maybe outside the room!’

On one occasion many years ago, I went to visit him in Mashhad and saw him sitting on a pad, as the doctor had ordered him not to sit on the hard floor due to his heart problem. He rose up and offered me the pad to sit on, but I refused. So we were both standing for a while, until he said, ‘Please sit down. There is something that I should tell you!’ I obeyed and sat on the pad for the sake of politeness. He also sat on the floor, and said, ‘What I wanted to tell you is that over there is softer!’

When I was in Qum, he never gave us the honour of performing congregational prayer behind him. And so it was until his death. I had always grieved not being able to pray behind him, until last year when he came to Mashhad in the month of Sha’ban (May 1981) and stayed in our place. We made the library his room so that he could have access to any book that he wanted. On the first day, when it was time for sunset prayer, I laid down one prayer rug for him and one for his accompanying nurse and assistant. I knew that if I stayed in the room, he would not lead the prayer. Therefore I exited the room so that he would start his prayer, and then I could enter the room and join the already-established congregation.

About a quarter of an hour had passed after sunset when I heard his assistant calling me. When I went there, he told me, ‘He [‘Allamah] is waiting for you to lead the prayer.’

I told ‘Allamah, ‘I will pray behind you!’ ‘I would pray behind you,’ he replied.

‘I beg you,’ I said, ‘just perform your own prayer!’ ‘And we beg the same!’

‘I have asked you for forty years to let me perform one prayer behind you,’ I implored, ‘and it has not occurred yet. Please accept!’

He smiled gracefully. ‘Well, add one more year to those forty years.’

I frankly could not see myself standing in front and letting him follow me. I felt awfully shy and embarrassed. He was determined, and there was no way he would let go of his position. And it was not appropriate for me to decline his call and pray separately in another room. So I said, ‘I am your servant and obedient to you; I will follow your order.’ He said, ‘There is no order. This is my plea!’

Thus I got up and performed the sunset prayer, and he followed. So in addition to failing to do a single prayer behind him in forty years, I fell into such a trap. God knows, his expression of shyness, embarrassment, and request that was evident in his countenance would have humiliated the gentle wind, and would have melted the hard rock.

The grace of your manners exceeds the gentle wind;
Yet by your power, the rocks are crushed and thinned.

Your spirit is so high, that a poem cannot define;
And your traits are so many, that no one can confine.56

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s approach to mysticism (Sufism)

Our teacher and master’s mystical (‘irfani )57 approach was that of his unequalled master, Sayyid ‘Ali Qadi, who himself followed his master, Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i Tihrani, who in turn had adopted the approach of his master, Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli Darjazini Hamadani (may Allah be pleased with them all). Their approach was the method of gnosis of the soul (ma’rifat al-nafs), which, based on numerous narrations, is accompanied by the gnosis of the Lord (ma’rifat al-rabb).58 One achieves the gnosis of the Lord after leaving behind the imaginal world (‘alam al-mithal) – that is, the realm of forms (surah) – and even going beyond the realm of the soul (nafs). It is upon total detachment from the soul (nafs) that one achieves everlasting subsistence by the Lord (baqa’ bi al-Rabb). The Sultan of Gnosis [i.e. the unveiling of God’s unity] will manifest only when there are no remaining signs of the wayfarer’s nafs.

Amongst the chief requirements of achieving this state is watchfulness and self-vigilance (muraqabah). For each and every station (manzil) of the journey, one must observe the manners and requirements of that station and the situation at which he is. Otherwise, worshipping and performing the required deeds without self-vigilance (muraqabah) is like a patient’s taking medication without abstaining from harmful foods; it will not have the desired result. The fundamentals of self-vigilance – the details of which vary based on the different stages of the journey – can be summarised in five points:

The perfection of the imperfect lies in five:
Eat and sleep only to survive,
Solitude from the people, and talk very little,
And constant attention (dhikr), in order to thrive.
(Shah Qasim Anwar, d. 837/1434)59

Our late teacher had a very high regard for two religious scholars whom he remembered with great reverence. One was Sayyid ‘Ali ibn Tawus (may Allah elevate his rank). ‘Allamah cherished his book Iqbal al-A’mal and used to call him the Master of the Watchful (sayyid ahl al-muraqabah). The other was Sayyid Mahdi Bahr al-’Ulum (may Allah elevate his rank). ‘Allamah admired his lifestyle, self-vigilance, and his approach to knowledge and practice. He used to frequently talk about both men’s meetings with Imam Mahdi (may our spirits be sacrificed for him). ‘Allamah was amazed at their purity from the desires of the base soul and their diligence on the path to their cherished destination. He respected their lifestyles and admired their determination in seeking God’s pleasure, Exalted is He.

He had a high regard for the treatise on spiritual journey and wayfaring (sayr wa suluk) attributed to Sayyid Bahr al-‘Ulum, and recommended its reading. He had himself taught several series of the treatise with fairly thorough and extensive explanations for some intimate students who were passionate devotees of the Truth and aspirants of the vision of Allah.

Among the concise books on ethics, ‘Allamah’s favourite was Ibn Miskawayh’s Taharat al-A’raq. Among the medium-sized ones, he considered Jami’ al-Sa’adat of Mulla Mahdi Naraqi the best, and his favourite extensive book on ethics was Ihya’ al-Ihya’ (al-Mahajjat al-Bayda’) of Mulla Muhsin (Muhammad ibn Murtada) Fayd al-Kashani. He maintained that the claim in Rawdat al-Jannat – that Khwajah Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s Akhlaq-i Nasiri heavily draws from Ibn Miskawayh’s Taharat al-A’raq, which in turn was obtained from Indian sages – is not true.60 Ibn Miskawayh was a contemporary of Ibn Sina and his book on philosophy is totally based on Greek philosophy, with no elements of Indian philosophy. Likewise, his book in ethics, Taharat al-A’raq, does not match the style of the Indians.

As with Naraqi,61 he was a first-class jurist, mystic, and philosopher. He was matchless in mathematics and astronomy, and his profundity of thought was exceptional. He was also an authority in ethics. It is quite shocking that this man has not yet been recognised. It is only recently that some of his books have been published, and the rest of his excellent works are going to be published soon.

And the ranks and merits of Fayd al-Kashani are brighter than the sun and need no mention. His al-Mahajjat al-Bayda’, which is a revival of (Ghazzali’s) Ihya’ al-’Ulum, is among the most precious Shi’a books. May Allah be pleased with them all.

‘Allamah’s conduct and his attainment of divine realities

The clear difference between ‘Allamah Tabataba’i and others was that his conduct originated from within and was based on inward perceptions. He had objectified the spiritual realities within himself. He had differentiated the realm of reality and actuality (haqiqah and waqi’iyyah) from the realm of nominality and facade (majaz and i’tibar) and had reached the realities of the Divine Spheres (malakut). In fact, his behaviour was the manifestation of his spiritual standing in the corporeal world. The spiritual realities that he had achieved were the foundation on which he built all his affairs, interactions, and dealings.

But the ethical approach of others was to seek an inward opening and path to the proximity (qurb) of the Majestic One through outward purification, observing the instructions of the shariah and vigilance over bodily limbs. May Allah bless those of them who have passed away.

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s poetic talent

‘Allamah had a gentle spirit, a remarkable talent, and a special elegance.62 Among Arabic poems, he was interested in the poems of Ibn al-Farid, especially his Nazm al-Suluk (The Rhyme of Wayfaring), also known as al-Ta’iyyah al-Kubra. And among Persian poems, he adored the Divan of Hafiz. He sometimes used to softly recite mystical Persian and Arabic poems for his ode-loving friends. He frequently recited the following verses when talking about how a wayfarer must focus all his thoughts and attention on Allah, not seek excessiveness, ascendancy, or predominance in any way, but rather aim at his Lord while taking the humility of servitude as the provision for his journey and God’s love as his guide. He frequently drew upon the following verses, and used to say that the poet had done a superb job in showing the path to non-being and annihilation (fana’):

A blazing love whispered in my soul
The stories of passions that burn like coal,
From a people far away, alone and sole;
It was the gentle wind, narrating from the breeze,
From mountains in Najd,63 from the giant trees;

It’s the word of my tears, and my wretched eye,
The message of my zeal, and the sorrow in my sigh,
And the passion of my heart, bleeding with a cry:

That my yearning and my love have taken an oath
To seek my death and failure of growth

Until my tomb becomes my room
That was their pledge: to seek my doom.
(Abu Muhammad Hamd ibn Hamid al-Dinawari, d. 632/1235)

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s epics and odes

‘Allamah had a remarkable sense for poetry. His rich mystical odes inspire passion and zeal, and are full of love and yearning [for Allah]. We present one of them as a sample:

The love of the dears takes away
One’s heart and faith, and anything that you say;
The rook (rukh) of chess cannot ever win
What the lovely face (rukh) takes away.

Majnun went insane, but not on his own;
It was Layla’s pull throughout the way.64
I reached the sun, not on my own;
I was an iota; Your love made me sway.

I’m a nameless mote that fell in the flood;
It took me as it flowed to the heart of the bay.
The glass of wine was held by whom?
The zealous hearts, it stole away.

For a glance on Your brow, and Your heavenly hand,
My name and fame, I had to pay.
You taught me love, and You fired me up,
Your glowing face, blew my peace away.

The arc of Your brow, only plundered me;
A whole group of us were walking Your way.
The sorrow of Your love, only fell on me,
But for its befalling, we all used to pray.65

‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s modesty toward the Infallibles

Our honourable teacher had a particular affection and zeal toward the Infallible Imams. When the name of one of them was uttered, modesty and reverence would become evident in his face. He had a special admiration for Imam Mahdi (may our spirits be sacrificed for him). He considered the station and rank of the Infallible Imams, the Honourable Messenger of Allah and Hadrat Fatimah to be beyond comprehension. He had a deep and genuine humbleness and humility toward them, believed in their divine (malakuti) ranks, and was fully acquainted with their biographies and history.

In many cases, when he was asked about one of them, he would give such an explanation that was as if he had studied their life history just today, or as if the answer was being revealed to him from above.

It was his old custom to visit the precinct of the Eighth Imam every summer. He used to stay there all summer, not going anywhere else unless necessary. There, in the sanctified land of Mashhad, he used to visit the Holy Shrine every night, in a mood of supplication and humility. People often suggested that he should stay somewhere outside Mashhad with a better climate, like Turqabah, where he could occasionally go to Mashhad to visit the Imam. But he would always decline and say, ‘We do not leave the Eighth Imam’s precinct for anywhere else.’66

He was also extremely humble and subservient toward the Noble Qur’an. He usually recited the verses of Qur’an from memory, and knew the position of most of the verses.

He was also quite sharp in recalling the other verses relevant to any given verse. His Qur’anic discussions were truly interesting and informative.

‘Allamah’s patience in difficulties

Since childhood, the sole source of financial support for ‘Allamah and his brother was their inherited farmland in the Shad-Abad village of Tabriz. ‘Allamah was from a respected and famous family in Azerbaijan, as his pedigree shows. He wrote his hand-written treatises (al-Tawhid, al- Insan, al-Wasa’it, and al-Wilayah) in Shad-Abad village when he was farming to make a living.

About their farmland, he said, ‘This property has been the legal property of our ancestors for two hundred and seventy years. Our only means of income is through farming.’ If the land were confiscated, his means of livelihood would have been totally disturbed, causing him a lot of hardship.

He did not have other financial backing because he had intentionally chosen his path as such. Despite his status as a jurist and qualification to become a marja’ (source of emulation in law), he engaged in academic endeavours, defending Islam and Shi’ism, and training students in spirituality, ethics and true beliefs. Thus he had no time or energy for writing a book of legal rulings or serve as a source of jurisprudence.

Even though he had no income from these activities, he also refused to accept the Imam’s Share (sahm al-Imam).67 Therefore any delays or losses in his farming income would have resulted in a living that was even lower than that of an ordinary student. For if a student does not receive financial support from home, he can at least make use of the Imam’s Share. Even when ‘Allamah received an income from the farm, it was only sufficient to cover his necessary expenses. Generally, our men of knowledge and scholarship have struggled with these difficulties throughout history.

Our men of knowledge have always endured insufficient livelihoods

The late Ayatollah Jawad Balaghi Najafi was a pride of Islam, and his books illuminated the world of knowledge. He used to live in a simple house carpeted with hessian. He was forced to sell the house in which he lived in order to be able to publish his books, which were truly sources of honour and esteem for Islam against the materialists, the seculars, the Jews and the Christians.

Our teacher’s master, the late Ayatollah Qadi (may Allah be pleased with upon him) had a large household to look after. He had such limited livelihood that his stories serve as exemplars and proverbs for us. There was no furniture in his house but a hessian of palm. Many times he and his family passed the night in darkness due to lack of kerosene and oil for the lamp.

Likewise, the late Ayatollah ‘Allamah Aqa Buzurg Tihrani had no source of income, and no one was aware of his financial condition. He served Islam, Shi’ism and knowledge for a hundred years; carried out indispensable efforts; and left behind unique and priceless works. Today, his works are used as references by authors and the people of research and scholarship. Day and night he was busy writing, making efforts, and collecting written documents and records. The condition of his house was just like that of an ordinary student, if not lower and simpler. The difficulties he endured are beyond imagination.

‘Allamah Amini, the author of al-Ghadir (11 volumes), had an insufficient livelihood before his recognition and fame. In fact, he had a hard time even publishing the first edition of al-Ghadir.

The issue of allocation and organisation of religious funds is a serious problem in the religious administration system today. There are abundant funds on hand in the field of Islamic law (fiqh), but those who spend a lifetime in certain disciplines like philosophy, mysticism, theology, commentary, tradition, history, the science of narrators (rijal) and other fields lack even a simple and ordinary living. Why should they face thousands of problems and troubles in order to cover their living expenses while preserving their honour and dignity?

They dedicate themselves to these fields in order to benefit Islam, to provide for society’s need for these sciences, to cover points of weakness, and to defend and guard the Shi’a school of thought. Why should these scholars be neglected in the allocation and distribution of the budget sent as the Imam’s Share to the hawzahs? And why should their acceptance of Imam’s Share – through the agents and administrators of these funds – involve humiliation and degradation for them?

Why should the juristic expertise of these honourable people, who possess ethical and spiritual virtues at the same time as being educated scholars (in fiqh), not be recognised? Why should they not be given permission of ijtihad (independent juristic judgment), just because it entails the recognition and approval of their character and their independence (from the strictly juristic circles and the hawzahs)?

And instead, why should unlearned, negligent, and insolent individuals be given lengthy and extensive authorisations – with exaggerated titles and formalities – to collect the Imam’s Share and other dues? In ethical and spiritual qualities, these ineligible individuals are even inferior to ordinary people. All this is done [by those in charge of the financial resources] in order to preserve their power and centrality. And they do this on account of claiming to be superior in knowledge (a’lam), jurisprudence (afqah), and piety (awra’). So much regret for this approach, which is most flawed, devastating, and fatal to knowledge and its people, and to jurisprudence and its people.

And if they are asked, ‘Why, and based on what evidence from the Qur’an or hadith do you claim that the Imam’s Share that one pays should necessarily be collected by one’s marja’ (Source of Emulation) or his representative? From which book of law, tradition, or exegesis have you inferred such a ruling? What are these innovations and customs that you introduce?’ they would respond, ‘It is so-and-so’s ruling.’ But you claim to have reached the rank of ijtihad! So why when it comes to this subject, all of a sudden you become blind followers?

At any rate, ‘Allamah had a very simple and unembellished lifestyle. He had the minimum requirements for living. In spite of his heart problem, nervous disorder and old age, he used to come to Tehran every second week for his meetings with Henry Corbin. He bore all that hardship only to defend the religion and spread Islamic culture. Such was the condition of an Eastern philosopher, who was truly one of a kind. And I did not go into detail about his personal living conditions since it would be against his honour and dignity. Such is the life of Allah’s friends:

They endured [hardship] for a few days, which resulted in lasting comfort.68

Every single quality of the self-restrained men (muttaqin) explained by the Commander of the Faithful in this sermon was manifest in this godly man:

The transient world desired them, but they desired it not. It took them captive but they ransomed and liberated themselves from it.69

Such is the life of people of felicity, those who are free from captivity of the evil commanding soul; those who soar in the realm of God’s Will and Decree, and those who have settled in the realms of entrustment (tafwid), submission (taslim) and satisfaction (rida). Their condition is expressed in this poem of Hafiz – which our teacher was quite fond of:

I am the infamous lover in this zone;
Evil is a seed that my eyes have never sown.
By wine-worshipping I ruined my self,
So that self-worshipping may ever be blown.
We hold on, take the blame, yet we’re happy;
In the faith that we hold, there is no grief or moan.
I asked the bar’s master of the key to success;
He called for a glass. ‘Keep the secrets unknown.’

Yet, despite all the difficulties, disapproval, and accusation that he faced, he was a world of splendour, serenity, and peace. In these people we can well observe the lifestyle of the Infallible Imams. Tabataba’i and those like him truly represent those pure spirits.

The reason for ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s immigration to Qum from Tabriz

Likewise, ‘Allamah migrated to Qum, bore many difficulties, and tolerated detachment from his dear homeland for the very cause of Islam. He went through all that for spiritual objectives: to fulfil the divine mission of spreading and promoting the religion, for the students’ intellectual development, and to revive genuine beliefs. He wanted to guide the students to the straight path of polishing the soul, refining conduct, achieving the vision of Allah, and connecting to the spiritual realm.

Ayatollah Burujirdi’s message to ‘Allamah and ‘Allamah’s reply

Our late teacher narrated:

“When I came to Qum from Tabriz, I started [teaching] a course on Asfar. It became popular in no time, and about a hundred students used to attend the lectures. But then Ayatollah Burujirdi (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) ordered the cessation of stipends to those students who attend the Asfar course.

When I was informed of that, I wondered, ‘Oh my God! What should I do? If the stipend of the students is cut, what will happen to these indigent individuals from distant cities whose only means of livelihood is the stipend? And if I stop teaching Asfar because of this, it would harm the students’ academic level and their beliefs!’

I was uncertain for a while, until one day, while feeling confused, I spotted the Divan of Hafiz on our kursi (a traditional table-heater) in the room. I picked it up and carried out a divination with the intention, ‘What to do? Should I stop teaching Asfar or not?’ This ode appeared:70

The liberated soul that I am will never forsake
The darling that I have, or the drink that I intake;
The sheriff has lost hope in me doing this mistake.
I’ve censured the repenters all the time;
If I repent myself, it’s a crazy crime;
At the time of spring, drinking is the prime.
The tulip is drinking, and the narcissus is in glee,
That is something that no one can see;
But I’m judged by all, as a sinner and debauchee,
So many referees, but which one is for me?

I have treasures of rubies and garnets of tear,
So why should I look at the sun and its glare?
In my beggary I own every treasure;
I have no desire for this world and its pleasure.
Though I am poor, it would be a shame
If the pure spring of the sun is my aim.
If the beloved wants the lovers in fire;
May I be killed, if the heaven I desire.
The ruby of her lips was red and bright,
Appealing to Hafiz in the silent night;
But I never fall for her myths and her plight.

I was amused by this ode. Its message was that it is necessary to teach Afsar, and renouncing it is like a wayfarer’s infidelity (against his principles and duties on his path toward Allah).

On the same day or the following day, Ayatollah Burujirdi sent his servant, Hajj Ahmad, to our house, with the message, ‘While I was a youth in the hawzah of Isfahan, we used to study Asfar with the late Jahangir Khan. But we were a small group, and used to go to his lessons in secret. However, teaching Asfar openly in the hawzah is in no way appropriate, and must be abandoned!’

I replied, ‘Convey this message of mine to Mr Burujirdi, that I too have studied these common conventional courses like Islamic law and principles of law. I can go about teaching and lecturing them, and am not short of anyone else in these fields. However, I came from Tabriz to Qum only (and only) to correct the beliefs of the students, and to fight against the false beliefs of the materialists and others. During the period when you, our Honourable Ayatollah [Burujirdi], used to go to the late Jahangir Khan’s lessons in secret, the students and most of the people were believers and had a pure faith; all praise is to Allah [for that]. There was no need for establishing open Asfar classes at that time. However, these days the students enter the gates of Qum with several bags full of doubts and problems!

‘Today we should rescue the students, properly prepare them to combat materialists and secularists, and teach them true Islamic philosophy. Thus I will not stop teaching Asfar. But at the same time I consider the Ayatollah [Burujirdi] as the Religious Ruler (hakim al- shar’). If you make an edict for the Asfar classes to be stopped, then that will be a different story [and I will abide by it].’

After that message, Ayatollah Burujirdi did not interfere any further, and we continued teaching philosophy for several years, based on Shifa’, Asfar, and other books. In fact, Ayatollah Burujirdi used to greatly honour and respect me whenever we met. And one day he sent me a volume of the Noble Qur’an as a gift, which was of the finest prints.”

At any rate, what can I say of the virtues of a man who was truly singular in this world? He appeared in obscurity, and departed in obscurity. No one recognised him, as his profound character was out of reach.

‘Allamah was a guard and refuge for the students

‘Allamah Tabataba’i was a guard and refuge for his sincere pupils and friends, who used to resort to him in calamities. He was like a bright lamp that illuminates the path, identifies dangers, and separates truth and falsehood. He was a guide and an aide in solving scientific71 problems and removing obscurities.

I, this nondescript being, have always felt myself in need of his instruction and his beneficial presence. Wherever he was, he emanated such mercy, knowledge, wisdom, good mood, enthusiasm, and tawhid that I felt ashamed of my utter inferiority. I typically used to go to Qum every other week, and the times when I met with him were most dear to me.

Every single time that I met him, I used to bend to kiss his hand. However, he would cover his hand with his cloak with an incredible mood of humility and shyness that impressed me.

One day I told him, ‘We [want to] kiss your hand for its blessing, grace, and [as a sign of our] need. So why do you prevent us?’ Then I added, ‘Sir, do you believe in the narration reported from Imam ‘Ali, that whoever teaches me one letter has thus made me his slave?’72

‘Yes, it is a well-known narration, and compliant with the principles and teachings [of Islam],’ he replied.

I said, ‘You have taught us all these lessons, and have thus made us your slave over and over again! Is it not of a slave’s manners to kiss his master’s hand, and thereby seek blessings?’

He smiled delicately. ‘We are all slaves of God!’73

What we did not conceive of was the departure of this man. The death of this godly man was the death of the world, because ‘Allamah was the world. However, he is alive; all living people are dead, but he is alive. ‘People are dead, but the men of knowledge are alive.’74

Intellect, conscience, and religion

There are two centres of comprehension and conception in every human being: one is called the intellect (‘aql), and the other is called the heart and conscience (qalb and wijdan).

With the power of intellect, one comprehends what is good for him and what is bad, and distinguishes between the desirable and the undesirable, and between truth and falsehood. Through the heart and conscience – which may also be called nature (fitrah), temperament, inner impression, or hidden intuition – one connects with the world, realises why the universe and himself were created, and is attracted toward the Origin of all origins and the End of all ends.

Both of these crucial means of comprehension exist in a person. Each of them pursues its mission along its own horizon of conception and understanding, and neither of them can substitute for the other. Should one of them be lost, the person loses access to a world of knowledge and thoughts.

The Qur’an and Hadith on the necessity to follow the intellect

There are many Qur’anic verses and numerous narrations concerning one’s indispensable need to follow the intellect. We only present a few for illustration. As with the verses of the Noble Qur’an:

Fie upon you and all that you worship instead of Allah; do you not ponder? (21:67)

Here, it is presumed that the idolaters were following their nature and conscience in worshiping the idols, and in doing so they considered themselves connected to God. However, because of not pondering, they erred in identifying their object of worship. Thus, going against the rule of the intellect, they found God manifested in their idols.

...[They are] deaf, mute and blind; thus they understand not. (2:171)

Here, since they do not utilise their power of intellect, it is as if they have neither vision nor hearing, and are also speechless.

...[O, Our Messenger,] Canst thou make the deaf hear, though they understand not? (10:42)

... So give good tidings to my servants; who listen to the speech and follow the best thereof; such are those whom Allah hath guided, and such are those possessed of minds. (39:17-18)

It is clear that listening to speech and then distinguishing between truth and falsehood, and between good and better is a duty of the mind. Therefore, at the end of the verse, they are referred to as possessors of minds, that is, intellect.

And the likeness of those who disbelieve is the likeness of one who shouteth to that which hears naught but a call and a cry. [They are] deaf, mute and blind; thus they understand not. (2:171)

The infidels selected and followed a religion based on their instinct and inner drive, and that was to worship the idols. However, as they did not make use of their intellect, they continually ended up employing their instincts and inner sensations on pointless illusions and groundless fantasies. Therefore they did not benefit from their conscience and disposition. Just like one who does not realise anything from a speech except its noise and sound, they too only heard some ideas, but did not understand any truth, and it did not settle in their souls. So in effect, they were a group of deaf, mute and blind people who had absolutely no comprehension.

And as with the narrations: it is reported from Imam Sadiq that the Messenger of Allah said:
If you see a man performing a lot of prayer and fasting, do not esteem him until you examine his intellect.75

Imam Sadiq is also reported to have said:
The pillar of mankind is the intellect. . . 76
The intellect is the guide of a believer.77

The Qur’an and hadith on the necessity to follow the heart and conscience

There are also verses and narrations regarding the need to follow the heart and conscience. As with the verses:

Have they not journeyed in the land so that there would be hearts for them by which they understand or ears by which they hear? For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts within the chests that grow blind. (22:46)

This addresses those who have intellect and wits, but who have strangled their hearts by following the desires of the evil commanding soul (al-nafs al-ammarah), have covered their consciences under the veils of sins and wrongdoings, and have blinded their spirits.

[O, Our Messenger] Surely thou canst not make the dead hear, nor canst thou make the deaf hear the call whilst they turn their backs and retreat. (27:80)

Here, Allah likens those who have destroyed their inner light and power of intuition to the dead. In fact He really regards them as dead and deaf. The word of truth and the right speech does not have any impact in their ears whatsoever, and they constantly flee from it.

... Certainly Allah maketh whomever He will to hear, and thou canst not make those in the graves hear. (35:22)

Is one who knoweth what hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is the truth like one who is blind?. . . (13:19)

In these verses, Allah considers those who have extinguished their inner light and closed the path to the Hereafter on themselves as dead, blind, or living in the graves.

These verses are about suppressing the light of the heart, not about disobeying the power of intellect and thought. And there are numerous narrations on this topic. For instance, regarding the verse:

The nature of Allah upon which He created mankind... (30:30)

...it is reported that Imam Sadiq interpreted nature (fitrah) as the belief in unity (tawhid): ‘He created them on tawhid.’78

In another narration, Jamil ibn Darraj asked Imam Sadiq about the meaning of ‘composure’ (sakinah) in the verse, ‘It is He Who sent down composure into the hearts of the believers...’ (48:4). The Imam replied, ‘It means faith (iman).’ Then Jamil inquired about the meaning of spirit (ruh) in the verse, ‘And He strengthened them by a spirit from Him . . .’ (58:22). The Imam answered, ‘It means faith.’ Then he asked about self-restraint (taqwa) in the verse, ‘And He imposed on them the word of self-restraint...’ (48:26). The Imam said, ‘It means faith.’79

And there are two terms in the Qur’an: hanifan musliman (an upright submitter, 3:67), which Imam Sadiq interpreted as ‘Pure and sincere, without any worshipping of the idols.’80

It is evident from these narrations that the inner light consists of having faith in Allah, having a monotheistic nature, and having a heart that is pure from base desires, cravings, and the dark stains of the material world. This light is the heart’s means of conception and what attracts the conscience to the realms of angels (malakut), immaterial intellects (jabarut), and divine names (lahut).81

Intellect, heart, and religion characterise the same reality

Based on the above, it becomes clear that human beings have two essential centres of comprehension: one for intellectual contemplation, and one for the emotions and vision of the heart and conscience.

Spiritual vision begets faith, and connects [the knowledge of] one’s self with [the knowledge of] the Exalted Creator. Without it, even thousandfold intellectual, philosophical, and mental contemplation cannot make one humble and subservient. Even a series of valid arguments based on reason and lucid deduction cannot eliminate the instability of one’s spirit. They cannot bring about serenity, peace, or confidence.

Meanwhile, intellectual contemplation stabilises and balances inner emotions. It prevents acting based on imagination and futile delusions, and keeps the intuitive vision on the right track. Without intellectual contemplation, the inner vision strays from the straight path, embraces illusions and imaginations, and will be easily pulled toward anything that slightly appeals to the heart.

And here is where the controversy between the intellect (‘aql) and love (‘ishq) and each one’s merit over the other will be settled, for this dispute has no basis to begin with. Love and intellect have two distinct and separate roles, and each of them follows its own specific track. They are in two distinct centres of conception. Both are necessary, and it is wrong to employ one and discard the other.

Moreover, religion (shar’) supports both of them, and strengthens them if they become weak. That is, the intellect, the heart, and the religion describe one truth and reality; they are three representations of the same idea.

Therefore, it is impossible for the ruling of religion to oppose that of the intellect or the innate nature (fitrah). Likewise, it is impossible for the ruling of intellect to contradict that of the innate nature or religion, or the ruling of innate nature to disagree with that of the intellect or religion. These three are connected together like a chain, and maintain and support one another.

He hath laid down for you a religion which He enjoined Noah, and that which We have revealed to thee, and what We enjoined Abraham and Moses and Jesus: to establish the religion and divide not therein.... (42:13)

And We truly sent down the book upon thee; that confirms the previous books and encompasses them. So judge between them by what Allah hath sent, and follow not their desires instead of the truth that hath come to thee. For every [group] of you We have appointed a straight way [i.e. religion] and a clear path.... (5:48)

Then We set thee on a clear road [i.e. religion] of Our command; so follow it, and follow not the desires of those who know not. (45:18)

It is reported from Hisham ibn Hakam that Imam Musa ibn Ja’far told him:

O Hisham! Indeed Allah has two proofs and arguments against the people: an outer proof and an inner proof. The outer one is the messengers, prophets, and leaders – peace be upon them – and the inner one is the intellects.82

In another narration, Imam ‘Ali said,

If I truly realise that a person has [even] one good quality amongst all virtues, I consider him on that and overlook the absence of the rest. Except that I do not overlook the absence of reason or religion. For the lack of the religion is the lack of security, and clearly a life with fear is not pleasant. And the lack of reason is the lack of life, and such a person is only comparable with the dead.83

The necessity to follow the intellect, spirit and religion in the Qur’an, narrations and supplications

So the verses of the Noble Qur’an and the traditions of the Infallibles insist on one’s need to follow the religion and strengthen the intellect and the heart. Likewise, in the supplications reported from the Infallibles, the Majestic Lord is asked for the enhancement of all three.

Among the supplications reported in Nahj al-Balaghah, Imam ‘Ali expresses gratitude to Allah for having an upright intellect, a firm religion, and an established faith in the heart:

All praise be to Allah, Who did not bring me on this day dead or ill, or with my veins being infected with disease, or being taken for my worst deeds, or my progeny being cut off, or retreating from my religion, or disbelieving in my Lord, or bewildered from my faith, or my intellect being disturbed, or being punished by the punishments of the previous nations.84

‘Allamah Tabataba’i was a master of intellect, heart, and religion

Our teacher, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, had achieved perfection in all three fields: the intellect, the heart and religion. In fact he was the highest among his contemporaries. In terms of intellectual aptitude and theoretical wisdom (al-hikmat al-nazariyyah), he was a matchless figure in the Islamic world, as already mentioned, and his opponents and supporters both agree on this.

In terms of action, practical wisdom (al-hikmat al-‘amaliyyah), the spiritual journey toward the high stages of divine hidden realms, and reaching the ranks of the intimates (muqarrabin) and the truthful (siddiqin), his silent closed lips prevent us from revealing his states and achievements even after his death. After all, he considered concealment of secrets amongst the greatest duties of a wayfarer. We can only say in brief, as already mentioned, that ‘Allamah was absent from this transient world, from his arrival to his departure.

And peace be upon him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he is raised up alive. (19:15)

Concerning religion and the shariah, he was a full-fledged jurist, who carefully observed literally every custom and ritual. He would not neglect even the slightest optional practice, and he regarded the couriers of the sacred religion (i.e. the Infallibles) with an eye of reverence, exaltation and honour.

In addition, he was critical of certain Sufis who do not attach sufficient importance to the sacred shariah. He considered their approach prone to error, and one that would not lead to the desired destination. He admired and emphasised the following passage from the Risalah attributed to ‘Allamah Bahr al-’Ulum:

A general master (ustad-i ‘amm) may not be identified except through intimate association with him in public and private and verifying the completeness of the faith of his limbs and soul. One should be warned not to be deceived into following someone because of seeing him perform marvels, disclosing subtle matters, transforming certain states of his self, or revealing cosmic mysteries and personal secrets. One can read minds, discover subtle secrets, walk on fire and water, teleport through the air and land, foretell the future and do other similar acts at the stage of Spiritual Unveiling (al-mukashafah al-ruhiyyah). But there is an infinitely long way from this stage to the final destination. There are yet numerous stations and stages. So many travellers have passed this stage but strayed later on, and became thieves and devils. And this is how even some disbelievers have been able to do certain actions.85

He used to explain and expound on this section for his pupils, and mention that without observing the sacred shariah, one cannot achieve reality.

‘Allamah, was particularly very humble and meek toward the Noble Qur’an. He more or less knew the Qur’anic verses by heart. He had developed a warm and amiable bond with the verses due to his constant involvement and affiliation with the Book. To him, reciting the Qur’an ‘through parts of the night and round the day’ (ana’ al-layl wa atraf al-nahar) was the best and most treasured deed. By recalling and going over one verse, he was drawn into another verse and then another, and thus he was immersed in a world of delight and pleasure, enjoying the beauties of the Qur’an.

Moreover, ‘Allamah was critical of certain pretenders to sanctity who only adhere to the outward rituals. They were those who took religion as a pretext and, under the pretence of defending the sacred religion and spreading the shariah, severely condemned all friends of Allah (awliya’) who were engaged in self-vigilance (muraqabah), self-reckoning (muhasabah), and may have perchance performed long prostrations. In the first place, these people tend to criticise and reproach certain great men of mysticism (‘irfan) such as Khwajah Hafiz Shirazi and Mawlana Muhammad Balkhi Rumi, the composer of the Mathnawi. ‘Allamah attributed this way of thinking to ignorance, tedium and dullness, which are so detested by the spirit of religion.

‘Two parties break my back: an impudent scholar and an ignorant worshiper’

He maintained that badmouthing philosophy and mysticism, which are two of the major pillars of the sacred religion, is due to one’s inflexibility of thought and lassitude of mind. He used to say, ‘One should seek refuge in Allah from these ignorant and intolerant individuals. They were those who broke the back of the Messenger of Allah,’ as he said:

Two parties break my back: an impudent scholar and an ignorant worshiper.86

On the other hand, he also did not approve of those who were intellectually advanced and had studied philosophy and hikmah, but were weak in religious matters and observing the shariah. ‘A wisdom that does not settle in the heart and does not result in following the religion is not wisdom,’ he would argue.

Imam ‘Ali’s sermon in describing ‘men whom no purchase or sale distracteth from the remembrance of Allah’

Here, as we wrap up this precious treatise (the memorial section of the book), it is very apt to present a sermon of Nahj al-Balaghah that Imam ‘Ali delivered about the friends of Allah (awliya’), in explanation of the noble verse, ‘Men whom no trade or sale distracteth from the remembrance of Allah...’ (24:37). In this sermon, the Imam describes the specific traits and conditions of these people. Thus this memorial may be concluded by the blessing of this grand and exalted sermon by the Master of the Monotheists. All these signs and attributes were gathered in our teacher and master, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i (may Allah send mercy on his noble soul and pour his blessings upon us). It is as if Imam ‘Ali is describing ‘Allamah and other gnostics of God and the disciples of the school of monotheism (tawhid) and guardianship (wilayah):

‘In all the periods, and times when there were no prophets, there have been persons with whom Allah (precious are His bounties) has whispered through their minds and spoken through their intellects. Thus, they kindle the light of wakefulness in the ears, eyes and hearts of others; reminding them of the days of Allah, and warning them of His Status. They are like the guides in the deserts.

Whoever adopts the straight path, they praise his way and give him tidings of deliverance. And whoever deviates right or left, they condemn his way and warn him of failure. It is in this way that they are lamps in the darks and guides in uncertainties.

Indeed, invocation (dhikr) has its people who have adopted it in place of this world (dunya). Thus, engagement in no purchase or sale keeps them from invocation, with which they pass their days. They yell in the ears of the heedless with shouts of deterrence against Allah’s forbidden deeds. They command [them] to justice, and themselves act up to it; and forbid [them from] evil, and themselves abstain from it.

It is as though they have finished the journey of this world to the hereafter, and can observe what is there. As if they perceive the mysteries of the long stay of the inhabitants of barzakh [the intermediate world between this world and the Day of Resurrection]. As if the Resurrection has verified its promises for them. Therefore they have removed the curtain from these things for the people of the world; it is as if they [literally] see what the people see not, and hear what they hear not.

You can picture them in your mind in their exalted positions and distinguished sittings, when they have opened the records of their deeds. They are prepared to take account of themselves for every minor or major action that they were ordered but failed to do, or were prohibited but indulged therein. They feel the heavy load of their sins on their backs, which they cannot bear. They are weeping and sobbing in their throats, moaning while replying to one another; bewailing to their Lord out of regret and confession. [If you imagine them as such in your mind] you would then be observing the emblems of guidance, and the lamps in the darks. The angels are surrounding them; composure descends upon them; and the gates of the heavens are opened for them. They are provided with honorific seats, in such a place where Allah looks upon them; He is pleased with their effort and exalts their position; and they breathe the breeze of His pardon as they call unto Him. They are captives of their need to His munificence, and humble slaves before His magnificence. Their longtime grief has injured their hearts, and their long weeping has injured their eyes.

They have a knocking hand for every door that may open to Allah. They request from Him Whose vastness has no limit, and with Whom the yearners are never let down. So [now] you take account of your own soul, because the other souls have others that take account of them.87

The states of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i toward the end of his noble life

The state of our teacher was very peculiar in the last few years of his life. He was always introspective, thoughtful, and concentrated. He was at a high state of self-vigilance (muraqabah) from which he seldom descended. In the last year of his life, a state of slumber and trance usually dominated him. When he woke up, he would immediately perform ablution, sit facing the qiblah (Mecca), and close his eyes.

‘Allamah visited the sanctified city of Mashhad on 3 Sha’ban 1401 (6 June 1981) and stayed there for twenty-two days. Then he passed the rest of the summer in Damavand, near Tehran, because of its suitable climate. During that stay, he was once hospitalised in Tehran, but the intensity of his illness was such that even hospital treatment was not effective. Thereafter he returned to the splendid city of Qum, where he was living. There he rested at his house and did not admit any visitors, other than some of his select students.

One of his students related, ‘One day I went to visit him while his condition was intense. I saw he had turned on the lights in every room. He was wearing his turban and cloak, and was strolling in the rooms with an indescribable glee and happiness, as if he was awaiting someone.’

The passing, funeral and burial of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i

One of the scholars in Qum said:

During the last days of ‘Allamah’s life, I used to drop by his house in the afternoons, so that firstly I could take care of anything needed at home, and secondly to walk him a bit in the yard. One day, I went to his house and greeted him and asked, ‘Sir, do you need anything?’

‘I have a need! I have a need! I have a need!’ he repeated several times.

I realised that apparently ‘Allamah meant something else, and was soaring in a different horizon. He followed me into the room, with his eyes closed. He did not open them at all, and was engaged in certain invocations, which I could not make out. Right upon sunset, while his eyes were still shut, and without looking at the sky, ‘Allamah started reciting the adhan (the call to prayer), and then he started performing the sunset prayer. I picked up a napkin in the room and held it on my hand in front of him so that he could prostrate on it, but he did not. I thought maybe he did not prostrate because the napkin was in my hand and not on something stable. So I brought something tall for prostration [without kneeling, due to his illness] from the inner room, and placed a muhr (clay prayer stone) on it. Thus he prostrated on it and finished his prayer.

His condition worsened day by day, until he was hospitalised in Qum. When exiting the house, he told his honourable wife, ‘I will not return!’88

He was hospitalised for approximately one week, and was totally unconscious the last two days. Until the morning – three hours before noon – on Sunday, 18 Muharram 1402 (15 November 1981), when he moved on to the eternal abode, doffed the old bodily attire, and donned the dress of everlasting life.89

Since I, this humble being, was living in Mashhad, the sanctified city of Imam Rida, I was not present in Qum when my honourable teacher passed away. But during these past days since his death, I have been constantly thinking about him. I owe him so much that his right over me is that of life. My passion for ‘Allamah incited me to jot down the above. So hereby I offer Shining Sun (Mihr-i Taban) in memory of that luminous sun of knowledge and gnosis to the passionate aspirants of the vision of the High Lord. May it be that by studying it, they do not cease from aspiring, but carry on the path with effort, diligence, and determination, and achieve the gnosis of the One Essence by annihilation in His Greatest Name. And I dedicate the reward of this work – if it is to be accepted – to the luminous spirit of that source of knowledge (‘ilm) and self- restraint (taqwa).

All praise is to Allah and all gratitude is to Him. The first section of this work, which took twenty days to write, was finished on the fortieth night of our late teacher’s departure, which coincides with the night of departure of the Noble Messenger, 28 Safar 1402 (25 December 1981).

O Allah, raise the rank of our honourable teacher. Resurrect him with Muhammad and his Infallible Progeny. Pour benefits from him upon us, and do not entrust us to ourselves for a blink of an eye in this world or in the Hereafter. By Thy mercy, O most Merciful of all those who are merciful!

Written by the sinful hands of the destitute servant, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani, may Allah pardon him and his parents.

1. When he first entered Qum, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i was known by his family name of Qadi. However, since his ancestors go back to Ibrahim al-Tabataba, he preferred to be known as Tabataba’i. Or perhaps he changed his name out of reverence for his teacher and master, Sayyid ‘Ali Qadi, so they would not share the same name.

2. Shaykh ‘Abbas al-Qummi, al-Kuna wa al-Alqab (Najaf, 1956), 3:168.

3. My noble friend, Sayyid Muhammad ‘Ali Milani (the son of Ayatollah Milani), once narrated: ‘One day, I, my father, and my uncles, got a carriage from Tabriz for ‘Allamah’s village [Shad-Abad]. Before that, my uncles were talking to my father about the qiblah (direction of Mecca), as these compasses for finding the qiblah were not around yet. As we were riding the carriage, my uncles asked my father ‘Who is even this person for whom you are taking a carriage [all the way] from Tabriz to his village?’ My father replied, ‘He is the very person who is a unique master in solving these problems (of qiblah, the subject of the prior discussion).’ I heard this a lot from my father that ‘‘Allamah Tabataba’i knows some sciences that we do not,’ by which he meant hidden and esoteric sciences.’

4. [Translator’s note. The author deemed the correct and original writing of Tihran as Ṭihran (with ṭa’ as opposed to ta’) and accordingly he used to write his own last name as Husayni Ṭihrani. Likewise, he used the same spelling for others, such as Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i Ṭihrani and Aqa Buzurg Ṭihrani. See S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani, Nur-i Malakut-i Qur’an (2nd ed., Mashhad, 1421/2000), 4:143.]

5. [Translator’s note. Throughout the book, as in all traditional Muslim writings, references to the Prophet Muhammad are followed by ‘peace be upon him and his family.’ Likewise the names of the Imams and the other prophets are followed by ‘peace be upon him’. For the most part these phrases have been dropped in the translation.]

6. Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi ibn Murtada Bahr al-’Ulum, Risalah- yi Sayr wa Suluk, with an introduction and commentary by Ayatollah S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani (3rd ed., Mashhad, 1417/1995). Partly translated into English, published in al-Tawhid Islamic Journal (vol.14, no. 3 and 4), and available at .

7. [Translator’s note. Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Gharawi Isfahani was known as Ayatollah Kumpani (‘Company’), since his father was a trusted well-to-do merchant in Kazimayn, and that was quite unique back in late nineteenth century CE. On several occasions, the author has referred to Ayatollah Gharawi Isfahani by this title, Kumpani. However, it is said that Ayatollah Gharawi Isfahani resented being called this title. Thus it has been dropped in the translation, and he is only referred to as Gharawi Isfahani, as he ostensibly preferred, and Allah knows best.]

8. These reviews have been published as Tawhid-i ‘Ilmi wa ‘Ayni (‘Tawhid of the Intellect and Vision’) (Tehran: Hikmat, 1410/1989).

9. [Translator’s note. This name is often written as Khwansari, though the correct spelling is Khunsari. See Dihkhuda, Lughatnamah (Tehran, 1993-4), under the two names.]

10. Barrasi-ha-yi Islami, 2 vols. (Qum: Bustan-i Kitab-i Qum, 2008).

11. [Translator’s note. See Ayatollah S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani, Risalah-yi Lubb al-Lubab dar Sayr wa Suluk-i Ulu al-Albab (Tehran, 1988): 131. It has been translated by Mohammad H. Faghfoory as Kernel of the Kernel (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003): 107. This book is the result of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i’s lectures on wayfaring and spiritual journeying, compiled, edited and expanded by Ayatollah Husayni Tihrani. It has also been translated into English by ‘Ali Quli Qara’i as Kernels of Kernels and published in al-Tawhid Islamic Journal (vol.13, no.4 and vol.14 no.1 and 2), and is available at < https://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/vol13-no4/lubb-al-lubab-short-treatise-wayfaring-s-m-husayn-husayni > and .]

12. Tawhid-i ‘Ilmi wa ‘Ayni (Tehran, 1410/1989): 162-3

13. In his account of the late Qadi, ‘Allamah Aqa Buzurg Tihrani has cited 13 Dhu al-Hijjah 1285 (27 March 1869) as Mr Qadi’s date of birth, and 6 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1366 (29 January 1947) as his date of passing. See Tabaqat A’lam al-Shi’ah (Nuqaba’ al-Bashar) (Najaf, 1954-), no. 2080, 4:1565-6. [Translator’s note. The eighty-one years is according to the lunar calendar, and a lunar year is eleven days shorter than a solar year.]

14. ‘Allamah was born on 29 Dhu al-Qa’dah 1321 (15 February 1904) in Shadigan [i.e. Shad-Abad] village near Tabriz. His mother passed away upon the delivery of his brother, the late Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Ilahi Tabataba’i, when ‘Allamah was five years old. Therefore the two brothers had a five year difference. [Translator’s note. According to ‘Allamah’s autobiography, at the beginning of Barrasi- ha-yi Islami, he was born in 1319/1902.]
After completing elementary and basic schooling (in Azerbaijan), ‘Allamah Ayatollah Tabataba’i went to the noble city of Najaf to continue his education. There, for ten years, he attended the lessons of Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Na’ini, Ayatollah Muhammad Husayn Gharawi Isfahani, Ayatollah Sayyid Husayn Badkubah’i, and Ayatollah Sayyid Abu al-Hasan Isfahani. After achieving the status of ijtihad in year 1354 (1935), he returned to Tabriz and taught there for ten years, and in 1365 (1946) he immigrated to and settled in the splendid city of Qum.

15. [Translator’s note. A mujtahid is one who has the competence to methodologically extract and interpret shariah rulings from the Qur’an and the Islamic Tradition, and can prove the validity of those extractions.]

16. [Translator’s note. Ayatollah Sayyid ‘Ali Qadi’s father was Sayyid Husayn Qadi, as mentioned above. However his name has been reported as Sayyid Hasan by mistake in Risalah-yi Lubb al-Lubab: 72 and in Kernel of the Kernel: 57, 70.]

17. [Translator’s note. Muraqabah is explained in detail in Risalah-yi Lubb al-Lubab: 112-3, 144-5 and in Kernel of the Kernel: 92, 228. In a nutshell, muraqabah means to have a close and constant watch on one’s actions, see one’s self in presence of Allah, and try to feel Allah’s presence, as if one is seeing Him (by the heart).]

18. The late Shaykh Ansari had willed that Sayyid ‘Ali Shushtari perform his funeral prayer, and so he did. After the Shaykh’s death, the late Shushtari took over the Shaykh’s lectures and resumed the lessons right from where the Shaykh had stopped. He had taught for six months when he passed away.

19. From the end of spring through the summer, the stores in Najaf used to close at noon due to the high temperature.

20. Ayatollah Sadr al-Din Ha’iri Shirazi told me: ‘My brother-in-law told me that ‘Allamah said that in childhood, his mind was not sharp at all, and he could not comprehend his instructor’s teachings. ‘Until finally,’ ‘Allamah said, ‘I performed a prostration in the empty lands outside of town and pleaded with Allah to give me either death or comprehension.’
I wanted to confirm it with ‘Allamah. So I was looking for a proper occasion to ask him, without insulting him or being disrespectful, as it involved the idea of lack of comprehension. After a while, ‘Allamah and his son-in-law came to Shiraz. There I got to be alone with ‘Allamah when his son-in-law was praying in another room. I set the grounds gently by saying, ‘If I ask you a question, would you mind answering it?’ He replied, ‘What harm would it do? If I know it I will answer.’ So I said, ‘It is about you. So if you surely know that you will answer, then I will ask, otherwise I withhold my question.’ He said, ‘Please [go on]! If I know it, I will answer.’ I said, ‘It has been said that in childhood, you could not comprehend the lessons. Then you performed a prostration and [since then] Allah has favoured you with such a grace that you achieve the solution to the most difficult questions. Is that so?’ The instant I said these words, ‘Allamah blushed, to the extent that I somewhat regretted having asked that question. Then he said, ‘When I was studying Suyuti in Tabriz [i.e. Suyuti’s al-Bahjat al-Mardiyyah fi Sharh al-Alfiyyah], our teacher used to test us, but I could not pull off one of the tests. So he told me, “You have wasted both your and my time!” I was really disturbed by his remark, as it got into my soul and spirit. Finally I could not stay in the city anymore, so I went outside Tabriz and did something on the top of the hills, and then Allah graced me.’ But he did not mention what he did. I asked, ‘Was it that no problem remained unsolved for you after that, and every question was resolved no matter how difficult it was?’ He said, ‘So far it has been so.’

21. [Translator’s note. ‘Ashura’ refers to the tenth day of the first month of the Islamic lunar Calendar, Muharram. It is the date when Imam Husayn was martyred in year 61 AH (Tuesday, 9 October 680).]

22. [Translator’s note. The attribution of Tafsir al-Musaffa to him is not certain. See Tafsir al-Asfa (Qum, 1997), 1:13.]

23. [Translator’s note. See Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi, al-Hikmat al-Muta’aliyah fi al-Asfar al-’Aqliyyah al-Arba’ah (Beirut: Dar Ihya al- Turath al-al-’Arabi, 1981), vol. 3, part 2 (vol. 7 of 9): 244ff. for imkan al-ashraf; vol. 1, part 3 (vol. 3 of 9): 321ff. for the unity of the knower and the known; vol. 1, part 3 (vol. 3 of 9): 93ff. for transubstantial motion; vol. 1, part 3 (vol. 3 of 9): 244ff. for al-huduth al-zamani. And for basit al-haqiqah kull al-ashya’ see vol. 3, part 1 (vol. 6 of 9): 110ff. and al-Shawahid al-Rububiyyah, ed. S.J. Ashtiyani (Mashhad, 1967): 47- 8.]

24. One singularity of Mulla Sadra’s philosophy is the idea of absolute unity (wahdat bi al-sirafah) of Sacred Essence of the Truth (al-Haqq; God). Another one is that the cause has presential and immediate knowledge (al-’ilm al-huduri) to its effect. This is while in Shifa’, Ibn Sina explicitly advocates that God’s unity is numerical. He also considers God’s knowledge to the existents to be acquired knowledge (al-’ilm al-husuli). Mulla Sadra has disproved Ibn Sina’s arguments on these two subjects, and these two are indeed among the crucial subjects in religious beliefs. See Ilahiyyat al-Shifa’ (Qum, 1404/1984): 349; al-Asfar, vol. 3, part 1 (vol. 6 of 9): 12ff. and 189ff.

25. [Translator’s note. ‘The late ‘Allamah Tabataba’i...once made a study of the number of philosophical problems dealt with by early and later Islamic philosophers. He once told us that, according to his study, there were over two hundred philosophical issues treated by the early Islamic philosophers and over six hundred by Mulla Sadra and his followers...an expansion which he attributed almost completely to the influence of the metaphysical and philosophical utterances of the Shi’ite Imams which became of ever greater concern to many Islamic philosophers, both Shi’ite and Sunni, from the time of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi onwards.’ S.H. Nasr, ‘The Qur’an and Hadith as source and inspiration of Islamic philosophy’ in, ed. S.H. Nasr and O. Leaman (London: Routledge, 2001): 39.]

26. [Translator’s note. Gradation of being is the doctrine that views the existence of all existents as a single reality. Their differences arise due to possessing different degrees of existence; much like light, which is one reality, yet there are different intensities of that single reality. See Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion about the philosophers’ gradation of being and the gnostics’ unity of being.]

27. [Translator’s note. See Bidayat al-Hikmah (Qum: Mu’assasat al-Nashr al-Islami, 1418/1998), trans. and annotated by Sayyid ‘Ali Quli Qara’i: The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics (London: ICAS Press, 2003); and Nihayat al-Hikmah (Qum: Mu’assasat al-Nashr al-Islami, 1417/1996).]

28. [Translator’s note. This statement, most widely narrated as hasbuna kitab Allah, is the claim made by the second Caliph when the Messenger of Allah asked for pen and paper in his deathbed in order to write (i.e. dictate) for the Muslims some advice so that they would never go astray. This argument was later used to deny the need for a God-selected leader after the death of the Honourable Prophet. See Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Istanbul: Dar al-Taba’ah al-’Amirah, 1981), 7:9 (Kitab al-Marda); Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad (Beirut, 1978), 1:336; Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Beirut, 1376/1958), 2:241-4.]

29. [Translator’s note. ‘Al-haqiqah’ means both truth and reality. It is related to God Himself, one of Whose names is al-Haqq or the Truth, and is that Whose discovery is the goal of Islamic philosophy.’ S.H. Nasr, ‘The Qur’an and Hadith as source and inspiration of Islamic
philosophy’ in History of Islamic Philosophy, ed. S.H. Nasr and O. Leaman (London: Routledge, 2001): 29.]

30. Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, Nihayat al-Hikmah (Qum, 1417/1996): 73.

31. Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 185. [Translator’s note. The sermon numbers of Nahj al-Balaghah corresponds to the Subhi Salih edition, which is the most common way of numbering the sermons. The author used Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abduh’s commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah, the recent editions of which also follow the Subhi Salih numbering (4 vols. in one; Beirut, 2008).]

32. [Translator’s note. See Chapter 4: Philosophical Discourses.]

33. The sermon is reported with its chain of transmission up to the Imam in Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Tawhid (Qum, 1387/1967): 308. [Translator’s note. For a summary of this sermon see Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 179.]

34. Ahmad ibn ‘Ali Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj (Najaf, 1386/1966), 1:299.

35. Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (2nd ed., Beirut: Mu’assasat al-A’lami, 1970), 6:86-104, in exegesis of verse 5:73.

36. ‘Islamic Philosophers of 1000 AH’ refers to Sadr al-Muta’allihin (Mulla Sadra), who advocated the absolute unity of God’s Essence. He was born about 979 (1572) in Shiraz.

37. Our revered teacher, ‘Allamah once said: ‘When we were exploring and investigating about Imamate in traditions (ahadith), we came across twenty-five traditions in Bihar al-Anwar, reported from the credible and prominent books of the Sunnis. But then all we searched in their manuscripts and published books, we could not find those traditions. We even looked over a book from eight hundred years ago page by page, but not even one of those twenty-five narrations were there. The Sunnis have removed and dropped many traditions from their books.’ Certainly had the series of Bihar al-Anwar been published with ‘Allamah’s annotations, these and other traditions would have been discussed as they came up, and also many other problems would have been solved. The cessation of his annotations was no doubt a great damage and crime against this Shi’a encyclopaedia in its new edition.

38. [Translator’s note. An immaterial intellect (al-’aql al-mujarrad) is a being that is free of matter both in its essence and its actions, just like the angels.]

39. [Translator’s note. A ‘recurrent’ or ‘repeatedly reported’ (mutawatir) tradition is one that has been transmitted by so many individuals that its credibility cannot be doubted. Ahad traditions (sing. wahid) are traditions that connect to the Imam through a single individual. If that individual is proved to be truthful, the narration will have conjectural credibility in extracting the shariah. However, on the subject of beliefs, the conjectural credibility is not sufficient; rather its credibility should become certain by other signs and pieces of evidence (qara’in).]

40. [Translator’s note. ‘Multiple’ (mustafidah) traditions are the traditions that are reported by more than three transmitters, though they are not mutawatir.]

41. [Translator’s note. Ijtihad literally means effort; but is specifically used in jurisprudence as making the utmost effort (based on the available resources) to extract and infer Islamic laws (the shariah). It is also defined as the competence and ability to extract and infer the law of the shariah, in any situation including the new ones. See M. Husayni Dashti, Ma’Árif wa Ma’Árif (Tehran, 2000), under ijtihad; W. Hallaq (1984) ‘Was the Gate of ijtihad Closed?’ International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-41.]

42. [Translator’s note. See Usul-i Falsafah va Ravish-i Ri’alism, 5 vols. (Qum: Sadra, 1989-).]

43. [Translator’s note. The first six (out of twenty) volumes of al-Mizan were translated into English by the late Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi and published by WOFIS (Tehran, 1983-2002). See: . The complete English translation is also forthcoming.]

44. ‘[This is] the Book of Allah by which you see, and by which you speak, and by which you hear. Some parts of it speak of [and elucidate] some other parts, and some parts of it bear witness to [and confirm] some other parts. It is consistent on [what it says about] Allah, and does not divert its follower from [the path of] Allah’ (Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 133).

45. After the publication [of the first edition] of this book (Mihr-i Taban), Sayyid Murtada Sadr, a descendant of the late Sayyid Hasan Sadr, told me, ‘It would have been great had you written this memorial, Mihr-i Taban, in Arabic.’ I, the nondescript author said, ‘This memorial is to inform the Persian-speakers about him, for they are the ones who have heard of him and are more or less in contact with his thoughts; and his homeland and place of residence were Persian-speaking cities.’ Mr. Sadr said, ‘That is not so. ‘Allamah is more famous in the Arab world than in Iran. Particularly in Egypt and Lebanon, there is no scholar or academic that does not admire him or refer to al-Mizan. Most academics in the universities and the seminaries have al-Mizan and revere ‘Allamah’s thoughts.’
‘In that case,’ I replied, ‘Mihr-i Taban should be translated into Arabic for them.’ [Translator’s note. The Arabic translation was done by A. Nur al-Din and A. Mubarak, titled al-Shams al-Sati’ah (Beirut: Dar al-Mahajjat al-Bayda’, 1997); available at .]

46. [Translator’s note. Also published separately as al-Rasa’il al-Tawhidiyyah (Qum: Mu’assasat al-Nashr al-Islami, 1415/1994) and al-Insan (Beirut: Dar al-Adwa’, 1989).]

47. [Translator’s note. See Risalat al-Wilayah (Kuwait: Maktabat al-Faqih, 1987), translated into English by F. Amjad and M. Dasht Bozorgi as The Return to Being: A Translation of Risalat al-Walayah (London: ICAS Press, 2010).]

48. [Translator’s note. See Shi’ah dar Islam (Qum: Daftar-i-Tablighat-i-Islami, 1969), translated into English by S.H. Nasr as Shi’ite Islam (Albany: SUNY, 1979); Qur’an dar Islam (Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, 1971), translated into English by A. Yate as The Qur’an in Islam: its impact and influence on the life of Muslims (London: Zahra Publications, 1987) and by A. Pazargadi (Tehran: Islamic Propagation Organization, 1984); Vahy ya Shu’ur-i Marmuz? (Qum: Dar al-Fikr, 198?).]

49. Number 821 (24 Aban 1361) of the journal Javanan-i Imruz is dedicated to the death anniversary of ‘Allamah Tabataba’i. In an interview (p. 52), ‘Allamah’s eldest son, Sayyid ‘Abd al-Baqi, narrates the following account from the late ‘Allamah about Henri Corbin: ‘One day, while we had not asked any question from my father, he turned to us and said with a particular glee and enthusiasm, “This Professor Corbin has embraced Islam, but is embarrassed to declare it!” A few days later, Professor Corbin gave a controversial lecture and a fervent speech in a foreign country about the Imam of the Time (Imam al-Zaman), may the Supreme Allah hasten his appearance. There he said, “I was almost going to lose my academic position, and be dismissed by the Church, for my discussions on Islam and for pursuing these ideas.” When my father was informed of this, he was very delighted and said, “Did I not say that this Professor Corbin believes in Islam, but does not dare to declare it explicitly?”’

50. Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Khisal, (Qum, 1983): 293.

51. [Translator’s note. What is meant by worship and prayer here is particularly prescribed rituals, not the general sense of calling God and having connection with Him.]

52. Kitab-i Shi’ah (‘The Shi’a Book’) consists of ‘Allamah’s interviews with Corbin in 1338 AH solar (1959), and the book Risalat-i Tashayyu’ dar Dunya-yi Imruz consists of their interviews in years 1339 and 1340 AH solar (1960-61).

53. See Sunan al-Nabi (Qum: Mu’assasat al-Nashr al-Islami, 1419/1998), translated into English by T.R. Jaffer (Kitchener: IPH, 2007).

54. [Translator’s note. Bustan-i Kitab-i Qum has published the series of ‘Allamah’s works (2007ff.). Also see Maktab-i Tashayyu’ (Qum: Dar al-’Ilm, 1960); Risalat-i Tashayyu’ dar Dunya-yi Imruz (Tehran: Daftar-i Nashr-i Farhang-i Islami, 1991); Islam va Insan-i Mu’asir
(Qum: Risalat, 1977); ‘Ali wa al-Falsafat al-Ilahiyyah (Beirut: Dar al- Islamiyyah, 1980); Hashiyat al-Kifayah (Qum: Bunyad-i ‘Ilmi va Fikri- yi ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, 1947-8); Burhan (Qum: Daftar-i Tablighat-i Islami, 1992).]

55. See J.A. Ha’iri, Balaghat al-Imam ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn (Qum, 1425/2004): 234.

56. Part of an epic about Imam ‘Ali by Safi al-Din al-Hilli, a student of Muhaqqiq al-Hilli. Shaykh ‘Abbas Qummi, Safinat al-Bihar (Tehran, 1970), 1:437.

57. [Translator’s note. Tasawwuf (Sufism) and ‘irfan (mysticism, gnosis) both refer to the esoteric aspects of Islam – both theoretical and practical. The difference is a matter of terminology more than anything else. ‘It has been common among Shi’ite religious scholars since the Safavid period to refer to Islamic esotericism more often as ‘irfan than as tasawwuf. This is due to historical reasons connected with the fact that the Safavids were at first a Sufi order and later gained political power, with the result that many wordly men sought to put on the garb of Sufism in order to gain political or social power, therefore discrediting Sufism in the eyes of the devout.’ S.H. Nasr’s note on Shi’ite Islam (Karachi, 1975): 120.]

58. [Translator’s note. ‘Allamah has extensively discussed the theoretical and practical dimensions of gnosis of the soul in al-Mizan, vol. 6, under verse 5:105. Elsewhere he mentions that, upon hearing this verse, one who ‘has no intention but to remember God and forget all else...understands that the sole royal path which will guide him fully and completely is the path of “self-realisation”. His true guide who is God Himself obliges him to know himself, to leave behind all other ways and to seek the path of self-knowledge, to see God through the window of his soul, gaining in this way the real object of his search. That is why the Prophet has said, “He who knows himself verily knows the Lord.” And also he has said, “Those among you know God better who know themselves better.”’ Shi’ite Islam (Karachi, 1975): 116-17; trans. S.H. Nasr.]

59. There are countless hadiths about the necessity to observe these five. Here we only mention one hadith from Misbah al-Shari’ah (section 28). Imam Sadiq said: ‘There is no [real] comfort for a believer except upon the Vision (liqa’) of Allah, Supreme is He. But other than that, it [comfort in this world] is in four things: in a silence by which you discern the state of your heart and soul concerning your relation with your Creator; in a solitude whereby you save yourself from the visible and invisible harms of the world; in a hunger by which you kill the appetites and temptations [of the base soul and Satan]; and in little sleep by which you illuminate your heart, purify your nature, and refine your spirit.’ The hadith mentions the four principles other than constant attention (dhikr); and obviously constant attention is also a key principle.

60. Khwansari, Rawdat al-Jannat, under Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi, (Tehran, 1390-2/1970-2), 6:303.

61. Mulla Mahdi Naraqi was one of the five figures and pillars of Shi’ism who were all named Mahdi and were contemporary to each other. They were known as Mahadi al-Khamsah (‘the Five Mahdis’): Sayyid Mahdi Bahr al-’Ulum, Sayyid Mahdi Qazwini, Mulla Mahdi Naraqi, Mirza Mahdi Shahristani, and Sayyid Mahdi Khurasani Shahid. He was also my great grandfather from the mother’s side.

62. Ayatollah Milani’s son, Sayyid Muhammad ‘Ali, narrated the following account about ‘Allamah’s competence in Persian poetry: ‘One day, I, ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, and two of his son-in-laws were riding in a car from Sabzivar to Mashhad. We decided to do musha’irah [a game of poetry, where one side reads a line of poetry and the opponent has to respond with a line starting with the last letter of the previous one, all out of memory. The game continues until one side cannot answer the opponent’s line]. We three were on one side and ‘Allamah alone was the other side; yet we, all three combined, could not beat him. ‘Allamah would beat us every time, and he would not reply with only one line of poetry, but would mention several lines in support of one another. We were truly amazed by his competence in poetry and literature!’
Astan Quds newspaper (of Mashhad) published some of his poems on Wednesday, 15 Rabi’ al-Thani 1410 AH lunar (24 Aban 1368 AH solar, 14 November 1989) (yr. 2, no. 549). With all regret the paper has considered that day as ‘Allamah’s death anniversary, based on solar- year calculations, even though the Islamic calendar is a lunar one. ‘Allamah’s date of death is 18 Muharram, not 15 Rabi’ al-Thani. [Translator’s note. See S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani, Risalah-yi Navin (Tehran: Sadra, 1406/1986)].

63. [Translator’s note. Najd is the highlands of the Arabian Peninsula.]

64. [Translator’s note. Qays ibn Maluwwah ‘Amiri, known as Majnun, and Layla bint Sa’d are among the legendary symbols of love in the Islamic literature. Majnun became majnun (insane) due to his infatuation for his beloved, Layla. Various writers and poets have adopted their stories and have added their own details. It is not certain whether the two figures ever really existed or not.]

65. One of the wonderful and sensational poems of ‘Allamah is the poem of ‘The Butterfly and the Nightingale’ (‘Parvanah va Bulbul’), which he composed when he was leaving Tabriz [for Qum]:

Since the very day when I was born, A vow of love, my heart has sworn.
Since I began walking as a child, My heart has been heated and wild.
In ocean and land, and village and city, Nowhere did my heart find serenity.
Wherever I settle my luggage to stay, I have to take off my tent the next day.
I’ve not seen the Witness any day or night; I don’t know the taste of pleasure or delight.
The wheel of the cosmos turns against my cheer; From the pull of the draw, my name doesn’t appear.
From the palm and bowl of this world that is old, Tears and blood is the share that I hold.
But I was never a thorn in His way; Never did I make His efforts stray.

My guilt is only that I’m like a sea; Of darkness and evil, my heart is all free.
Last night I thought: how ruined is my heart; That blazed me up, like a flaming hearth.
At last my grief crushed my chest; And my leg of patience lost its rest.
The goblet and glass and candle my hand, I exited the room, which I couldn’t stand.

I escaped from home at the midnight hour; By dawn I was at the garden of flower.
The time of spring, and a moonlit night; A field of flowers, and water on my right.
A fete full of songs, and every melody; The jasmine, the flower, and the cypress tree.
A flower was placed on every bush and tree; The jasmine was adorned, and that you could see.

The eastern flow of the morning breeze, Biting the flower, and the briar on its knees.
The harp of grass was jasmine’s stance; At the other end, the briar was in dance.
The dazzling flirt of of the meadow’s bride; The screens were removed; nothing to hide.
The songbird of dawn sang like a reed; The secrets of heart were disclosed indeed.

I, the glass, the goblet and the light, Slept in a corner, to be out of sight.
But my heart was fervent, with bubbles and fume; Embracing as it was, a darling of gloom.
My eyes, ears, and lips were shut; By the inside glow my head was hot.
At times, my eyes were opened by laughter, Only to be followed by tears thereafter.

The feat of the other end was totally different; A lamp and a butterfly; both were silent.
Quietly revolving around its dear; In oblivion it is, that mysteries appear.
The two ends of the garden, were in love and thirst: One was in rotation, the other was in burst.
The butterfly’s world was concealed from the crowd; The nightingale’s world was loud and proud.

The nightingale told the silent butterfly: ‘Lo! From your chest, why not make a sigh?
With your burning heart, you deserve to thrive; In front of the beloved, it’s OK to be live.’
It told the songbird, ‘Be quiet, my friend! You’re tied in a trap, and that you should mend.
If an ardent lover, you’ve been so far, So loud and disturbed, tell me why you are?’

It said, ‘The beloved gives me this craze, I’m out of myself, I can’t coin a phrase.’
‘Then tell me, oh my bird, how have you survived? If in this love you’ve always been tied?
The lightning of love, with its strikes, Burns the lover’s name and fame and the like.
Either do think not of your soul-mates and sweetheart; Or forget altogether about your soul and heart.
Either do not talk about the treasure, Or take the hardships, and forget your pleasure.’

The butterfly was done giving that advice, Was burdened by its self, set for sacrifice.
Extinguished it was as it jumped in the flame, Into oblivion, forgotten and tame.

And he has a qasidah (long ode) about renouncing this world (dunya) and having complete attention toward the Supreme Allah, which is mentioned at the end of this book. There is also another fascinating and wonderful poem of his, concerning clinging to Islam, endeavouring to achieve the Cherished Destination, and ignoring the affairs of this world. He composed it upon the decease of the late Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Hujjat Kuh-Kamari. It is truly a fine fascinating poem. See Sharif al-Razi, Ganjinah-yi Danishmandan (The Treasury of the Scholars), under the section about the life of the late Ayatollah Hujjat [Kuh-Kamari], may Allah’s mercy be upon him, (Tehran, 1973), 1:316-17. The complete poem is:

Alas! The sun of guidance departed; Alas! The world of excellence departed.
The king of piety and knowledge departed, Alas, Ayatollah Hujjat departed.
The darkness of the days will ever be scattered? The pillars of Islam – they have shattered.
The sky of wisdom has truly crashed; The world of art is ruined and smashed.

The eye of knowledge started to bleed; Oh, a resurrection appeared indeed.
He freed himself of the world and its pains; And set up his tent, in the higher planes.
That heavenly bird with its divine soul, Left the ugly world, flying for its goal;
It chants a song in gardens of relief, A message for those that are sitting in grief.

A message that’s like Gabriel’s song, The ear of reason hears it along:
O friends, this life does not persist; So get on with deeds, that I shall insist.
Never sit back from working and action; Never complain of the body’s infliction.
The treasure in the ruins is not snakeless; The flowers that you aim are not thornless.

Only Islam is what you should follow; Sweet or bitter, both you should swallow.
Endeavour and move, and tread with heed; Let go of your blood, if there is a need.
Blood is pretty in a battlefield; Tulip is the best flower in the field.
The men who are noble with decency of deed, Have loved and aimed for the Truth indeed.

Their bodies with their blood, coloured in a blend; Thus they have cleared the path to this end.
They’ve cut the straps with their cutting sword; A castle of knowledge, they’ve built for their Lord.
Don’t be enslaved by this world and this place; Don’t let it slow your moving and your pace.
Do not let go of the goal that you chase; Don’t let your name fall into disgrace.

If your heart darkens, and the purity goes, The castle of Islam is destroyed by the foes.
Truth is nothing but Islam and its aim; No name is above its beautiful name.
Virtue are achieved, truly by this path; Without it, the world is truly in wrath.
The castle of Islam, strong it shall be; Its land and borders always be free.

66. The story of this humble being in the Shrine of Imam Rida. I, the lowest being, settled in the sanctified city of Mashhad on 26 Jumada al-Thani 1400 (12 May 1980). Before that, I usually used to go to there during the summer, along with all my family and children. This story is about our visit in the summer of 1393 (1973), when Ayatollah Milani and ‘Allamah Ayatollah Tabataba’i were both living. One day I went to the Shrine two hours before noon. There, I was in a very pleasant [spiritual] state. I, along with some friends, went to Masjid Gawhar-Shad for the noon prayer, and performed it individually. On our way out, we had to go through the doors opening to the bazaar next to the Great Courtyard (sahn-i buzurg). Since the congregational prayers of Masjid Gawhar-Shad had also ended, people were all exiting and the congestion of the crowd had narrowed the way. There, as I was about to exit, I kissed the mosque’s door to the shoe depository.
When I kissed the door, suddenly I heard someone telling me, ‘Sir! What is with kissing the wood?’
I do not know what that sound did to me! It was just like a spark that hits the heart and makes one unconscious. I was out of my own control, ‘Why not kiss it? Why not?! The wood of the Shrine is to be kissed, the shoes of the pilgrims of the Shrine are to be kissed, the dust under the feet of the pilgrims of the Shrine is to be kissed,’ shouting these aloud. And suddenly, I threw myself on the ground, in the middle of the crowd, and started putting the dust and earth on my face. ‘See! This is how it is to be kissed!’ and I kept doing that. Then I got up and set off for home.
‘Sir!’ the speaker said, ‘What did I say? I did not do any insult!’ ‘What else did you want to say?!’ I replied, ‘And what else did you want to do?! This is not wood; it is the wood of the Shrine’s shoe depository. Here is the Shrine of Hadrat ‘Ali ibn Musa al-Rida. Here is where the angels circulate. Here is where the houris, the intimates and the prophets prostrate. Here is the Throne of the All-Merciful,’ and so on and so forth.
He said, ‘Sir! I am a Muslim! I am a Shi’a; I pay khums and zakah [mandatory religious dues]. Just this morning I paid my religious dues to Ayatollah Milani!’
‘Keep your khums for yourself!’ I said. ‘The Imam has no need for your residual money! Keep that as a bounty for yourself. What Imam wants from you is courtesy! Why are you not courteous?! I swear to God, I will not rest until the Day of Resurrection, when I throw you into fire on your face with my own hands!’
At this time, my brother-in-law drew near me and said, ‘I know this man. He is a faithful person and was a devotee of your late father!’
I said, ‘Whoever he may be! Satan ended up in hell for abandoning courtesy!’
Then as I was heading toward the bazaar on my way home, that man came after me saying, ‘Forgive me sir! I adjure you by God, forgive me!’ until we entered the Great Courtyard.
‘Who am I to forgive you?’ I said, ‘I am nobody. You did not insult me. You insulted Imam Rida, and that is not excusable! Our grand scholars – the ‘allamahs, the likes of Shaykh al-Tusi, Khwajah Nasir, Shaykh al-Mufid and Mulla Sadra – all succumb to this sanctuary. Their honour is to genuflect at this Shrine. And [then] you say what is with kissing the wood!?’
He said, ‘I did wrong; I repent! I will not do such wrong again!’ ‘And I feel not a bit of animosity toward you in my heart!’ I replied. ‘If you are really penitent, then the doors of the heavens are open to you!’ and by that time people were drawn toward us from every direction in the Great Courtyard. At that point I went home.

That afternoon, this humble being attended the presence of our noble teacher and master, the late Ayatollah Tabataba’i (with whom may Allah be pleased). We had a precious conversation, where he talked about some ‘flares’ that hit one’s heart and blow up the person, as mentioned in this poem of Hafiz:
The infatuated Majnun lost himself from then on, For a light that flashed from Layla’s house at dawn.
As a result, I recalled that day’s incident and recounted it for him, and asked, ‘Was this also one of those flares?’ He paused for a long time, contemplating with his head down, and did not say anything.
[That aside,] The late Ayatollah Milani used to sit in the parlour of his house one hour before sunset. And ‘Allamah Ayatollah Tabataba’i would either meet him there, after which they would to go to the Holy Shrine for sunset prayer, or he would attend Ayatollah Milani’s congregational prayer, where he would simply sit in one of the lines in the back of the crowd, like an ordinary student.
Approximately two or three days after I narrated my story for our honourable teacher, I encountered an old friend of mine, who told me, ‘Yesterday I went to Ayatollah Milani’s house, where ‘Allamah Tabataba’i was telling a detailed account of one of the scholars of Tehran, who had kissed the door of the shoe depository of Masjid Gawhar-Shad. He was crying from the beginning to the end of the account. Then he joyfully said, “All praise is to Allah, for there are still some scholars who are so attentive toward the religious sites and show respect for the sacred status of the pure Imams.” He did not mention the name of that scholar, but based on the signs, I inferred that it was you. Was that so?’
I said, ‘Yes, the story was mine.’ And thus, since ‘Allamah had recounted the incident while weeping, I realised that his silence and reflection were signs of his satisfaction and approval of my action. May Allah’s extensive mercy be upon him.

67. [Translator’s note. In Shi’a law, Imam’s Share is half of the khums (an obligatory religious duty). The fund should be spent for certain causes including the spreading and promotion of the religion. See M. Husayni Dashti, Ma’Árif wa Ma’Árif (Tehran, 2000), under sahm-i Imam.]

68. Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 193.

69. Ibid.

70. من نه آن رندم كه ترك شاهد و ساغركنم
محتسب داند كه من اين كارها كمتر كنم

71. [Translator’s note. ‘Science’ is the common translation of the word ‘ilm, and both terms are nowadays used almost exclusively for natural and experimental sciences. However, in traditional and religious pieces, science has a wider meaning. It includes both narrative and intellectual forms of knowledge. ‘The word ‘ilm means science in its most universal sense, like the Latin scientia, and applies to the religious as well as intellectual, rational and philosophical forms of knowledge. Generally it is distinguished from ma’rifah or ‘irfan which is Divine knowledge and may be compared to the Latin sapientia.’ S.H. Nasr’s note on Shi’ite Islam (Karachi, 1975): 71.]

72. A Jewish scholar came to Imam ‘Ali and said, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, when did your Lord exist?’
‘May your mother mourn on her child!’ he replied. ‘When ever did He not exist so that one may ask “when did He exist?” My Lord existed before the yore with no precedence, and will exist after the forthcoming without anything after Him. He has no ending or finish; all ends fall short of Him, so He is the End of every end.’
That person asked ‘So are you a prophet, O Commander of the Faithful?’
‘Pity for you!’ he replied, ‘I am only a servant among Muhammad’s servants (peace and mercy be upon him and his family).’
Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Tawhid (Qum, 1416/1885): 174, narrating with its chain of transmission, from Abu al- Hasan al-Musili, from Imam Sadiq.
At the end of his commentary on Nahj al-Balaghah, Ibn Abi al-Hadid presents a thousand sayings from the Commander of the Faithful. Number 57 is: ‘As the fathers are means for [giving] life, the teachers of wisdom and religion are indeed the means of its [life’s] betterment.’ (Cairo, 1959-64), 20:261.

73. A hadith is reported from the Noble Messenger that ‘Whoever teaches something to anyone becomes his owner.’ Then he was asked, ‘So can he sell that person?’ He said, ‘No, but he orders and forbids him.’ Shaykh ‘Abbas al-Qummi, Safinat al-Bihar (Tehran, 1970), 2:225, from Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut, 1983), 105:16.

74. ‘The Divan Attributed to the Commander of the Faithful’ (‘Diwan-i Mansub bih Amir al-Mu’minin’). See Maybudi Yazdi’s Sharh on the Diwan (Tehran, 2000): 2.

75. Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul) (3rd ed., Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah, 1388/1968), 1:26; from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, from an unmentioned line of transmitters (marfu’).

76. Ibid.: 25; from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, with incomplete line of transmission (mursal).

77. Ibid.: 25.

78. Ibid., 2:13.

79. Ibid.: 15.

80. Ibid.: 15.

81. [Translator’s note. Malakut, jabarut, and lahut are three stages of the simple reality of being (wujud), which extends from God’s Essence at the infinite degree of being to the weakest beings. In theoretical mysticism (‘irfan), malakut is the realm of the angels (the imaginal world), jabarut is the realm of the immaterial intellects, and lahut is the realm of manifestation of God’s names (asma’).]

82. Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul), 1:16; from Hisham ibn Hakam, from an unmentioned line of transition (marfu’).

83. Ibid.: 27; from Muhammad ibn Yahya (marfu’).

84. Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 215. Part of a supplication for permission of entrance (idhn al-dukhul) to the sanctified cellar (sardab) of Imam al-Zaman and the shrines of the other Imams is: ‘Glorified art Thee, so Kind Thou art, and there is no deity but Thee. Such a Just King Thou art; such that Thy creation conformeth to how Thou created the intellects, and Thy decree [i.e. shariah] agreeth with what Thou placed in the intellect and the narration.’ (‘Allamah Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 99:116)

85. ‘Allamah Bahr al-’Ulum, Risalah-yi Sayr wa Suluk: 168-9.

86. There is a similar tradition by Imam ‘Ali: ‘Of the people of the world, two parties break my back: a man who is knowledgeable in speech but wrongdoer in action, and a man who has an ignorant heart but is a worshiper. The former disguises his wrongdoing by his tongue, and the latter disguises his ignorance with his worships. So fear and refrain from the wrongdoers among the scholars, and the ignorant among the worshipers; they are the deception of the deceived. I heard the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him and his family – saying, ‘O ‘Ali, the fatality of my nation rests in the hands of a (or every) hypocrite who is erudite in speech.’ (Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi [Shaykh al-Saduq], al-Khisal [Qum, 1983]: 69).
In another report he said: ‘The impudent scholar and the ignorant worshipper break my back. The ignorant deceives the people with his worshiping, and the scholar misleads them with his impudence.’ (Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 2:111)
And it is reported from Imam Sadiq that: ‘Two parties break my back: the offending scholar and the ignorant worshipper. One averts people from his knowledge by his wrongdoing, and one averts people from his worship by his ignorance.’ (Ibid., 1:208)

87. Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 222.

88. [Translator’s note. ‘Allamah remarried after the death of his first wife.]

89. ‘Allamah’s burial ceremony was postponed until the next day in order to allow people of eminence and piety from other cities to attend. His body was accompanied and followed by all classes of people and thousands of students (tullab) who were in deep grief and sombreness. The body was brought it to the holy courtyard of Hadrat Ma’sumah, two hours before noon on the nineteenth of Muharram. The Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Rida Gulpayigani performed his funeral prayer. ‘Allamah is buried in the upper side of Hadrat Ma’sumah’s holy tomb, near the tomb of the late Ayatollah Ha’iri Yazdi. It was the will of the Supreme Deity that ‘Allamah was buried right next to the tomb of my father, Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq Tihrani.
‘Allamah’s gravestone was placed seven years after his death. It reads:

‘Surely we belong to Allah and to Him we return.’ A garden of the gardens of paradise: ‘Enter in peace and security.’
The Pride of Islam and the Muslims, the ascender to the acmes of Qur’anic truths, the founder of spreading the principles of divine teachings in the Imamite Theological School of Qum, the author of the grand exegesis, al-Mizan, the ascender to the paradise of God’s Essence: ‘Allamah al-Hajj al-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn al-Tabataba’i, may his soul be sanctified. He departed to the abode of grace and bliss, while he accepted the call of ‘O thee, the reassured soul, return to thy Lord, well-pleased, well-pleasing’ on the morning of eighteenth of Muharram 1402 AH. May he be resurrected with those whom Allah has blessed.

And his fine image is placed above his head, beneath which a sentence from him is written: ‘Shi’ism is the reality of following the tradition (sunnah) of the Messenger of God, which manifests in guardianship (wilayah).’ [Note: ‘Allamah’s picture was removed from his grave later on.]

PART 2

Introduction to Part Two

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

Sessions with our late teacher were always full of blessings and benefits. I, this humble being, always appreciated the value of these meetings, and have thus recorded them. I particularly benefited from meeting with ‘Allamah during the four months he was residing in Tehran,1 and have recorded the questions he was asked and his answers. I present some of these questions and answers here so that everyone can benefit from them.

In God’s hands is the bridle of every affair, and from Him I seek assistance. There is no movement and no power save by Allah, the All-Supreme, the All-Magnificent.

‘ALLAMAH. The Honourable Messenger of Allah had an immense intimacy with the Noble Qur’an, such that when someone recited a verse, he would respond by reciting the following verse.

The Prophet was also the source of mercy and compassion. On one occasion, the Prophet had issued a death sentence to someone for committing a crime. That person resorted to Imam ‘Ali and asked, ‘O ‘Ali! What should I do so that the Honourable Messenger of Allah pardons me?’

Imam ‘Ali instructed him to go to the Prophet and recite this verse:

...By Allah, verily Allah hath preferred thee above us, and we have certainly been wrongdoers. (12:91)

Joseph’s brothers said these words when they recognised Joseph, whereby they asked for pardon with embarrassment. That man did the same, and the Messenger of Allah immediately recited the next verse:

...No blame is on you today! May Allah forgive you, for He is the most Merciful of the merciful. (12:92)

This was Joseph’s response to his brothers, whereby he announced their pardon. Thus, this verse became the verdict of that man’s pardon.2

1. That was from Safar to Jumada al-Ula 1400 (or December 1979 to March 1980).

2. See Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut, 1983), 22:259; Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (Beirut, 1965), 2:243.

3. Qur’anic Discourses

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

‘He frowned and turned away * Because the blind man came to him.’

STUDENT. Some Sunni exegeses consider the Messenger of Allah to be the subject of these verses:

He frowned and turned away * Because the blind man came to him. (80:1-2)

And so the subsequent verses would also be about him:

And thou knowest not, perchance he would purify [his soul] * Or take heed, and the reminder benefit him. As with one who thinketh himself self-sufficient * Thou turnest thy attention to him * And it is not thy concern if he doth not purify [his soul] * But as with one who rusheth toward thee * While he fears [Allah] * Thou art distracted from him. (80:3-10)

If so, these verses would rebuke the Messenger of Allah for frowning and turning away.1

‘ALLAMAH. That is not so. First of all, many such rebukes in the Noble Qur’an appear to be directed at the Messenger of Allah while he clearly did not do the reprimanded action. For example, consider these two verses:

And when thou seest those who [insolently] plunge into Our signs [and verses], turn away from them until they engage in some other talk; and if Satan causes you to forget, then sit not with the party of offenders once thou rememberest. (6:68)

And He hath already sent unto you in the scripture that when you hear the signs [and verses] of Allah being repudiated and derided, sit not with them until they engage in some other talk; you would otherwise be just like them! Truly Allah will gather all hypocrites and disbelievers in hell. (4:140)

If we compare and match the two verses, it becomes evident that the second verse refers to the command in the first verse. On one hand, it addresses the believers, and on the other hand, it refers to the revelation of the first verse. Thus it is deduced that the first verse is also addressed to the believers, even though it is apparently addressed to a single audience (the Noble Messenger).

And these instructions for the people were aimed at the Messenger of Allah because he was responsible for reaching out to the entire community. This is a form of literary elegance (fasahah) and eloquence (balaghah), and is also quite common in everyday language. Many times the sultan addresses the vizier while the address applies to the common people.

... And We have sent down to thee the Remembrance [the Qur’an], that thou mayst make clear to mankind what hath been sent down to them, and that haply they may reflect. (16:44)

Here, the Messenger of Allah is the channel for delivering these commands which have been decreed for all people.

Verses of Chapter 74 (al-Muddaththir) about Walid ibn Mughirah

‘ALLAMAH. The person really meant in these two verses, the one who repudiated and derided the signs and verses of Allah, was Walid ibn Mughirah.2 Allah relates his account in Chapter 74:

Leave me with him whom I created alone * And provided him with abundant wealth * And children that are in his presence * And I arranged for everything for him * Then he desireth that I do more [for him] * Never! For indeed he was obstinately inimical to Our verses * I will constrain him to a severe ascent * He contemplated and reckoned * So be he killed; how he reckoned! * Again be he killed; how he reckoned! * Then he reflected * Then he frowned and scowled * Then he turned away arrogantly * And claimed, ‘This [Qur’an] is nothing but a sorcery from the yore * This is nothing but the word of mankind’ * I will soon enter him into [and burn him in] saqar * And thou knowest not what saqar is * [Such fire that] it doth not spare [anyone] and doth not leave out [any limb] * It transforms the skin’s colour * Nineteen [guarding angels] are at it. (74:11-30)

So Walid made these blasphemous statements and called the Qur’an ‘a powerful sorcery’.

Walid, Abu Jahl, and their friends used to get together and scoff at the Qur’an. When the verse, ‘Nineteen [guarding angels] are at it’ was revealed, Abu Jahl contemptuously told a party of the Quraysh, ‘May your mothers mourn your deaths! I have heard from Ibn Abi Kabshah [referring to the Messenger of Allah] that there are nineteen guards assigned to hell. But there is a whole crowd of you! Are there not ten of you, only ten, who can attack the guards of hell, knock them down and tightly capture them, and thus liberate this hell that Muhammad describes from these nineteen guards?’ Abu al-Asad ibn Usayd ibn Kaldah Jumahi3 replied, ‘Since I am a brave man and a robust hero, I can alone take on seventeen of them; you guys cover the other two!’

So the above verses are about the derision and disbelief of those like Walid and his companions. The believers are told not to sit with such offenders or listen to their blasphemies.

The second reason why ‘He frowned and turned away’ does not refer to the Messenger of Allah

‘ALLAMAH. A few verses later, Allah says:

May man be killed; how ungrateful he is! * From what did He create him? * He created him from a sperm-drop and then proportioned him * Then made the path easy for him * Then He maketh him die and burieth him [in a grave] * Then, when He wills, He will resurrect him * No way; he hath not accomplished what He ordered him. (80:17-23)

All Shi’a and Sunni exegetes concur that this curse of Allah is apparently upon the person who frowned and turned away; this is evident from the trend of the verses.

Given how the Qur’an addresses him elsewhere, such words could not be aimed at the Messenger of Allah. Therefore, the Sunni exegetes who presumed the first verse was about the Messenger of Allah had to give up the apparent sense that these verses are connected. They claimed that these verses were revealed on a different occasion and were two independent parts which were later joined together.

Such a claim denies the eloquence and uniformity of the Qur’an, and it is only a result of claiming that the verse ‘He frowned and turned away’ refers to the Messenger of Allah.

Thirdly, everyone, whether Shi’a or Sunni, agrees that Chapter 68 (al-Qalam) is one of the ‘ancient chapters’ (al-suwar al-’ata’iq), the first chapters to be revealed in Mecca. In particular, Chapter 68 was revealed at the beginning of the prophethood, after the revelation of Chapters 96 (al-‘Alaq), 74 (al-Muddaththir) and 73 (al-Muzzammil). There, Allah praises and describes His Messenger:

And indeed thou art of a magnificent character. (68:4)

If the Messenger of Allah was such at the beginning of his prophethood, he should only have risen to higher stages of excellence. So how could he do such an act? How could he frown and turn aside only because he saw a blind but self-restrained believer in order to attract the heads of Quraysh to Islam, and appeal to the hearts of the self-indulgent and haughty people among the Arabs? Not only is such conduct not typical of the Prophet of Islam, but it is also not typical of the rest of Allah’s prophets and friends. In fact, no devoted, self-restrained, and vigilant believer would behave like that.

From what I know, the subject of ‘He frowned and turned away’ was ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, who turned his face away when the blind Ibn Umm Maktum approached the Messenger of Allah. Narrations also confirm this, as it has been narrated that he was ‘a man from the Umayyads (Bani Umayyah).’4

Tiwal (‘lengthy’), mi’in (‘hundreds’), and mufassal (‘extended’) chapters

STUDENT. There is a tradition from the Messenger of Allah:

I have been given the tiwal (‘lengthy’) chapters in place of the Torah, the mi’in (‘hundreds’) chapters in place of the Gospel, and the mathani (‘repeated’) chapters in place of the Psalms. And I have been favoured above them by the sixty eight mufassal (‘extended’) chapters. That [the Noble Qur’an] encompasses the other books [of the previous prophets].5

In this narration, what is meant by the tiwal, mi’in, mathani, and mufassal chapters?

‘ALLAMAH. Tiwal chapters refer to the seven long chapters at the beginning of the Qur’an. They are Chapters 2-7 and Chapter 10. However, when collecting and putting the Qur’an together, ‘Uthman positioned Chapters 8 and 9 (al-Anfal and al-Tawbah) before Chapter 10 (Yunus). That was because he considered Chapter 9 to be a continuation of Chapter 8, and not an independent chapter, since it does not start with ‘In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate’. Since he took them as one chapter, they were counted among the tiwal (‘lengthy’) chapters. And he had no answer when the objection was put forth that the Messenger of Allah had placed Chapter 10 (Yunus) after Chapter 7 (al-A’raf) and had considered it among the tiwal chapters. He only said, ‘I was not aware of that arrangement of the Messenger of Allah.’6

Then the mi’in chapters are those that contain approximately a hundred verses. The Qur’an is conventionally categorised into three parts: the tiwal (‘lengthy’) chapters, the mi’in (‘hundreds’) chapters, and the mufassal (‘extended’) chapters. The chapters from Chapter 78 (al-Naba’) to the end of the Qur’an are also called the qisar (‘short’) chapters.

Mutashabih (analogous) and mathani (repeated)

‘ALLAMAH . As with mathani (double, repeated), to the best of my knowledge, it is not the name of any particular group of the chapters of the Qur’an. The root of the term (thana, yathni ) means to bend and fold. Since many verses of the Qur’an relate to the other verses, it is as if those verses have appeared twice: once in the verse itself, and once through its implication in the other verse. And the other verse also comes up twice: once by itself, and once through the other verse to which it relates and which it explains. Since the verses of the Qur’an relate to one another, the whole Qur’an may be called mathani (repeated).

Allah hath revealed the best speech, a Scripture that is analogous and repeated [in verses]; by which the skins of those who fear their Lord shiver, then their skins and hearts soften by [or for] the remembrance of Allah. That is Allah’s guidance by which He guideth whom He wills; and whomever Allah misguideth, for him there is no guide. (39:23)

In this verse, the term mathani refers to the whole revealed book which is the best speech.7

And the term mutashabih (analogous) in this verse means that some parts of the Qur’an are similar to some other parts, and they all have a common basis. This meaning of mutashabih is different from mutashabih as ambiguous, which is the opposite of muhkam (solid, clear). The latter is referred to in:

He it is Who hath sent down upon thee the Scripture; wherein are solid verses – those are the substance of the Book – and others [that are] ambiguous.... (3:7)

Here, muhkam is that which is clear and apparent in meaning, while mutashabih is not. Thus mutashabih in this verse refers to those verses that require interpretation and commentary.

Chapters with disjointed (muqatta’ah) letters

STUDENT. Some chapters of the Qur’an start with disjointed (muqatta’ah) letters such as alif-lam-mim, ha-mim, and so on. Has the real meaning of these letters been identified so far, so that one could be certain in translating and interpreting them?

‘ALLAMAH. Generally speaking, these letters are connected with the contents of the chapter. Hence, chapters with the same disjointed letters at their beginning discuss topics of a similar nature.

Six chapters of the Noble Qur’an start with alif-lam-mim. They are Chapters 2 and 3, which follow one another, and Chapters 29 to 32, which are also grouped together.

Seven chapters start with ha-mim and are known as ‘hawamim’. They are Chapters 40-46. As with the alif-lam mim chapters, these chapters are also similar in topic and are in sequence.

Then there are the five ‘glorification chapters’ (musabbihat), which begin with ‘glorifies’ (yusabbihu) and ‘glorified’ (sabbaha). They are: Chapter 57, 59, 61, 62, and 64. Although Chapter 87 (al-A’la) also starts with ‘glorify’ (sabbih, in imperative form), it is not considered one of the ‘glorification chapters’. It is included among them in one narration, but a more reliable narration identifies the ‘glorification chapters’ as the five chapters mentioned above.

It is narrated that the Messenger of Allah used to recite these five chapters every night before going to sleep. When asked why, he replied: ‘There is a verse in each of these chapters that is equivalent to a thousand verses of the Qur’an.’ And according to another narration, whoever recites the musabbihat at night before sleeping will see the Honourable Messenger before death, and he will show him his place and station in paradise.8

Chapters 10 to 15 start with alif-lam-ra. These six chapters are also consecutive and have a similar tone and style:

And there are three chapters that begin with ta-sin. These chapters too are in sequence and similar in tone. They are Chapters 26 to 28.

Chapter 7 (al-A’raf) starts with alif-lam-mim-sad, and incorporates the tone and style of both the alif-lam-mim chapters and Chapter 38 (Sad), showing that, as we said, the disjointed letters at the beginning of the chapters of the Qur’an are brief, hidden allusions to all of the topics revealed in that chapter. Thus the alif-lam-mim at the beginning of Chapter 7 (al-A’raf) indicates its similarity with the alif-lam-mim chapters, and the sad indicates that it shares the tone and style of Chapter Sad.

Chapter 19 (Maryam) stats with kaf-ha-ya-’ayn-sad, and has its own special tone and style. Chapter 50 (Qaf) has a particular form, and that form and mode is distinct in all of the Qur’an, as do Chapters 20 (Ta-Ha) and 36 (Ya-Sin). However, many have considered ‘Ta-Ha’ as a single word and one of the names of the Messenger of Allah. The same has been said about ‘Yasin’; this is verified by the verse:

Peace be upon il-Yasin [Elias] (37:130)

where il is an abbreviation for āl (‘family’, so il-Yasin would mean ‘Yasin’s family’). In fact, in an uncommon (shadhdhah) recitation, this verse is pronounced as āl-i Yasin (Yasin’s family).9

Therefore one may say that in the first verse of Chapter 36 (Ya-Sin), the two letters are actually two words: the first one is used when someone is being addressed, and the next letter is a name of the Messenger of Allah. But ya and sin could also be two disjointed letters, like the other disjointed letters in the Qur’an that refer to the contents of the chapter. At the same time, these letters could also be references to the Messenger of Allah. That would be just like Chapter 20 (Ta-Ha), where ta and ha are two letters, but in addition to referring to the contents of the chapter, they also designate the Messenger of Allah.

Note that Chapter 42 (al-Shura) begins with ‘Ha-mim. ‘Ayn-sin-qaf.’ It is characterised by the ha-mim chapters, but it also has some of the tone of Chapter 19 (Maryam), which has ‘ayn among its disjointed letters. In addition, it incorporates the tone of Chapter 36 (Ya-Sin), which has the letter sin in it, and Chapter 50 (Qaf), which has the letter qaf.

In general, the disjointed letters indicate the contents of the whole chapter. Thus one should study these chapters with thorough reflection and attention, and deduce the commonalities between the chapters by comparing the chapters that start with the same disjointed letters with each other and also against the other chapters. Of course, such a study is very difficult and precise; nevertheless, it leads to important results.

The different tones of the chapters and the connection between the disjointed letters and the content of the chapters are among the miracles and wonders of the Noble Qur’an. All praise is to Allah, the Lord of all beings.

The Messenger of Allah was himself a miracle

STUDENT. It is very astonishing that even though the Messenger of Allah would not record the verses himself, as he never wrote anything, he used to recite the revealed chapters of Qur’an without a single letter out of place. Whenever he received revelation, he must have summoned the scribes right away and recounted the verses for them. His entire life, he was never seen taking a pen in his hand or writing anything.

Is it plausible to merely call this the power of memory? Has anything like this been observed throughout the whole history of mankind? Without recording his words in writing or audio, has any speaker or lecturer, even the most talented lecturer with the strongest memory in the world, been able to repeat even two minutes of his speech precisely as delivered before, without a adding, missing, or misplacing a single letter? This in itself is certainly a very amazing and peculiar miracle.

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, indeed it is so! The Messenger of Allah used to recite the verses of the Qur’an without misplacing, adding, or dropping a single letter. In fact, sometimes those who used to memorise the Qur’an checked their memorisation with him.

Besides the Qur’an, he also used to exactly repeat the phrases that he had stated many years back, just as if he were composing them right at that time. When he was on his deathbed, Hadrat Fatimah was very sad. ‘O, woe on us,’ she was crying. There he told her, ‘O, Fatimah, do not say that! [Instead,] say the same words that I said upon the death of my son Ibrahim:

The heart grieves, and the eyes weep, yet we say not but the truth. And we are certainly sorrowful because of thee, O Ibrahim.10

Notice that the Noble Prophet was going through the difficult phases of death. His illness had intensified, and his condition had become heavy and difficult. Yet he repeated the exact words that he had said many years ago at the time of Ibrahim’s death. This is a strange miracle. This is due to having dominance over the Divine Realm (malakut) and supremacy over the Spiritual World (ma’na). It is not about the corporeal power of memory – that is the power of memory within the body and coupled with it, though the actual power of memory is immaterial.

STUDENT. There is so much difference between this statement of yours, in meticulously analysing and verifying a simple sentence of the Messenger of Allah at the difficult state of death, and ‘Umar’s statement that ‘Pain has overcome him; this man is indeed hallucinating.’11

The meaning of ahqaf

STU D E N T . What is meant by ahqaf (sands) in the verse:

And make mention of the brother of ‘Ad [tribe] when he warned his people in ahqaf [sandy deserts] – and verily warners came and went before and after him – saying, ‘Worship none but Allah. Lo! I fear for you the punishment of a tremendous day.’ (46:21)

‘ALLAMAH. Ahqaf refers to certain villages between Iraq and Yemen, where the Prophet Hud called to the people of his tribe, ‘Ad. They did not accept his message, so Allah exterminated them by sending poisonous or hot deadly winds (samum). Nowadays nothing of their towns is left, as all have disappeared.

The verse, ‘And of the earth like them’

STUDENT . The last verse of Chapter 65 (al-Talaq) is:

Allah is Who created seven heavens, and of the earth like them. The command descendeth amidst them, so that you may know that truly Allah is All-Powerful over everything and that truly Allah has encompassed everything in knowledge. (65:12)

What is meant by ‘And from the earth like them,’ and how are there seven earths like the seven heavens?

‘ALLAMAH. There are two interpretations here. The first one is that just like Allah created seven skies, He also created seven earths, and therefore we have seven heavens and seven earths.

The second meaning is that, from the earth, He created a being which is like the seven heavens, and that is the human being. This latter exegesis is apparently narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas. Some have maintained that every human being includes in himself ‘the seven firm ones [i.e. heavens]’ (sab’an shidada, 78:12) and all their powers. They are all under the rule of mankind. And this human being, in whom all the seven heavens are integrated, is created from the earth.12

But this interpretation does not sound quite plausible. Of course it is justifiable to identify man as being ‘from the earth’ because his creation essentially emanates from the earth. It is after growing from the earth that man develops and achieves a status of an immaterial soul and spirit:

And Allah caused you to grow out of the earth like a plant [or such a growth!]. (71:17)

Nonetheless, the first interpretation seems more appropriate, and is also confirmed by some narrations and supplications.

‘And His Throne goes back on water’

STUDENT. In your treatise on eschatology (al-Insan ba’d al-Dunya), you have mentioned the verse:

The day [when] the earth is changed to other than the earth, and [the same with] the heavens, and they come forth to Allah, the One, the Dominant. (14:48)

There you have written:

In the explanation of ‘The day [when] the earth is changed to other than the earth,’ it is reported from Imam Sajjad:

It means [the earth changes] to an earth on which no sin is committed, and is all seen to have no mountains or vegetation on it, as it was [created and] expanded the first time. And His Throne [God’s status of power and authority] goes back onto the water as it was at first. Thus Allah will be All-Independent in magnificence and power.13

And there you have made a side note:

His [Imam Sajjad’s] phrase, ‘Independent in magnificence and power’ is the explanation of His Throne’s being established on water. The Qur’an indicates that water refers to the source of all life, power and magnificence. If water adopts and is given the forms of the creatures, then the beings emerge; and if the forms are removed, the Throne goes back onto the water.14

Here, is water the selfsame al-wujud al-munbasit (‘expansive being’, the Universal Soul)?

‘ALLAMAH. First of all note that it is a verse of the Qur’an, and so we cannot be a hundred percent sure about our interpretation. What seems apparent from the verse is that on that day (the Day of Resurrection), water, which is God’s power and life, will take on the status of God’s Throne and authority. Thus it will take over all existents. However, concerning the reality of that power and life, we have no idea.

At any rate, the verse conveys the idea that in the beginning, there was some broad reality that was under the rule of God’s Throne in place of the universe, and God’s Throne governed over it. Afterwards, these forms and shapes emerged from that broad reality, but then again these forms will disappear and fade away. Thus the universe will return to that broad reality once again, without any forms and shapes. But what is that broad reality? There are different possibilities; it could be ‘the Merciful’s Breath’ (al-nafas al-rahmaniyyah, the first manifestation of the Truth in creation), ‘the Sacred Diffusion’ (al-fayd al-muqaddas), ‘the expansive being’ (al-wujud al-munbasit), or what is referred to in a narration as ‘the light of your prophet, O Jabir’.15

STUDENT. Are they different possibilities or are they different names for the same reality?

‘ALLAMAH. For me they are different possibilities, and for the one who is asking, they are only names (for a single reality).

However, the one who was asking knows the fact of the matter! I am wretched; what do I know? What do I know of the Book of Allah?

‘Then a wall will be set up between them...’

... Then a wall will be set up between them wherein is a door; its inside containeth mercy, and its outside is toward punishment. (57:13)

STUDENT. In your treatise on eschatology, you have discussed this verse:

‘This wall is a single thing with an inside and an outside. Allah’s mercy is for those who achieve the felicity and salvation of the inside, and His punishment is for those who perish in the outside. It seems that if those who are outside pass through and reach the inside, they will achieve Allah’s blessing and great bounty (ni’mah, na’im), and the divine mercy will take them under its cover.’

It is as if there is only one thing that separates the believers from the infidels. Their difference is only in what they conceive, just as it was in this world (dunya). Their difference is in the route that they take toward Allah. The believers follow on the straight path (al-sirat al-mustaqim) and the non-believers go astray and follow diverging paths. These verses are along the same lines:

And the dwellers of the Paradise will call unto the dwellers of the Fire that ‘We have found that which our Lord promised us true; have you [also] found that which your Lord promised you true?’ They will say, ‘Yes.’ Thereby a herald will proclaim between them: Allah’s curse be upon the oppressors * [Those] who debar [people] from the path of Allah and want [to make and present] it crooked and are disbelievers in the hereafter. (7:44-5)

There is only one path to Allah; it belongs to Him and goes toward Him. The journeyer toward Allah follows that path properly and with forbearance. But one who does not journey toward Allah bends the path and follows a distorted way. This idea repeatedly comes up in the Noble Qur’an, both explicitly and implicitly. For example:

They know an appearance of the present life (dunya), while of the hereafter they are heedless * Have they not pondered within themselves? Allah created not the heavens and the earth and what is between them except with truth and for a destined end. (30:7-8)

Later you say:

One of the most expressive verses on this subject is:

Hast thou not seen those who exchanged the bounty of Allah with ingratitude, and settled their people in the abode of loss? * [It is] hell, that they exposed to, a dreadful dwelling. (14:28-9)

As discussed earlier, ni’mah (bounty, boon) refers to guardianship (wilayah), and guardianship is the very path toward Allah. Contrary to this path is kufr (infidelity and ingratitude), which is the same as the abode of loss (dar al-bawar), the house of fatality, being set afire in hell, and settling in that dreadful place. So the journey of the infidels ends in loss and ruin, which consists of sticking to the outward (zahir) and ignoring the inward (batin). However, clearly the outward is perishable and fading, but the inward is stable and lasting.16

Why have you identified this verse (14:28) as the most expressive verse on this subject?

In the Qur’an, ni’mah always refers to wilayah

‘ALLAMAH. The term ni’mah (bounty) occurs in several places in the Noble Qur’an. It is deduced from these verses that this term refers to guardianship (walayah and wilayah), by which is meant the wilayah of the Household of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt). And that is to follow the path they followed to reach the Threshold of their Lord, the Supreme Allah, which is the path of sheer servitude (al-‘ubudiyyat al-mahdah).

The above verse is one of those verses. It describes the change of Allah’s bounty to ingratitude, and thus entry into the hellfire. Thus ni’mah is in fact the straight path (al-sirat al-mustaqim) and the shortest distance that a servant can take toward his God, whereby he attains the status of absolute and sheer servitude. To exchange this ni’mah with kufr is to abandon the straight path for distorted routes which diverge from the destination, and therefore thrust the traveller into hell.

Perhaps a more expressive and explicit verse is in Chapter 102 (al-Takathur): ‘Then, on that day, you will surely be asked about the great bounty.’ This chapter refutes all pluralities (katharat) in a strange and astonishing – yet clear and lucid – style. It calls everyone to the Realm of Unity (‘alam al-wahdah). It questions man and holds him accountable for na’im (great bounty), which is the selfsame wilayah (guardianship):

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All- Compassionate * Rivalry in worldly increase distracted you * Until you visited the graves * No indeed; you will come to know * Again no indeed; you will come to know * No indeed; if you know with knowledge of certitude * You would [or will] surely see the hell * Then you will surely see it with vision of certitude * Then, on that day, you will surely be asked about the great bounty. (102:1-8)

Commenting on this chapter, Imam Sadiq said that na’im (great bounty) is not things like bread and cheese so to speak, but it refers to the high stages of servitude and sincerity in the path of tawhid (monotheism) and wilayah (guardianship). Once, when he encountered Abu Hanifah, Imam Sadiq asked him about this verse and the meaning of na’im for which the people will be questioned and held accountable. Abu Hanifah replied, ‘It refers to these [everyday] bounties that Allah has bestowed on the people, such as foods, fruits and their likes.’ Then the Imam told him:

Is it really like a munificent host to provide his guests with all these boons and bounties that cover them from head to toe, so that they may eat and drink and satiate all their needs, but then have an agent who interrogates them upon exiting [from the feast], ‘What did you eat and drink?’ Would they be held accountable for that, so that they would reply, ‘We had, say, bread and dates and so on’? That is not the case. Rather, na’im denotes the guardianship of us Ahl al-Bayt.17

So people will be asked, ‘On your way toward Allah, to what extent did you follow the approach, practice, and way of your Imams? And to what extent did you achieve the status of absolute and sheer servitude?’

And the Garden of Great Bounty (jannat al-na’im) that is mentioned [several places] in the Qur’an refers to the same idea. 18 It means the paradise of guardianship, which is the selfsame paradise of the chosen and intimate friends of Allah (mukhlasin and muqarrabin). It is the paradise of those who attained the station of God’s Unity of Essence, those who were annihilated in the realms of the Divine Attributes of Beauty and Majesty, and those who entirely renounced every facet of their existence and submitted them all to the Truth (al-Haqq, i.e. Allah).

Ni’mah and na’im mean wilayah

‘ALLAMAH. Thus, one can infer from the verses of the Qur’an and the traditions that bounty (ni’mah) is an allusion to guardianship (wilayah). Though it appears that ni’mah means bounty and blessing in the general sense, in these cases it refers to the bounty of wilayah in particular. But let us try to not base our interpretation on the narrations. Instead, let us see if we can infer this from the Qur’an alone.

Note that first, the chapter considers rivalry in pluralities (takathur) as something distracting. And one who attains the knowledge and the vision of certitude (‘ilm al- yaqin and ‘ayn al-yaqin) will see this distraction as hell and burning fire. Then the Noble Qur’an contrasts this rivalry in pluralities with na’im. Here, the Qur’an identifies na’im as the biggest asset which is worthy of one’s being held accountable for and questioned about. So na’im is the Station of Unity (maqam al-tawhid), which manifests in a servant and is referred to as sheer servitude (al-’ubudiyyat al- mahdah). Therefore one should detest and reject takathur, which is the view of plurality and multiplicity, and instead return to na’im, which is the approach of unity.

From the verses alone, one can deduce that na’im is something truly prized and valuable. In fact, it should have been the most valuable end and objective of the creation. And as the Imam said, it is seemingly very unlikely for Allah to question one’s reality and essence, of all the bounties that he has seen and benefited from in his life, from beginning to end.

This means that throughout life, amidst all the bounties that Allah has bestowed upon human beings, they must diligently and vigorously strive for and acquire that one real and genuine bounty: guardianship, which is the bond between the created world and God, between the created and the Creator, between the originated (hadith) and the Primordial (qadim), between the contingent (mumkin al-wujud) and the Necessary (wajib al-wujud). Guidance is to acquire that bounty, and everything else is misguidance.

Everyone in the world lives, communicates, marries, eats, rests, and sleeps. They all do the same careers of trading, manufacturing, gardening, and farming. However, some of them only see the outer side of these matters and miss out on the interior; they are the ones ‘Who exchanged the bounty of Allah with ingratitude.’ And some others seek that single reality within these numerous and multiple matters; and that is the great bounty (na’im).

‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’

And fruits and abb * For the benefit of you and your livestock. (80:31-2)

STUDENT. It is narrated from Imam ‘Ali that the verse ‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’ is an explanation for the verse before it: ‘And fruits and abb.’ Therefore the meaning of abb (fodder, pasture) will be clear, as it would refer to the food for the livestock. So it is the same as the fodder and hay that they feed on.19 The verse, ‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’ has also come up in Chapter 79 (al-Nazi’at):

From it [the earth] He brought forth its waters and its pastures * And the mountains He set firm * For the benefit of you and your livestock. (79:31-3)

However, obviously it is not appropriate to consider ‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’ as an explanation for ‘And the mountains He set firm.’ Does the fact that we cannot consider ‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’ as an explanation for its previous verse here mean that we also cannot do so in Chapter 80?

‘ALLAMAH. It is reported that when Abu Bakr was asked about the meaning of abb in the verse in Chapter 80, he had no answer. And some have considered this as an objection to Abu Bakr, for how could he not recognise the meaning of abb despite being a native Arab?

Abb is the fodder with which animals are typically fed, like alfalfa and such. If considered in a broader sense, it could perhaps be applied to human and animal nourishments that mainly consist of herbs and vegetables. It is quite clear that in Chapter 80, ‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’ is an explanation for ‘And fruits and fodder.’ This is an example of when previously noted subjects are expounded on in the same order (al-laff wa al-nashr al-murattab).20 In other words, the meaning of ‘fruit’ (fakihah) is obvious, and we know that fruits are not feed for the livestock, but are rather specifically for the benefit of mankind. Therefore ‘For the benefit of you’ will be an explanation for ‘fruits’; and consequently, ‘and [for] your livestock’ will be an explanation for ‘abb’. Hence it is evident that abb is fodder and hay for the animals.

However, in Chapter 79 (al-Nazi’at), ‘For the benefit of you and your livestock’ (79:33) is an explanation for the sentence ‘From it [the earth] He brought forth its waters and its pastures’ (79:31). And this is not based on ordered (or even disordered) expounding of previously noted subjects. It is rather an overall explanation meaning, ‘Allah has provided benefits and sustenance for you and your livestock through the water and vegetation that grow on the earth.’

The word mar’a means ri’y, which means plants, and is not specifically for animals. But note that the verse ‘And the mountains He set firm’ (79:32) is a separate sentence (istitradiyyah) that has appeared between the explanation and the explained. The middle verse (79:32) is mentioned in order to describe the earth’s stability. It asserts that ‘Allah restrained the earth from agitation and deviation by means of firm and stable mountains, so that it may grow plants and bring out its water, so that the sustenance of you and your livestock is provided.’ This is how I see it, and Allah knows best.

The Qur’anic addresses starting with qul (say)

STUDENT. In many verses of the Qur’an, the orders to the Messenger of Allah start with ‘qul’ (say, tell). For example:

Say: He, Allah is One. (112:1)

Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind. (114:1)

Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the disjunction [between night and day]. (113:1)

Say: O disbelievers. (109:1)

Say: certainly all of the predecessors and the successors * Will indeed be gathered for the tryst of an appointed day. (56:49-50)

Say: I am only a human being like you.... (18:110)

Say: obey Allah and the Messenger.... (3:32)

Say: Allah has spoken the truth; so follow the religion of Abraham, the upright.... (3:95)

... Say: the good of this world is little; while the hereafter is better for he who restrains.... (4:77)

And many other verses, which would make a long list. Obviously, what the Messenger of Allah was commanded was not the literal phrase, but rather the content and the message. That is, when he is told, ‘Say: He, Allah is One,’ he is ordered to say, ‘He, Allah is One,’ not to say, ‘Say: He, Allah is One.’ Saying the latter would not be following Allah’s order and instruction. The point is to express the message and content of the order, and this is quite obvious! For example, if someone tells us ‘Go in between the people and say: Allah is One!’ then we must go in between the people and say, ‘Allah is One,’ not ‘Say: Allah is One.’

In these cases, the order to ‘say’ serves as means for the actual message that is to be said. It should not be viewed as an independent order by itself. In the above example, saying, ‘Allah is One’ is carrying out the order, while saying, ‘Say: Allah is One’ is not. It is the content of the order that is meant to be said, not the whole set of instructions.

Therefore the Messenger of Allah should tell the people, ‘He, Allah is One.’ And so is the case with the other verses; he should only convey the content of the order. However, we see throughout the Noble Qur’an that the phrase ‘Say’ is also included in the verses, and the exact words that addressed the Prophet appear in the Qur’an.

‘ALLAMAH. There are two things to be discussed here. The first one is about Allah’s command to His Prophet, his duty, and how he carried out the instructions in general. With regard to this, it is certain that the Messenger of Allah used to follow Allah’s command and perform the orders just as they were. Even in the very addresses that begin with ‘Say’ (qul), the Noble Messenger has expressed the content of the order. Allah’s commands to His Messenger to say something are just like His other commands without the phrase, ‘Say’. For instance:

Proclaim that which thou art commanded, and turn away from the polytheists * Truly We have sufficed thee against the scorners. (15:94-5)

In following this order of Allah, the Prophet would publicly announce the unity of Allah and would turn away from the polytheists. Similarly, in the example with ‘Say: He, Allah is One,’ he would tell the people ‘He is Allah, He is One.’

The second point is about how Allah’s orders appear in the Qur’an in particular. This is a different story. As we know, the Qur’an is a divine revelation (wahy), and a divine revelation should be conveyed without the addition or omission of anything, not even a single word or letter. Hence, the Qur’an reflects the exact message that addressed the Messenger of Allah. And this is how the Qur’an should be (as a divine scripture).

If the phrase ‘Say’ (qul) is dropped in ‘Say: He, Allah is One’ or in ‘Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,’ and thus one says, ‘He, Allah is One,’ and ‘I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,’ then that would not be Qur’an anymore. That would not be the words of Allah, but would rather be the words of the Prophet who is saying, ‘Allah is One.’ Since the Glorious Qur’an is the exact revelation, it cannot be without the phrase ‘Say’. This is just like the other orders of Allah that do not begin with the phrase, ‘Say,’ like the verse mentioned above: ‘Proclaim that which thou art commanded, and turn away from the polytheists.’ There we see that the Noble Qur’an literally mentions the whole command word-by-word.

In addition, in the divine addresses to the Messenger of Allah in the Qur’an, the Noble Messenger acts as a mirror for all Muslims, rather for all mankind. So in fact it is the people that are being addressed as the audience of the commands. It is only that the address to the people is through the channel and mirror of the soul of the Messenger of Allah, who – due to his capacity and breadth – encompasses all the people of the nation, rather all humankind. He has covered them all under the breadth of his knowledge and existence. This idea is clarified quite well in the verse,

... And We have sent down to thee the Remembrance [the Qur’an], that thou mayst make clear to mankind what hath been sent down to them, and that haply they may reflect. (16:44)

The Messenger of Allah only elucidates the contents of the divine revelations that were sent to the people.

Ayat al-Kursi is just the first verse

STUDENT. Does the so-called Ayat al-Kursi (The Throne Verse, 2:255) refer to only one verse, which ends with:

... And preserving those two [the heavens and the earth] doth not tire Him; and He is the Supreme, the Magnificent. (2:255)

Or does it also include the next two verses, which end with:

... They are the dwellers of the Fire; they are there forever! (2:257)

‘ALLAMAH. It ends with ‘And He is the Supreme, the Magnificent.’ That is why this verse, which contains the word kursi (chair, throne), is called the Verse of the Throne. The following two verses are not part of the Verse of the Throne. And the first verse (i.e. 2:255) is sufficient for supplications and optional prayers that involve recitation of the Verse of the Throne.

‘Say: each behaves according to his formation’

And when We bestow blessings upon man, he balketh and turneth aside; and when evil toucheth him, he is in despair. Say: each one behaveth according to his formation; and thy Lord knoweth best who is most guided in his way. (17:83-4)

STUDENT. This verse describes two different states of mankind. First it talks about man’s initial formation (shakilah), disposition, and character. It says that when We bring about ease and expansion for man and bestow blessings on him, arrogance and heedlessness overwhelm him. His haughtiness, self-conceit and egotism cause him to turn away from Us, balk, and deviate. And when an evil – like stress, trouble, tension, or poverty – touches him, he suddenly loses hope and becomes disappointed, abject, and distressed. The second state is how some people are guided to Allah. They find the straight path and leave behind the initial formation. For some of them in particular, this condition develops further; their guidance intensifies and their path becomes brighter and straighter.

Does that mean that the nature and formation of all people is according to that first state, which involves balking and turning aside from God upon receiving blessings, and losing hope of God’s mercy upon evil and unfortunate events? And does it mean that those who achieve guidance, take up the path of Allah, and seek salvation, actually exit that initial and inherent nature? Do they take a shortcut out of their initial path and nature? Or is it that the guided individuals are still on their initial nature, formation, and character, and that their guidance is also based on their innate nature and formation?

The verse seems to suggest that they abandon their initial nature since their case is mentioned as an unconnected exception (al-istithna’ al-munqati’). If so, then what would it mean to abandon one’s nature (fitrah)? How can a being completely abandon its initial makeup, exit its existential form, and adopt another nature and formation? Besides, as we know, the nature of mankind is based on tawhid and the truth, not on misguidance.

The other solution is to say that the mentioned guidance is also according to one’s nature. That means human nature has two states: the state of turning away, disobedience, despair and distress; and the state of exiting this condition and achieving foresight and guidance on the straight path. This would mean that the exception in the second verse is connected to and a part of the first verse (muttasil). But that would be against the apparent sense (zahir) of the verse, because the verse says that each behaves based on his formation. One’s turning away and despair is based on his formation; thus guidance should be beyond and outside the formation (the makeup of man’s being).

‘ALLAMAH. It seems that formation (shakilah) here refers to one’s initial makeup and tendency prior to undergoing any education and training, which would manifest and actualise his hidden capacities and talents. Man is a dynamic being, and is capable of growth and perfection. Therefore its initial nature and formation is sheer talent and absolute capacity. If that talent is left to its own in the world of nature (tabi’ah) and multiplicity (kathrah), it develops into ‘He balks and turns aside’ and ‘he is in despair.’ However, if the person is trained and shown the path, it passes this stage of weakness, lassitude, and indolence, and reaches the highest stations that one can achieve.

This capacity and aptitude is hidden within the nature of man; the capability and strength is latent in him. So one might appear to be a disappointed and ungrateful being, yet oceans of luminous beams of truth pervade him, and that is not separate from his nature. However, those beams only emerge as a result of training and discipline.

Man is an intricate being with various stages, which are all included in his nature. One cannot achieve a stage that is beyond and outside his nature. In the above verse, ‘man’ (insan) does not denote the sacred soul (al-nafs al-qudsiyyah) or the rational spirit (al-ruh al-natiqah, i.e. the intellect).21 Those are hidden stages of one’s being, and they are achieved by Allah’s guidance and one’s diligence in His way. Instead, man (insan) denotes ordinary people with common thoughts and undeveloped aptitudes. Then of course what is seen from one at that stage of his formations is only diversion, turning aside, despair and ingratitude. And the person who is led and delivered out of this formation by Lordly guidance exits only this [particular] state of nature, as opposed to exiting his nature and formation altogether.

‘Truly man was created intolerant..... save those that pray’

‘ALLAMAH. The idea in the above verses (17:83-4) is quite relevant to the verses in Chapter 70 (al-Ma’arij):

Truly man was created intolerant (halu’) * Fretful (jazu’) when evil toucheth him * And grudging when good toucheth him * Save those that pray * Those who are constant at their prayers * And those in whose wealth there is a right known * For the beggar and the deprived * And those who confirm the Day of Judgment * And those who are fearful of their Lord’s punishment * Indeed, from their Lord’s punishment, none can feel secure * And those who protect their private parts * Save from their wives and the maids that they own, for which they are not blameworthy * But whoso pursues beyond that, they are the transgressors * And those who keep their trusts and covenants * And those who stand by their testimony * And those who observe their prayers * They will be in gardens, high-honoured * Then what aileth those who disbelieve to keep staring at thee [or stretch their necks toward thee] * From the right and from the left, in groups? * Doth each of them hope to enter a Garden of Great Bounty? * Not so... (70:19-39)

These noble verses also seem to maintain that the initial creation and nature of man consists of being halu’, which means intolerant, anxious, rash, and agitated. This involves one’s being manu’ (acquisitive for one’s own self and not giving to others) when God gives him some wealth, power or position; and being jazu’ (complaining, whining and clamouring) upon evil and unpleasant events or when he loses some riches.

It is only the performers of prayer who are excluded from this general rule about mankind’s initial makeup. Who are these performers of prayer? They are described in the verses that follow: they adhere to prayer and almsgiving, are fearful of Allah’s retribution, believe in the Day of Judgment and Resurrection, restrain themselves from adultery and shameful deeds, keep their trusts and maintain their covenants, and are firm and stand by their testimony. Here the Noble Qur’an mentions all good deeds one by one and does not spare anything.

Then it says: what is with these infidels around you; those who are unaware and ignorant of these real virtues, of human morality, and of spiritual deeds? What do they say? And what do they want? Do they conjecture that they can reach the status of [a perfect] man and enter the Bounteous Paradise without performing prayer – with the mentioned conditions and results? No! That is not so; they will never reach such a status.

In these verses, the performers of prayer are excluded from man’s initial nature – being halu’ (intolerant), which consists of being manu’ (selfishly restrictive) and jazu’ (impatient, whining). This means that the idea of ‘prayer’, with its mentioned outcomes and effects, is a part of man’s nature and formation. However, it should come to manifestation and actualisation. Man’s dormant divine aptitude should be awakened. Hence, the idea that man was created intolerant refers to only one of his states and moods, as opposed to the reality and essence of his creation and nature. So this verse describes man’s ordinary and basic formation, not the origin of his sacred soul (al-nafs al- qudsiyyah) and rational spirit (al-ruh al-natiqah).

Intercession is for the believers with major sins

... And they [the angels] intercede not except for him with whom He is satisfied; and they are fearful in awe of Him. (21:28)

STUDENT. In this noble verse, ‘with whom He is satisfied’ implies absolute satisfaction. That is, in order for one to benefit from intercession (shafa’ah), Allah should be pleased with every aspect of his being, even his essence and his heart. Thus the verse refers to the stage of those who are chosen and intimate (mukhlasin and muqarrabin).

‘ALLAMAH. If that is so, then there would be no need for intercession. But that is not true. Satisfaction in this verse means being satisfied with one’s religion. Of course, it is mentioned mutlaq (with no conditions), but it should be limited to satisfaction with one’s religion. The verse is about one whose religion, beliefs and approach are approved of, as opposed to all of his deeds being approved of, which is certainly not meant here. Intercession only applies to sinners, and not only that, but it only applies to those who have committed major sins (kaba’ir). Because if someone avoids the major sins, this avoidance will itself cover his minor sins, in which case no sin will remain to be covered by intercession. There are two noble verses that assert that if the major sins are avoided, the small faults and minor sins will be forgiven automatically:

If you avoid the major [sins] that you have been forbidden, We will remit from you your evil deeds.... (4:31)

[The good-doers are] those who avoid the major sins and indecencies, save lamam [lesser offences, sinning infrequently, or errors immediately followed by repentance].... (53:32)

And the Messenger of Allah said,

I have saved my intercession for those of my nation who have committed major sins. And as for the righteous, there is no way [of blame] against them.22

There are also many narrations about how Imam Rida interpreted the above verse (21:28):

And they [the angels] intercede not except for him whose religion is satisfied with. 23

Here, religion means believing in unity (tawhid) and denying polytheism (shirk). However, according to Imam Musa ibn Ja’far, if someone commits a major sin and does not repent from it, then his religion is not approved of.24

Prophet Abraham’s asking forgiveness for his uncle, Azar

There has been a good exemplar for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their people, ‘Indeed we are averse to you and all that you worship beside Allah. We disapprove of you; and there hath arisen between us and you enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’ – save Abraham’s word to his father that ‘I will certainly ask forgiveness for thee, though I own nothing for thee from Allah.’ [And they supplicated:] Our Lord, in Thee we trust, unto Thee we turn, and to Thee is the return. (60:4)

STUDENT. The above verse has been explained as follows: ‘Save Abraham’s word’ means that you should follow Abraham in all his actions save this statement of his, for which you should not follow him. Certainly he only asked forgiveness for his father ‘because of a promise he had made to him’ based on his accepting the faith. ‘But when it became clear to him that he [his father] was indeed an enemy to Allah, he [Abraham] disowned him’ (9:114).25

The above passage means that Prophet Abraham’s promise to his uncle that he will ask forgiveness for him was not appropriate or commendable. That is why the Noble Qur’an has excepted this act from Abraham’s perfect model.

‘ALLAMAH. Chapter 19 (Maryam) mentions that Prophet Abraham sent salaam (peace) upon his uncle Azar and promised him to ask God to forgive him. This was when Azar was a polytheist and used to warn Abraham against forsaking his deities. Abraham tells him:

‘Father, I fear lest a punishment from the All-Merciful may strike thee, and thus thou become a companion of Satan’ * He [Azar] said, ‘Dost thou shrink from my gods? If thou cease not, I shall certainly stone thee. So leave me for a long while’ * He said, ‘Peace be upon thee! I will ask forgiveness of my Lord for thee; indeed He hath been ever gracious to me.’ (19:45-7)

And in Chapter 26 (al-Shu’ara’), Prophet Abraham asks forgiveness for his father as his supplicates to God:

My Lord, grant me command and join me with the righteous * And appoint for me a tongue of truthfulness [i.e. good name, or upright descendants] amongst the posterity * And include me amongst the inheritors of the Garden of Great Bounty * And forgive my father; surely he was one of those who went astray. (26:83-6)

Of course he asked for Azar’s forgiveness when it was not yet evident to him that Azar was destined for hell. So Abraham speculated that Azar might be guided and delivered. It was in such conditions that he asked forgiveness for Azar, based on his promise that ‘I will ask my Lord for your forgiveness.’ But when it became clear to Abraham that there was no hope in Azar’s deliverance and that he was Allah’s enemy, he did not ask forgiveness for him any more, but rather expressed detestation and disapproval of him.

It is not for the Prophet and those who believe to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they are their relatives, after it hath become clear for them that they are indeed dwellers of hell * And Abraham asked not forgiveness for his father except of a promise he had made to him; but when it became clear to him that he is indeed an enemy to Allah, he [Abraham] disowned him. Truly Abraham was very suppliant and long-suffering. (9:113-14)

Based on these noble verses, what is not allowed for the Messenger of Allah and the believers is to ask forgiveness for the polytheists while clearly knowing that they are among the dwellers of hell. The same is true concerning Prophet Abraham: after it became evident for him that Azar was Allah’s enemy, he detested him. Abraham’s asking for Azar’s forgiveness was prior to this stage.

That is why Allah warns and forbids His Messenger from asking mercy for them or standing by their graves:

And never perform prayer over [or send mercy upon] any of their dead, nor stand by his grave. They indeed disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger and died while they were evil-doers. (9:84)

Ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times, Allah will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, and Allah guideth not the group of the evil-doers. (9:80)

So Abraham’s promise mentioned in, ‘Save Abraham’s word to his father that “I will certainly ask forgiveness for thee”’ (60:4) was at the time when Azar’s enmity to Allah was not yet evident to Abraham. Nevertheless, even such an unconditional promise to an infidel is not appropriate, so long as they are in the state of infidelity. Therefore, in this verse (60:4), the believers are warned against even this specific case of asking forgiveness, which was based on a promise made, and before it became clear that the infidel was a dweller of hell. The verse recognises the detestation and disapproval of Abraham and his companions against the polytheists as a perfect exemplar, but it is not a perfect exemplar to follow them in even this type of asking forgiveness for the polytheists.

Azar was Prophet Abraham’s uncle and not his father

Note: Azar was certainly not Prophet Abraham’s father, and the Qur’an bears witness to that. It explicitly states that once it became evident to Prophet Abraham that Azar was Allah’s enemy, he did not ask forgiveness for him, but rather detested him. But elsewhere in the Qur’an, Prophet Abraham asks God to forgive his parents:

Our Lord, forgive me and my parents and the believers, the day when reckoning takes place. (14:41)

This shows that Azar was not Prophet Abraham’s father. There is a difference between walid (father, by birth) and ab (father, as guardian). Walid is only used for father, whereas ab is also used for uncle (especially when he is in charge of one’s affairs after the death of his father).26

The extermination of the tribe of Thamud and the people of Madyan

STUDENT. In your opinion, what is the most intense expression in the Qur’an concerning the punishments that have struck the oppressors in this world?

‘ALLAMAH. In two parts of the Noble Qur’an, the way the Almighty Allah mentions the befallen punishment is incredible. The oppressors were wiped out in a way that absolutely no trace of them remained. It is as if they never existed, never came to this world, and never had a name or identity. The first one is in Chapter 11 (Hud), and is mentioned in two instances. One of them is regarding the tribe Thamud, who hamstrung Prophet Salih’s camel:

So when Our command came, We rescued Salih and those who believed with him by a mercy from Us from the ignominy of that day. Truly thy Lord, He is the All-Strong, the All-Mighty * And the Cry overtook those who were oppressors, thus they dawned the day flat down (jathimin) in their homes * As though they had not dwelt (yaghnaw) there. Lo! Surely Thamud disbelieved in their Lord. Lo! May Thamud be far [from God’s mercy]. (11:66-8)

The verb ‘yaghnaw’, when used with a location, means to reside there. And jathimin means something that is set flat down on the floor, like a carpet. So it means that the Cry overtook them in such a way that they became even with earth, as if they had never resided in that land. The other one is about the people of Madyan (a city near the Red Sea) who used to trouble their prophet Shu’ayb and threatened to stone him:

So when Our command came, We rescued Shu’ayb and those who believed with him by a mercy from Us. And the Cry overtook those who were oppressors, thus they dawned the day flat down in their homes * As though they had not dwelt there. Lo! May Madyan be far [from God’s mercy] as Thamud was. (11:94-5)

The second expression is in Chapter 23 (al-Mu’minun). It is more astounding, as it says, ‘We turned them into “tales”’, meaning that only some story and account remained of them, without any custom or trace of them remaning. These verses are after the account of the drowning of Noah’s tribe in water. The verses say that after Noah’s flood, Allah created another group of people and sent a prophet for them. But they denied that prophet:

Thus the Cry overtook them justly, and We made them as scum, so may the group of oppressors be far [from God’s mercy] * Then after them We brought forth other generations * No nation can outstrip its term, nor do they postpone it * Then We sent Our messengers one after another. Whenever its messenger came to a nation they denied him; so We caused them to follow one another [to disaster]; and we turned them into tales; so away [from Allah’s mercy] with a people who believe not. (23:41-4)

1. See Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb (al-Tafsir al-Kabir) (Beirut, 198?), 31:54ff.; Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani (Beirut, 198?), 30:39ff.; Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir al-Ma’thur (Beirut, 197?), 6:314ff.

2. Note that this was Walid ibn Mughirah, one of the two prominent men about whom the polytheists claimed ‘Why was the Qur’an not revealed to one of these two?’ (43:31). He is different from Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’it, about whom the Naba’ verse (49:6) was revealed.

3. [Translator’s note. He was a stout man among the enemies of the Prophet, who refused to embrace Islam until his death. The books of tafsir have mentioned different variations of his name; the above is based on al-Mizan.]

4. Fadl ibn al-Hasan Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan (Beirut, 1995), 10:266.

5. Al-Najafi (Shaykh al-Jawahiri), Jawahir al-Kalam (Tehran, 1988), 9:401; reported from al-Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul) (Tehran, 1388/1968), 2:601, who reports through his line of transmitters, from Sa’d al-Iskaf.

6. See Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut, 1983), 4:336-7; Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (Beirut, 197?), 3:207-8.

7. ‘Allamah has an explanation that could be one of the reasons why Allah refers to the Noble Qur’an as ‘the best speech’ (ahsan al-hadith): ‘Among the Divine Books, the Qur’an is the only book that, first, equates man’s felicitous life with a simple unadulterated life based on one’s nature (fitrah); and second, unlike most or all other practices, which separate man’s worship of God from his everyday life and affairs, the Qur’an considers the religious practice as the very way of life, covering every aspect of one’s social and individual life. Its orders are based on true knowledge [of God and the world]. In fact, the Qur’an entrusts people to the world and the world to the people, and entrust them both to God.’ Qur’an dar Islam (Tehran, 1350/1971): 61.

8. [Translator’s note. See Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan, 9:381 for both narrations. Note that the second narration is as follows: ‘Whoever recites all of the musabbihat before sleeping, will not die unless he sees the Qa’im [Imam Mahdi], and if he dies [in sleep] he will reside by the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family.’]

9. [Translator’s note. For a thorough discussion on different recitations (qira’at), see Chapter 7.]

10. It is narrated from Anas ibn Malik that ‘We went to the Messenger of Allah when Ibrahim [his son] was dying, and the Messenger of Allah was shedding tears. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-’Awf said, “Even you, O Messenger of Allah [cry]?” That Honourable Messenger said twice, “O son of ‘Awf, this is compassion,” and continued: “Truly the eyes weep and the heart grieves, but we say not except what our Lord pleases; and indeed we are mournful for your separation O Ibrahim.”’
‘Allamah Sayyid ‘Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Din ‘Amili, al-Nass wa al-Ijtihad (Qum, 1983): 294-5; narrated from Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Istanbul, 1981), 2:84-5, Bab al-Jana’iz. [Translator’s note. The words of the Prophet on his deathbed have been reported with minor differences. See Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 24:263-4].

11. See the last reference in note 32 on Chapter 2.

12. Al-Mizan (Beirut, 1970), 19:326-7 and Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, 6:374-5.

13. ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, Tafsir al-Qummi (Beirut, 1387/1968), 2:252.

14. S.M.H. Tabataba’i, al-Insan (Beirut, 1989): 106.

15. Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 15:24, 25:21-2 & 54:170.

16. S.M.H. Tabataba’i, al-Insan: 173-5.

17. Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan, 10:433.

18. See 5:65, 10:9, 22:56, 26:85, 31:8, 37:43, 52:17, 56:12 & 89, 68:34, 70:38.

19. Abu Bakr was once asked about this verse, wa fakihatan wa abba (‘And fruits and fodder,’ 80:31), but he did not know the meaning of abb in the Qur’an. So he said, ‘Which sky will protect me under its shade, which land will shield me, and what should I do if I say something about the Book of Allah that I know not? As with fakihah, I know what it means, but as with abb, Allah knows best.’ The news of this reached Imam ‘Ali, peace be upon him. ‘Glorified is Allah!’ he said, ‘Did he not know that abb refers to the plant and fodder on which animals graze? And that this word of the Supreme Allah expresses Allah’s kindness and grace over his servants regarding the food that He provides them, and the livestock that He created, which are used for people’s livelihood and add to their powers.’ Al-Mizan, 20:212; from Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Mufid, al-Irshad (Beirut, 1993), 1:200.

20. [Translator’s note. This is a literary technique and style, where certain topics are first mentioned together, and then further explanations about each are presented in the same order that the topics were mentioned.]

21. [Translator’s note: The rational soul (al-nafs al-natiqah, here used with ruh, spirit, instead of nafs), is man’s special form (al-surat al-naw’iyyah), and that is the intellect (‘aql). The ‘sacred soul’ (al-nafs al-qudsiyyah) is a soul at the highest level of intuition (hads), whereby it can know certain and immediate knowledge without learning. The souls of the prophets and saints are at this highest level. See Dihkhuda, Lughatnamah (Tehran, 1993-4), under nafs natiqah and nafs qudsi].

22. Al-Mizan, 1:170 and 14:282, cited respectively from Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Amali (Qum, 1417/1996):56, and ‘Uyun Akhbar al-Rida (Beirut, 1984): 125; starting with innama (‘My intercession is only for…’).

23. See al-Fattal al-Nisaburi, Rawdat al-Wa’izin (Qum, 198?): 501.

24. ‘Allamah Tabataba’i has discussed about those who will receive intercession in al-Mizan, 1:169ff. and also in vol.14 in exegesis of verse 21:28. He has narrated relevant hadiths from Shi’a sources and also from Suyuti’s al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir al-Ma’thur.

25. Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 12:27; from Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan, 9:448.

26. [Translator’s note. In the previous verses, Azar was referred to as Abraham’s ab, but in this last one (14:41), Abraham asks forgiveness for his walid, which means that his walid is different from Azar (the ab) as Abraham had renounced Azar. Also note that Abraham’s asking forgiveness for his ab (Azar) in 26:86 is not concerning the Day of Judgment, as opposed to his supplication in 14:41.]

4. Philosophical Discourses

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

An intellectual discussion in refutation of the Trinity

STUDENT. The Trinity is one of the points of difference between the sacred religion of Islam and the religion of the Christians.1 In fact it is the most crucial difference between the fundamental beliefs of the two religions.

Islam calls mankind to unity (tawhid), teaches them to believe in One Primordial Origin (al-asl al-qadim), and reduces every plurality, of any kind and type that it may be, to that One Origin. But despite the Gospel’s explicit assertion of God’s unity,2 the Christians believe in three origins for the universe. This is a fundamental belief for them, to the extent that it cannot be dispensed with.

The Noble Qur’an stands against the Trinity, and denies it based on reason and not just obedience (ta’abbud, to the Qur’an and revelation). It condemns those who believe in the Trinity, to the extent that it considers the Trinity comparable to polytheism. Likewise have been the approach and arguments of the Noble Prophet, the Infallible Imams, the Companions (sahabah), the Followers (tabi’in), and the Islamic scholars from the early years of Islam until now.

However, this is not a matter of the Trinity per se. Rather, the problem is that there cannot be more than one deity (ilah) and primordial being (qadim) as the origins of creation. In that sense, there is no difference between believing in a Trinity, a Quartet, or a Quintet. It is false to believe in multiple origins for the universe, in any way and any form. The arguments of the Noble Qur’an and the other sources against the Trinity refute all of them alike, and rank them alongside polytheism. Even if one’s divinity is composed of a hundred or a thousand parts, the same arguments apply.

Likewise is the case of the belief in ‘ayniyyah (union) of Allah’s Attributes and Names (sifat wa asma’)3 with His Essence (dhat), Glorified and Exalted is He. This belief entails subdivision, composition and plurality of the Essence of the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud). That is because in the case of union, God’s Essence would not only be predicated by the concepts (mafhum) of knowledge, power and life – or the concepts of knowledgeable, powerful, and alive. But the actual and external instances (misdaq) of these real concepts would also have to be realised and actually exist in the Essence of the Truth (al-Haqq, i.e. God, Glorified and Exalted is He). This entails the subdivision of the Sacred Essence of the High One into these distinct instances, which means that the One Essence is composed of the external instances of the Divine Attributes and Names. This is exactly equivalent to the Christians’ concept of Trinity. In fact, it does not claim a trinity, but rather the disintegration of God’s Essence into His numerous Names and Attributes. Each of His Names and Attributes will appear in His Essence distinct and separate from one another.4

The Qur’an’s rejection of the Trinity

‘ALLAMAH. The Noble Qur’an reprimands the Christians in several ways and with various tones:

O people of the Scripture, do not exaggerate in your religion, and utter not about Allah save the truth! The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the messenger of Allah, and His Word which He cast upon Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not ‘Three!’ Refrain; it is better for you. Allah is only One Deity. He is Glorified above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth; and Allah suffices as Trustee. (4:171)

As it shows, the verse denies the Trinity: ‘And say not “Three”’. It also considers it against the glory of the High Lord to have a child.

Those who said, ‘Indeed Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,’ have surely disbelieved; for the Messiah [himself] said, ‘O Children of Israel, worship Allah, [Who is] my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associateth partners with Allah, then for him Allah hath truly forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire, and for the oppressors there are no helpers’ * Those who said, ‘Indeed Allah is the Third of Three’ have surely disbelieved; while no deity is there but One Deity. Indeed if they refrain not from what they say, an excruciating punishment will surely afflict those of them who disbelieve. (5:72-3)

Two ideas have been denied in the above two verses. First is that Allah is the selfsame Messiah, son of Mary, and second is that Allah is the Third of the Three. The Christians claim that God is the Third of the three: the Father (ab), the Son (ibn), and the Holy Spirit (ruh al-qudus). Ab, which means ‘Father’, refers to the Realm of God’s Essence (dhat), Glorified and Exalted is He. Ibn, which means ‘Son’, refers to the Realm of God’s Knowledge (‘ilm). And ruh al-qudus, which means ‘Gabriel’ or the ‘Spirit’, refers to the Realm of God’s Life (hayat), the Majestic, the Supreme.

According to the above verses, both beliefs – that the Messiah, son of Mary, is God; and that God is the Third of the Three – are heresy (kufr).

... And the Christians said, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah... .’ (9:30)

And they said, ‘Allah hath taken unto Himself a son.’ Be He glorified .... (2:116)

These verses imply that the Christians consider the Messiah to be God’s son. He is Glorified and Clear from what they say.

And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind, ‘Take me and my mother as deities beside Allah?’... (5:116)

It is inferred from this verse that in addition to the divinity of Prophet Jesus, the Christians also believed in the divinity of his mother, Hadrat Maryam (Mary).5

The contradiction between unity and trinity

STUDENT. The unsoundness of the Trinity is based on the inconsistency between unity and plurality. The Gospel explicitly supports monotheism (tawhid), the Christians believe that God is One, and they all agree that Jesus Christ called to God’s unity. But they maintain that God is at the same time one and three.

If God’s unity were real (haqiqi) and His plurality notional (i’tibari), there would be no problem. And such would be the case if the plurality were real and the unity notional, except for the problem of multiple deities. However, if one says that God is one and many, both in the real sense, then this entails a contradiction and is therefore impossible. The best argument in refuting the advocates of the Trinity is that unity and plurality have two different and distinct meanings, and combining these two ideas in a single reality involves a contradiction.

And the same problem comes up with ‘ayniyyah, when one claims that God’s Names and Attributes are identical with His Essence. If the attribute is not separate from the noun (i.e. God’s Essence), then the union of the attribute with the noun implies that God’s Essence must be One with regard to the Essence, and multiple with regard to His Names and Attributes, for they are the same as the Essence. This is a contradiction.

Thus, there is no resolution but to consider God’s Names and Attributes as lower and determined levels of His Essence. In that case, the plurality [of the Names and Attributes] at the level of descension (nuzul) and determination (ta’ayyun) would not contradict the unity of the Essence. Otherwise, all the objections that pertain to the Trinity – for combining unity and plurality – would also apply here.

‘ALLAMAH. The flaw in the beliefs of the Christians is that while they believe God is one, they also believe in three Primordial Origins (al-asl al-qadim). But uniting between real unity and real plurality is impossible if the unity and the plurality are of the same nature, such as when they both pertain to the person (shakhs), the species (naw’), or the genus (jins). We provide an example for each case:

As with the unity of the person, it is like maintaining that Zayd is one and at the same time he is three. Or that Zayd, ‘Amr, and Bakr, while actually being three persons, are one person and have a single real existence.

As with the unity of the species, it is like claiming that while mankind is one species, it is also three species; for example it is also horse and sheep. Or that in terms of mahiyyah (quiddity, ‘whatness’), man, horse and sheep are at the same time really one and really three.

And for the unity of the genus, it is like holding that animal (as a quiddity) is one genus and three genera at once – say, animal, tree, and rock. Or that the quiddities of animal, tree, and rock are one and many at the same time. These are impossible.

But there is no flaw in combining the unity of the species or genus and the plurality of persons. For example, mankind is a single species but has multiple persons like Zayd, ‘Amr, and Bakr. Likewise there is no problem in combining the unity of the genus and the plurality of the species. For example, ‘animal’ is one genus but consists of multiple species like ‘chicken’, ‘pigeon’, ‘horse’ and ‘sheep’.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with combining the unity of persons and the plurality of persons so long as one is haqiqi (real) and the other is i’tibari (nominal, notional, conceptual). For example, we may subdivide Zayd’s body into many conceptual parts and then say, ‘Though Zayd is one person in reality, he is composed of several parts.’ This subdivision which results in a plurality is based on notions and not reality, and hence it does not result in any contradiction. Or we may say that ‘Zayd, ‘Amr and Bakr, though three in reality, are one in the sense that they are brothers, partners, or residents of the same city.’ Here, their unity would be notional.

But the Christians believe in real plurality, and the Trinity is one of their fundamental beliefs. So if they claim that God’s unity is only notional, they would actually be denying unity and rejecting monotheism altogether. And if they claim that His unity is real, that would entail combining real unity and real plurality of the person, which is impossible.

Apparently the Christians hold such a belief, and consider the three elements as God’s attributes and manifestations – which are not distinct from God’s Essence. They believe in the three principles and elements of existence, knowledge, and life. Knowledge is the Word, the Messiah; and life is the Spirit (ruh). So if their belief in the Trinity means that these elements, which are God’s manifestations and epiphanies, are in union with His Essence, then the concept of Trinity would result in a contradiction.6

Real unity and plurality cannot apply to the same subject

‘ALLAMAH. In other words, the belief in a Father and a Son necessarily establishes multitude (ta’addud), and this multitude is nothing but real plurality (al-kathrah al- haqiqiyyah). Now if we assume that the Father and the Son are of one species – as we do for human fathers and sons, who are one in being humans and many in being persons of that species – then we cannot consider God as One anymore. Because the arithmetical plurality of having a Father and a Son contradicts the unity of God.

In God’s unity and oneness, everything apart from Him, including the very presumed ‘Son’, counts as ‘other’ than God. And anything other than God belongs to and depends on Him. Therefore the so-called ‘Son’ would not be a deity (God) anymore. This is actually Allah’s argument in the Qur’an:

... And say not ‘Three!’ Refrain; it is better for you. Allah is only One Deity. He is Glorified above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah suffices as Trustee. (4:171)

In short, combining between real plurality and real unity is impossible, and the beliefs of the Christians are rationally and philosophically invalid. That is why Paul and other heads of Christianity denounced philosophy, as the belief in the divinity of Jesus and that he is God’s son is in direct opposition with rational principles.7

STUDENT. Accordingly, this very objection to Christianity also applies to those who hold the union of God’s Attributes and Names with His Essence. God is One, Glorified and Exalted is He; yet He has many Attributes and Names which are eternal like His Essence. Thus, the ‘union of God’s Essence with His Names and Attributes’ means combining the unity and plurality of the person both in the real sense.

And the falsity of this idea is so evident that it should count as one of the necessary principles of religion, alongside the invalidity of Trinity. Instead, we should accept the view of the gnostics (‘urafa’) on God’s unity. They are those who followed the interpreter of the Noble Qur’an, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. They esteem God’s unity as an exalted and noble concept. They identify His Attributes distinct from what they are describing and as lower and confined levels of the Essence. They have truly realised that:

Every attribute testifies that it is other than the noun [which it describes].8

Their approach is based on genuine monotheism (tawhid). But the tawhid of others is mixed with impurities of multiplicity in God’s Essence, and so their approach is essentially the same as that of the Christians who believe in the Trinity. Perhaps the reason why many Muslim theologians denounce philosophy and forbid engaging in intellectual problems is that they fear lest philosophy may disclose the reality of their beliefs. They fear that philosophy may reveal that their tawhid is mixed with multiplicity and has more than enough shares of polytheism.

It is based on this idea that the late Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i Tihrani – the grand gnostic – insisted on sheer unity, and argued against the union of the Names and Attributes with the Essence most vehemently. According to him, God’s Names are manifestations and creations of His Essence, as reported in authentic narrations.9 God’s Names and Attributes should be viewed at their limits and determinations (ta’ayyun), and God’s Essence should be taken is a Simple (basit) Existence, free from any blend of plurality.

Here, the intention of this humble being is not to refute the religion of the Christians – though its falsity is obvious and it has been shown that the Trinity involves certain contradictions. But what I want to say is that in terms of the impossibility of uniting the unity (wahdah) of the Truth and the Trinity of His Attributes and Manifestations (referred to as aqanim; i.e. elements, hypostases), exactly the same impossibility applies when one asserts the unity of God’s Essence but also advocates the union of His Names and Attributes with His Essence. In reaching real tawhid, there is no way out and no escape from the tawhid of the gnostics (‘urafa’).

The true sense of God’s unity of Essence

STUDENT. The fact of the matter regarding the tawhid of the Eternal Essence of God is to consider God’s Essence absolutely and utterly impeccable, unadulterated, and pure of any blend of plurality altogether – whether mental or actual, external or internal. That is indeed the word of truth and the truth of the word.

The philosophers’ gradation of being concerning God’s unity

‘ALLAMAH. In those correspondences (between Ayatollah Gharawi Isfahani and Ayatollah Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i, noted above), the late Gharawi Isfahani advocates the Gradation of Being (tashkik al-wujud), and has followed the approach of philosophers like Mulla Sadra, Hakim Sabzivari, and others.

But there is no problem with this view of tawhid, because in the gradation of being, according to the Fahlawiyyun,10 being (wujud) consists of many degrees and planes. A higher degree is different from a lower one in terms of intensity and moderation, abundance and scarcity, strength and weakness and so on.

Being to the Fahlawiyyun is a reality,
With an all-inclusive gradation.
Different grades of richness and poverty,
Like the grades of light in intensity.

(Sabzivari)

So at the same time that being is a single and simple (basit, not composite) reality, it involves several levels, starting from the highest degrees at one end, and gradually descending to the lowest degree at the other end. And the rest of the degrees are positioned accordingly between these two. It is such that the higher we go in the chain of these degrees, wujud becomes stronger, broader, and more intense. On the other hand, the lower we go, wujud becomes weaker and more limited.

Every higher plane includes the perfection (kamal) of its lower planes, but not vice versa. It is just like light, in that while it has a single meaning and a simple reality, it includes a long and extended chain of intensities. Its highest degree is at the sun, and its lowest degree is in the dark holes of the earth. And between these two degrees there are various degrees and intensities of light, all within the same spectrum. The brightest light is at the sun, and slightly below it, the light is a bit weaker, dimmer, and more distant [from perfection]. And thus it becomes weaker, more limited, fainter, and more distant at the lower degrees, until the last degree of light in terms of faintness, deficiency, and imperfection.

In general, the discrepancy between these degrees can be explained and distinguished as perfection and imperfection (kamal wa naqs). A superior plane includes the perfections of its lower planes, but not vice versa. That is, a lower plane does not include the planes above it and the perfections that they have. The source of light, where the most perfect light exists, is at the top of the chain, and the weakest degree of light, which is a faint and dim shadow, is at the lowest end.

The concept of light is the same across all these degrees, and it is a simple (basit) entity. However, the cause of difference is exactly the same as the factor of similarity. Each degree of the long chain and extended continuum of light is distinct from the other degrees because of the selfsame light (which is common between them), and not anything else. Therefore light has a graded reality (al-haqiqah al-mushakkikah), meaning that despite having one essence, it has different degrees (of brightness) in that very essence.

Concerning wujud (‘spiritual’ light), God is at the highest level of the continuum (Majestic He is). He is the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud), and His light is infinite in terms of intensity, power, extent, primacy, and perfection.

Then as we descend from that plane, we reach the different planes of divine immaterial intellects and powerful souls. Further below is the realm of ideas and forms (amthal wa suwar), and then the realm of matter and nature (maddah wa tabi’ah), which is the faintest of all realms and planes. Particularly prime matter (hayula, materia prima) is sheer potentiality and ranks below all perfections.

And since the Attributes and Names of the Necessary Being (most Exalted) are boundless, they can also be assumed at the highest end of this chain. They are in union with the Sacred Essence of the Necessary (wajib), at the utmost degree of strength, breadth, intensity, and perfection. Thus they have the simplicity (basatah) and unity (wahdah) of the Essence due to their union with it.

This is the contention of the late Shaykh Muhammad Husayn [Gharawi Isfahani], Mulla Sadra, Shaykh al-Ishraq (Master of Illumination) Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi, and the likes of them among the prominent sages.

STUDENT. The concept of gradation of being does not settle the matter or solve the problem. Because first of all, what you said above would entail composition in God’s Essence, which is the highest level of being according to the theory of gradation. For, if that level is in union with the Divine Names and Attributes, then all of those Names and Attributes – with their limits – should have actual substantiation (tahaqquq) in the Essence. And obviously each Name and Attribute is not merely a notion and concept, but has an external instance corresponding to It. Hence gradation would involve composition in God’s Essence, the very flaw of the Trinity.

Second, the whole theory of gradation of being is questionable and open to doubt. For this theory sets the Essence of the Necessary, Supreme is His Status, at the uppermost plane of the continuum, and then considers the contingent beings at the lower planes and degrees, positioned based on their proximity and distance (i.e. their intensity and degree of existence). But this limits God to the bounds of the contingent beings, and confines His existence to the highest limit of the contingent beings. This is due to the supposition that the Necessary Being and all contingent beings share in the reality of existence, and their distinction is based on their particular shares of existence and their quiddities (mahiyyah, i.e. the limits of existence). This means God’s existence (which is the same as His quiddity) is limited to the highest degree of the contingent beings, because God is set adjacent and next to that degree.11

At most, the existence of the Necessary would be distinguished from the other levels of existence based on intensity and weakness, and necessity and contingence. But this does solve the problem of limitation, because at the end of the day, God’s existence will be bounded by that of the contingent beings, and would lie within those limits.

But we know that God’s Essence, i.e. His existence, is Sheer (mahd) and Absolute (sirf), meaning that the unity of God’s Essence is absolute (bi al-sirafah) and not arithmetical. Therefore, anything you imagine in the universe is within It. Otherwise It would lose Its utter sheerness and total absoluteness. Now, given that God’s being is absolute, how can it involve any levels and degrees? And how can it be regarded as the highest degree [on the graded spectrum of being]? Its absoluteness of degree embraces all planes and degrees and annihilates them all in itself. So if God’s being is absolute, how can there be any room for other beings? This is the basis of burhan al-siddiqin (‘the proof of the truthful’).

‘ALLAMAH. In gradation of being, the series of beings in the various planes of existence do not exhibit a horizontal or lateral (‘ardi ) relation to one another. It is not that the planes stand next to and at the limit and boundary of one another. That would confine a superior plane to the limit of the plane below it. Rather, the planes of existence are positioned vertically and longitudinally (tuli, each plane includes and is beyond its lower plane). In relation to one another, the planes of existence compose a continuum of causes and effects.

Each higher plane is a cause for its lower plane, and each lower plane is the effect of its higher plane. Thus, since the cause comprises the perfections of its effect (and not vice versa), every degree in the graded chain of being includes every perfection of the degrees below it, and not vice versa.

Hence, each degree on this longitudinal chain comprises the perfections of its lower degree, and that lower degree in turn comprises the perfections of its lower degree, and so on, until we reach the last and lowest degree of being.

For example, if we assume the graded chain composed of ten degrees, the first degree, which is the lowest, possesses one degree of perfection. The second degree, which is higher than the first, holds two degrees of perfection, meaning that it includes the perfection of the first degree, but not vice versa. And the third degree includes the perfection of number two. That is, anything present in number two – at any intensity, abundance, proximity, power, and so on – is entirely found in number three. Therefore, in any plane of the chain, the lower planes are present in-act (bi al-fi’l). This way, any higher plane is not restricted to the limits of its lower planes.

The Essence of the Necessary (the Majestic, the All- Mighty) is at the utmost degree of these levels. Thus, all of the perfections of the lower degrees exist in Him in-act (as opposed to potentially). There is no perfection at any plane which is not present – to its fullest – in the Essence of the Necessary.

Gradation of being and unity of the gnostics

‘ALLAMAH. Meanwhile, the tawhid (monotheism) of the gnostics does not contradict gradation of being (tashkik al-wujud). It rather involves a deeper and more subtle view on being.

According to the philosophers’ theory of gradation, contingent beings possess real existence, except that their existence is contingent and limited. Each existent is the effect of the one above it, up to the Essence of the Necessary Being, Majestic is He. Therefore all beings are God’s effects and signs of His Magnificence and Grandeur.

However, for the gnostics, existence exclusively belongs to the Essence of the Truth. The rest of the existents (i.e. the contingent beings) are all shadows and shades of God’s existence. They are utter manifestations and nothing beyond that. Alluding existence to them is metaphorical and not real. They are only nominally called ‘existents’. This does not contradict the view of the philosophers, but it is a deeper and finer view of the existents. In fact, the gnostics’ view encompasses that of the philosophers.

But the objection to the Christians, which is valid and unavoidable, is that they believe in three independent elements. It is this view that contradicts unity.

Gradation contradicts the absoluteness of God’s existence

STUDENT. Of course, in gradation of being, wujud (existence, being) is absolute (i.e. unconditional, unmixed, and not numerical), meaning that every grade of the continuum is included in the absolute existence. However, the wujud of God’s Essence (the Majestic, the All-Mighty) is also Absolute (sirf) and Sheer (mahd). And that is why gradation contradicts the absoluteness of the Essence of the Necessary.

The absoluteness (sirafah) of existence of God’s Essence does not leave any existence for others. It does not recognise existence for them even as effects (ma’lul, of the higher planes). In other words, absoluteness does not unite with otherness (ghayriyyah, i.e. the existence of others). The claim that God’s Essence comprises the perfections of Its effects still allows for some otherness, such as otherness in terms of intensity and weakness. However, any otherness contradicts the absoluteness of God’s being.

The subtle view of the gnostics invalidates the view of the philosophers. The philosophers’ view is at some level of precision; the gnostics’ view passes beyond that level and then refutes it. Seeing the unity of the Truth and observing the absoluteness in His being, a gnostic cannot see or even imagine any ‘other’ for Him. A gnostic regards all existents as rays, shades, relations, and labels of the Essence of the Truth. In this view of the gnostics – which is pure tawhid – the reality of wujud exclusively belongs to God’s Essence. This view involves neither the problem of many eternal beings, nor the inconsistency between the absoluteness of existence and claiming existence of other (contingent) beings. And this elucidates the [true] meaning of these verses:

... There is no secret conference of three but He is their fourth, nor of five but He is their sixth, nor of less than that or more but He is with them wherever they may be. (58:7)

... And He is with you wherever you are, and Allah sees what you do. (57:4)

According to the gnostics’ view of unity (wahdah), the togetherness (ma’iyyah) of the Truth with all beings is real (haqiqi). It is like that of a pole and its shade, or that of a leaning post and its support. This sense of unity does not entail numerical unity, for the Essence of the Truth, Whose unity is absolute and not numerical, is together with every being. He is with any three, four, five or more or less, without adding to their count. But in case of the Trinity, God is certainly taken as a numeric ‘One’. Likewise, the claim that the existential otherness between God’s Essence and His Names and Attributes is like the otherness between the cause and the effect (causal relationship) also reduces to numerical otherness.

So if we want to deny all sorts of numerical unity for God’s Essence, we must accept His absolute unity. In that case, no ‘other’ can be imagined for Him, not even as an effect. Instead, all beings would be His names, His manifestations, and expressions of His Sacred Essence, and attributing existence to them would be but a notional and metaphorical ascription.

The personal unity of God’s existence

‘ALLAMAH. This argument of yours is complete and sound only if you add another premise to your argument! And that is to assume that wujud is characterised by al-wahdah al-shakhsiyyah (personal unity, unity of person)! In that case, absolute wujud, which only involves one person, would be nothing but the Essence of the Truth. Then no being – on the earth or in the heavens, in the material or divine realms – would have any existence of its own. Existence for all beings will be an accident (‘arad) and a merely metaphorical allusion.

It is not sufficient for wujud to be absolutely one, but it should also have personal unity (tashakhkhus). Otherwise, the purely one wujud may have multiple realisations (in many persons), such as a Necessary realisation and a contingent one. So that would again take us away from the unity of the gnostics. To go around this, one must also maintain that any purely one wujud must have only one person. Then given that wujud is characterised by unity of person, one can talk about the unity of wujud and its properties.

A long time ago I wrote an Arabic treatise on guardianship (wilayah), and there I proved the personal unity of being, meaning that being has only one person (tashakhkhus). So there is one and only one external and actual person for being, and it is impossible to have more than one person (shakhs, i.e. instance) of it. If the absoluteness of God’s existence is to leave no room and no existence for any other being, then existence must have unity of person; that is, in the whole universe, there should be only one person of existence. That is because the unity of person cannot be combined with any kind of plurality, though one can have plurality with other forms of unity, such as unity of species (naw’) and even graded (tashkiki) unity. But if a reality has only one person, it would not allow for any plurality.

Thus, if the reality of the Truth (Glorious and Exalted is He) is one person, i.e. characterised by personal unity, then it is impossible for it to involve any plurality. That is a complete argument. Wujud is identical to the one person of wujud that exists. God is not one as a genus or species or class or anything like that, but He is ‘the person’ (of wujud).

There is no occupant in the house except Him. (Nur ‘Ali Shah Isfahani, d. 1199/1785)

It is based on this argument that the Qur’an argues against the Trinity. Why is it that
‘Those who said, “Indeed Allah is the Third of Three” have surely disbelieved’ (5:73),
or that,
‘Say not “Three!” Refrain; it is better for you’ (4:171)?

The Qur’an charges all Christians [who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ] with infidelity based on the logic that no type of plurality can define and confine the Essence of the Exalted Creator, Who is personally One.

Certainly wujud (being) is characterised by unity of person, or as the gnostics of Allah put it, it is a tashakhkhus (personality, individuality). Thus, the being in any existent is in fact God’s being, not its own, for it has no being [of its own]. It is God’s being that we see in the earth, the heavens, the animals, and all the multiplicities that we see. Being is One (that of Allah), not multiple (that of the objects). There is only one instance of being and no multiplicities therewith. Attributing being to the multiplicities is only metaphorical (majaz) and accidental (‘aradi ).

Aversion of the infidels’ hearts from God’s unity

STUDENT. It is remarkable how clearly the Noble Qur’an describes God’s unity (tawhid). It is as if the entire Qur’an was revealed in order to describe the Supreme Truth (al-Haqq) and everything that relates to Him. It is a textbook of tawhid.

And it is so astonishing how the people run away from the tawhid of the Supreme Truth. They do their best to somehow drag God down to the realm of pluralities (katharat), and pollute His Reality with impurities of pluralities. Glorified and Exalted is He.

How far and distant they are from God’s unity! Wherever there is a mention of it, they rise against it. And how much they love the realm of pluralities, so much that they even want God to have a share in it. Is it because of the congruity between them and the realm of pluralities? After all, it is their abode, to which they are accustomed.

... And when thou mentionest thy Lord in the Qur’an as One, they turn their backs in aversion. (17:46)

And when Allah is mentioned alone, the hearts of those who believe not in the hereafter wince.... (39:45)

[The infidels are addressed on the Day of Judgment:] That is because whenever Allah alone was called you disbelieved.... (40:12)

‘ALLAMAH. The verses in Chapter 102 (al-Takathur) are [even] more astounding than these verses that you mentioned:

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All- Compassionate * Rivalry in worldly increase distracted you * Until you visited the graves * No indeed; you will come to know * Again no indeed; you will come to know * No indeed; if you know with knowledge of certitude * You would [or will] surely see the hell * Then you will surely see it with vision of certitude * Then, on that day, you will surely be asked about the great bounty. (102:1-8)

‘Rivalry in worldly increase distracted you * Until you visited the graves’

‘ALLAMAH. In certain cases, the Qur’an is beyond being explicit – though our hearts are such that we refuse to accept the Qur’an’s message, and thus we interpret the verses otherwise. The verses are saying:

Seeing and seeking multitudes engaged you from seeing the beauty of the Truth and diverted you from absolute unity; until you are sent down [dead] into the graves!

No indeed; you will soon find out! Again, no indeed (there is no truth or reality in pluralities); you will soon find out! No, it is not so!

If you know with knowledge of certitude (and realise the fact of the matter), indeed you would find (these pluralities) as hell and blazing fire! Then indeed you will realise that fire with real certitude! Then you will surely be asked about the great bounty, which is a servant’s means to achieve proximity to God. You will be asked about the extent to which you removed the veil of pluralities and stepped into the field of unity (tawhid)!

These verses have been interpreted in two ways. One is that during the Age of Ignorance (jahiliyyah) and the early years of the appearance of Islam, the Arabs and nomadic tribes used to take pride against each other. They used to count the number of the heroes and stars of each tribe, and the tribe with the most heroes would be the winner. This process sometimes used to go beyond limits, such that if a party sensed it was being defeated, they would start counting the dead. So they would go to the cemetery and count the number of the dead from each tribe, known from their names and titles. They would add the number of the dead to the living, and for example say, ‘Our heroes and stars count to forty: thirty alive and ten dead.’

The second meaning is that these multiplicities and your regards and aspirations for them engrossed you in themselves and precluded you from observing the Truth. And this continues until the time of death, meaning that so long as you are alive you seek and follow the distracting multiplicities, and you keep doing so until you die!

STUDENT. This amassment (takathur) is absolute and unconditional (mutlaq). It is not only about the amassment of wealth and children, but it also applies to the amassment of virtuous deeds and knowledge – of law (fiqh), principles of law (usul), tradition (hadith), and other subjects and skills. It generally includes any accretion that veils one from the vision of the Truth and the unity of His Precinct, Majestic and All-Mighty is He. All of these are takathur (rivalry in amassment) and result in one’s engagement in them instead of being engaged in Allah. These multiplicities preclude one from the attempt and endeavour to attain and realise the unity of the Truth.

Mankind ceaselessly seeks knowledge. He wants to know others before knowing himself. He desires to know the universe, the societies, the earth, the time, the heavens, the stars and the planets. He wants this book and that book, and his wants are not satiated ‘until you visit the graves.’ He is neglectful of the na’im (the great bounty) and all that is to be found in the vision (liqa’) of Allah! He is unaware of what is going on there, and what assets and benefits he has lost due to the veil of multiplicities! Thus, being empty-handed of what is real (haqiqah), he seeks gathering what is unreal (majaz); he deviates from unity (wahdah) and turns to plurality. This state of seeking, seeing and being obsessed with pluralities continues in man’s life until he dies and enters the grave, when the roll of his life is recoiled.

‘ALLAMAH. That is right, this verse is unconditional. Any sort of accumulation impedes one from striving for Allah and unity. The latter interpretation is preferred to the former, which is not so compelling.

And going back to the letters between the two honourable scholars, Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i and Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Isfahani (may Allah be pleased with them) concerning gradation (tashkik) and unity (wahdah) of being, the late Shaykh was not finally convinced by the unitary gnostic ideas of the late Sayyid. However, later on (after Ayatollah Karbala’i’s death), Sayyid Hasan Kashmiri resumed the debate with the late Shaykh following the arguments of the late Sayyid Ahmad, until he convinced the late Shaykh.

When I was in Najaf and used to benefit from my master, the late Qadi, one day I was in a state of trance (khalsah) when I attended the presence of Hadrat ‘Ali ibn Ja’far (may Allah be pleased with him). It felt like he was drawing near, to the extent that I could sense the air around his body and hear his breathing. ‘The concept of unity (wahdah)’ he told me, ‘is amongst the certain and fundamental principles of us, the Household of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt).’

The problem with gradation of being

STUDENT. This matter should still be clarified: are gradation of being (tashkik al-wujud) and unity of being (wahdat al-wujud) two incompatible theories, or are they both true, except that the latter is superior to and more complete than the former?

The advocates of tawhid (i.e. the gnostics) claim that the Sacred Essence of the Necessary Being (wajib al-wujud) does not assume any name or title, never bears any determination (ta’ayyun), Its existence is absolute, and Its unity is not an arithmetical unity. Therefore, if we confine It by any determination – be it in any way or manner – that determination results in contradistinction (tamyiz) of God’s Essence and negates Its absoluteness.

But the advocates of gradation claim that the Essence of the Necessary Being is the highest degree of existence, and that Its supremacy, grandeur, dominance and intensity distinguish It from the other beings. The existence of the Necessary Being and that of the contingent beings are both pure and simple (basit), and therefore the point of their distinction is the selfsame existence, for they have nothing but existence. This means that what distinguishes the different levels in the continuum of existence is the actual existence – whether it is the distinction between the Necessary Being and contingent beings, or between a stronger contingent being and a weaker one. This is a characteristic of graded realities, that although their elements differ from one another; this difference is due to the selfsame graded reality, not due to a nonexistent, external or essential (mahuwi, based on quiddity) factor.

That is how the reality of the Necessary is distinguished from the other planes of existence. We distinguish God’s existence by regarding it as greater, more solvent and at a higher degree compared to the contingent beings, which are smaller, weaker and at lower degrees of existence. But these are concepts that denote external instances (sing. misdaq) corresponding to them. These are relative properties of existence (wujud), and therefore this way of distinguishing the Necessary Being from contingent beings entails the determination (ta’ayyun) and delimitation of the existence of the Necessary.

Of course, the higher degrees comprise the perfections of the lower degrees, but there is still some distinction between them. It does not entail that existence has only one person (tashakhkhus). Even this slightest amount of contradistinction (tamyiz) and separation between the graded degrees results in the delimitation and determination of the Necessary, and suffices to deny the absoluteness (sirafah) of the highest degree of existence. Hence the Supreme Truth will be reduced to an arithmetical entity, Exalted is He.

But it is proven that His existence is absolute, and the breadth and dominion of His existence has overwhelmed and annihilated all beings. This idea has also been mentioned in supplications and narrations.

[He is] One, but not as a number; [and] Upright, but without any support.12

Gradation of being and tawhid of the gnostics

‘ALLAMAH. According to gradation of being, the highest degree of existence is superior to all other degrees in all aspects, such as power, intensity, and abundance. The highest degree is the cause, and the other beings are its effects. This does not contradict the absoluteness (sirafah) of existence, but is actually equivalent to the concept of absoluteness.

The graded chain of being extends from weakness to perfection. Every lower plane is the effect of the plane above it, and every higher plane is the cause of the plane below it. Meanwhile, it has been proven that the cause incorporates the effect entirely, except the aspects of deficiency of the effect, which are due to its quiddity and nonexistent limitations. The cause has immediate and presential knowledge (al-’ilm al-huduri) of the effect. Therefore, the Necessary Being, which is the End of the ends and the Origin of the origins, is the cause of every grade of the chain of being; He is both the efficient cause (‘illat al-fa’ili) and the final cause (‘illat al-ghayi). Hence, He includes the existential perfections and realisations of the lower planes. There is no perfection found in any plane except that it is actually present in the Essence of the Necessary Being, and this is the selfsame absoluteness of existence.

Therefore the absoluteness of God’s existence does not contradict its being the highest degree of existence.

So the idea is that when we go through the degrees of being, the perfection (kamal) of any lower degree is present in the degree above it, while the perfection of the higher degree is not held by the lower degree. And this higher degree would itself count as the lower degree compared to the one above it, and thus the higher degree incorporates the perfection of the lower degree, but not vice versa. So each degree will be lower than the one above it.

And thus the sequence goes up to the highest degree, above which nothing exists. And since this sequence cannot go up infinitely – for it is impossible to have an infinite regression (tasalsul) – it must reach a Maximum above which there is nothing. Then that Maximum comprises all perfections and realisations of the lower degrees put together. This is while none of the lower degrees comprise the perfection of that Highest Degree, despite their number and multitude.

The realisation of all perfections in the highest level is the same as absoluteness of existence. That is because any excellence, intensity, solvency, power and any other kind of perfection that we may imagine is present there. Based on our assumption, He is the Cause, and the cause comprises all perfections of the effect.

One cannot claim that although the Highest Degree of perfection includes the perfections of Its lower degrees, It does not include the actual lower degrees (i.e. claiming some distinction), and so that is a constraint on Its absoluteness.

That is not true because the existence that an inferior degree has is nothing but perfection. The aspects of quiddity and limitation of the inferior degree have no existence; they are nonexistent matters (i.e. its inferiority and non-perfection are things that it does not have; therefore anything that it has is some degree and form of perfection). Thus, anything that an inferior degree has – any realisation, existence or sign of existence – is found in the degrees above it.

The inferior is a degree of existential perfection, characterised by what it has in terms of solvency, intensity, abundance, proximity, precedence, and so on. All of these, without their nonexistent and inherent limits, are present at the superior degree in-act. The superior degree has presential and immediate knowledge to the inferior degree, meaning that the latter is under the dominance, power, and authority of the former.

The example of light is often used here, and it clarifies the subject quite well: assume the spectrum of sunlight to have a hundred degrees from its source at the sun down to the earth. Then we would have light of degree one on the earth, above which is degree two, above which is degree three, and above which are degrees four, five, six and so on, up to the sun, whose light is assumed to be of degree one hundred.

Any of these degrees and intensities of light in the spectrum contains the light of the lower degrees and intensities, but not vice versa. And there is no light that is not present at the highest degree (one hundred) which is the source of light and the perfection of light. So there is a series of degrees, one above another, which make up the degrees of light.

Any higher degree is the cause of the degree below it. The lowest degree lacks the perfections of the higher degrees, while the highest degree includes the perfections of the lower degrees. One degree means one degree of perfection, and two degrees means two degrees of perfection. And a hundred degrees means a hundred degrees of perfection, which incorporates the perfections of all one hundred degrees. This is the meaning of absoluteness (sirafah).

Absoluteness means to not involve any form of constraint, and since the highest degree (the hundredth degree) involves no constraint whatsoever, gradation does not contradict absoluteness. In fact this is nothing but absoluteness! This example of degrees and intensities of visible light is a very appropriate example, and elucidates the idea. Likewise is the case with the true and genuine light, which is the reality of being.

Real tawhid is only that of the gnostics

STUDENT. In gradation of being, the numerous grades of being have real and genuine existence. Being is the point of similarity between all degrees in the continuum, and at the same time it is what makes the degrees different from one other. Meanwhile we know that being is a single reality. Therefore, the reality of being has adopted actual gradation based on its intensity or weakness, precedence or delay, and so on. So existence, which is a single reality, is graded, meaning that it consists of different instances that are all entities of existence. The notions of existence and existent apply to all these instances.

But the actual nature of existence, which underlies the whole continuum, is a simple entity, and its unity is certainly absolute. There is nothing against it to designate and classify it as a number. It is such that ‘Any second entity that you assume for it reduces back to that first one, and whatever you assume to be outside of it, is inside it.’13 That is because it is absolute, and this is the meaning of absoluteness.

Sure, the utmost degree of being, the Necessary Being, certainly incorporates all perfections of its inferior degrees. And all grades of being are actually present in it, apart from their nonexistent and inherent limits. Yet there should certainly be something that distinguishes the highest degree from the other degrees, and that is nothing but the notion of ‘otherness’ (ghayriyyah).

Thus, although the inferior beings – excluding their limits – are present at the highest degree, they are outside and external to it because of involving those limits. This exclusion and being outside entails some division and detachment that separates the two existents, and this contradicts the absoluteness of being. There should be no numbers if there is absoluteness, but here we are dealing with numbers.

Even though the Necessary Being is at the top of the continuum and is the cause of the other beings, there is nevertheless a numerical distinction between the cause and the effects. The inclusion of the effect – without its limits – in the cause is not sufficient for the union and oneness of the effect and the cause.

And since the Essence (i.e. existence) of the Necessary is Absolutely One, the concept of existence can only be true for an absolute entity. There must only be one person and instance of existence, which includes all existents (the contingent beings). In other words, there should be One Individual Being (al-wujud al-shakhsi), which is sheer necessity (wujub), such that all contingent beings are Its manifestations, epiphanies and expressions, as opposed to themselves having [actual] existence.

This is realised in the theory of unity or wahdah (of the gnostics). It has already been proven that first, being (wujud) is characterised by unity of person; and second, there is only one wujud. This means that wujud is the single person, and that is Allah, Exalted is He.

This Personal Being is absolute, for there is nothing outside of It, and thus It cannot be enumerated. All beings are Its signs and images, without any existence of themselves. Alluding existence to them is a notional and metaphorical reference. The stamp of privation, nothingness, need, and indigence is printed on all their foreheads. Thus, the belief in gradation of being does not represent pure tawhid. At the end of the day, it involves some idea of constraint and number in the Essence of the Necessary, though this constraint and number may be subtle and hidden.

The reality of God’s unity

STUDENT. The gnostics have followed the teachings of Imam ‘Ali in Nahj al-Balaghah and his other speeches, and the words of wisdom of the two Sadiqs (Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq, peace be upon them). These Imams were the real exegetes of the Noble Qur’an on the subject of tawhid.

The theory of gradation of being has no value in the school of the gnostics, which dispenses with gradation of being altogether, and sets [real] tawhid as its basis and foundation.

Say, He, Allah is One * Allah is the Independent [and Besought by all] * He begetteth not nor was begotten * And there is no counterpart for Him. (112:1-4)

He is the First, and the Last, and the Outward, and the Inward; and He is All-Knowing of everything. (57:3)

His ghirah (jealousy, protectiveness)14 did not leave any ghayr (other) in the world.

Things in the world are only apparitions,
Images in mirrors, fantasy, or illusions.

(‘Abd al-Rahman Jami)

People of the ‘ruins’ (kharabat) have some criteria:
Tawhid is to drop everything that’s extra.
Being, which moves in its own perfection,
Is only determined in one’s conception.

(Shabistari)

‘ALLAMAH. I also know similar poems! But unfortunately the matter is not resolved by poetry. Of course one cannot maintain that there are various instances and persons of being. The concept of being (qua being, in itself) does not allow for multiple persons of being. Thus, if gradation of being requires accepting multiple persons of being, then gradation should be rejected. But if I remember right, according to my explanations in the Risalat al-Wilayah, which I wrote long ago, the idea that God is the highest degree of being (i.e. gradation of being) does not contradict the absoluteness of being.15

Adequate elucidation on the gradation and unity of being

‘ALLAMAH. What we mentioned about the series of planes of being was to establish the gradation of being. The idea is that if there is some being, then if there is to be another being, one of them will be inferior to the other and included by it in terms of being. What the inferior being possesses belongs entirely to the superior one. The same idea applies as we consider a third being and so on. This keeps going up until it reaches a degree above which there is no degree, and that must be the Necessary Being. This means that being is graded, and the degree of the Necessary Being would be the highest. If being is to be absolute, it is only so at that highest degree. This is the argument of the proponents of gradation of being.

But this is not sufficient to establish both the gradation of being and its absoluteness (sirafah). It is only a hypothesis that considers the highest level of being along a series of beings. And of course the utmost degree would be absolute since it comprises all perfections. No being lies outside the domain of His existence and reality. As a realisation and instance of existence, He includes and overshadows everything that has any element of existence and perfection. Nonetheless, the subject is subtle; it must be reflected upon and investigated more, and I will think more about it, if Allah wills.

God’s Essence transcends all names, identities, and determinations

STUDENT. Is it possible to derive many concepts from the Sacred Essence of the Truth, Exalted He is? If yes, based on what grounds and reason? And if not, how have the Names and Attributes of the High Truth, Majestic and Exalted He is, come to be? Are God’s Names and Attributes, which are certainly concepts with external instances, in togetherness (ma’iyyah) and identification (‘ayniyyah) with His Essence? Or are they at a different plane from that of the Essence, and count as lower determinations and delimitations of the Essence?

For we know that it is impossible to derive multiple concepts from an Essence that is Simple in every aspect (basit, i.e. pure, uniform, unmixed). Concepts (sing. mafhum) are mentally derived from external instances (sing. misdaq). Thus if there are many concepts, it means that there are many instances corresponding to those concepts. So how can we associate multiple concepts with a single instance (i.e. God’s Essence)?

The answer of Mulla Sadra and Sabzivari (who advocated the union of God’s Names and Attributes with His Essence) is that the multiplicity of God’s Names and Attributes – such as All-Knower, All-Powerful, and so on – is only a conceptual matter and a result of mental derivation. The mind ascribes these Names and Attributes to the Essence because there are aspects of knowledge and power in God’s Actions – i.e. His Actions (af‘al) exhibit knowledge and power. That is what it means when we say that God is Knowledgeable and Powerful.16

Likewise, Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Isfahani insists on the identification (‘ayniyyah) of God’s Names and Attributes with His Essence, and does not consider it impossible to derive multiple concepts from a Single Essence in one way or another. But the late Sayyid Ahmad Tihrani Karbala’i insists against the union of God’s Essence with His Names and Attributes.

‘ALLAMAH. Certainly there is no way to derive multiple concepts from an Essence that is One and Simple in every aspect.

And no doubt the controversy over the union and disunion of God’s Attributes and Names with His Essence does not concern all Names and Attributes. There is no controversy on the Attributes and Names of Action (fi’l) such as the Sustainer (al-Raziq), the All-Wise (al-Hakim), the Creator (al-Khaliq), the Forgiver (al-Ghafir) and the like. The disagreement is concerning the Names and Attributes of Essence (dhat), such as knowledge, power, life, hearing, and sight.

So we may put the Attributes of Action aside. And the Attributes of Essence reduce to the five mentioned above. In fact, hearing and sight further reduce to knowledge. Therefore only three Attributes of Essence are left: life, knowledge, and power. Here we are particularly concerned with God’s knowledge and power pertaining to His Essence, just like life, which is an Attribute of God’s Essence.

To make this matter clear, we maintain that, in general, concepts give rise to plurality. Each concept, essentially and in and of itself, is necessarily separate and distinct from the other concepts. Hence, identifying something as an instance of a concept involves some delimitation of that concept. One who reflects upon it finds that this delimitation is a necessary consequence of assuming an external instance for a concept. Equivalently, if a concept is to be identified with an instance that is unlimited in its essence, the concept must be at a plane that is inferior and subsequent to that of the unlimited essence. We also know that the predicate (mahmul) is subsequent and inferior to the subject (mawdu’).

Now, the Essence of the Necessary Being is unbounded, since His existence is absolute. Hence, this absolute existence (i.e. God’s Essence) is above all determinations that are associated with the Divine Names and Attributes. His Essence is above all conceptual limits and requirements, including this very rule. Our claim that ‘God’s Essence is not ruled by anything’ predicates a rule on God’s Essence (the subject). But the utterly Simple Essence is higher and purer than being the subject of our rule (or any rule). Therefore, that Sacred Reality is unconditional (mutlaq) and free of all confinement, including this very ruling and requirement (of unconditionality) that we ‘impose’ on it.

This means that the rationally proven identification (‘ayniyyah) between the Essence and the Attributes only goes in one direction – meaning that the Essence is the same (‘ayn) as the Attributes, but the Attributes are not the same as the Essence. By this we mean that the Essence stands on Its own, but the Attributes depend on the Essence.

STUDENT. Can one prove that only one concept can be derived from a Single and Purely Simple Essence on the grounds that ‘From One, there emerges only one’ (al-wahidu la yasduru minhu illa al-wahid), which has been shown to be true?17 That is, can it be used to show that it is impossible to derive multiple concepts from a Simple Essence?

‘ALLAMAH. Of course that discussion concerns the subject of causality and not that of inference and derivation (intiza’). Nevertheless, it may be that the basis of that argument and its premises also apply to this case, though it has not yet been argued as such.18

What is meant by manifestation (tajalli)?

STUDENT. There is an idea that is repeatedly found in the works on mysticism and philosophy, that ‘There is no recurrence (takrar) in manifestation (tajalli).’19 What does ‘manifestation’ mean here?

‘ALLAMAH. It means existential manifestation. There is only one external realisation (tahaqquq) of existence, and an existent cannot be realised twice. Zayd has a unique realisation of existence. There cannot be two realisations of Zayd while he is a single entity; it is meaningless to have two instances of him. Zayd is one; we do not have two Zayds; we do not have two Commanders of the Faithful (two Amir al-Mu’minins).

This does not mean that a person’s existence cannot be identified with two where’s or when’s (two positions or times). There is a different reason for that, but that is not called recurrence in manifestation. If a substance (jawhar) has two accidents (‘arad), that is not recurrence of manifestation, like Zayd’s being in two times or two locations concurrently. The denial of recurrence of manifestation means that one substance does not become two substances, and one realisation of existence does not become two realisations of existence. There is only one existential realisation (no recurrence). Number one does not become number two. Existence is one, and the realisation of existence is one. And a single realisation does not become two.

Thus, the whole created world is all but one manifestation. From the beginning to the end of the universe, each realisation is unique and without recurrence. The universe is one unit and a single entity. If we look at the whole universe, it is a single entity with a single realisation; and if we look at a part of it, [again] it is a single entity with a single realisation.

All these images and figures full of grace
Were a single flash of the Tapster’s face
That shone on the glass of time and space.

(Hafiz)

‘The soul is bodily in origination and spiritual in subsistence’

STUDENT. The principle that the soul is bodily in origination and spiritual in subsistence (jismaniyyat al-huduth, ruhaniyyat al-baqa’) is truly precious, sensible, and clear.20 It has been proven by the doctrine of transubstantial motion (al-harkat al-jawhariyyah), which is itself verified by certain verses of the Noble Qur’an, and was established and solidified by Mulla Sadra (may Allah be pleased with him).

What are the most evident and relevant verses of the Qur’an on this subject?21

Man’s creation originates from the earth

‘ALLAMAH.

Verily We created man from an extract of mud * Then We set him [as] a drop in a secure receptacle * Then We created of the drop a clot; then We created of the clot a tissue; then We created of the tissue bones; then We garmented the bones with flesh; thereafter We produced him as another creation. So Bounteous is Allah, the Best of creators. (23:12-14)

Here Allah says that ‘We created man from an extract of mud,’ and obviously mud is a body ( jism). Thus, the origination (huduth) of man is from mud, which is a body.

‘Then, after creating it from mud, We turned it [the creation of mud] into sperm.’ Here again it is observed that it turns into a body, for sperm is a body. Therefore, based on transubstantial motion (al-harkat al-jawhariyyah), mud is turned into sperm. It means that one body turns into another.

‘After that, We created of the sperm ‘alaqah,’ which means blood-clot, coagulum. Here again, one body is turned into another.

‘And then We created of the ‘alaqah mudghah,’ which means some crushed muscle tissue. Once again, a body is turned into another.

‘And then We created of the mudghah bones.’ Here also one body is turned into another.

And once Allah covered the bones with muscle, the verse says, ‘At this stage, We gave man another creation.’ It means ‘We turned the bodily man spiritual.’ The reality and spirit of these bodies turn into man’s rational soul (al-nafs al-natiqah, i.e. intellect).

So ‘Thereafter We produced him as another creation’ indicates that matter is set aside, and the body turns into an immaterial and transcendent soul (al-nafs al-mujarrad). Thus, what is inferred from the verse contradicts the stand of the ancient philosophers. They held that in creation of man, first the foetus is realised, and it develops until it reaches the capacity at which the spirit (ruh) can be inspired and blown into it. That is when the soul (nafs) is created by God right away, and is attached to the matter (the foetus).22

The ancient sages maintained that man is composed of the spirit and the body. However, the verse does not suggest composition (tarkib); rather, it explicitly talks about transformation (tabdil). It says that man is [made] from the extract of mud, and it is this extract of mud that becomes these things. So God’s creation carries on step by step and bit by bit in a material course, until it reaches a point where it jumps out of matter. ‘Thereafter We produced him as another creation’ is about the same matter, saying that it becomes another creation. Based on transubstantial motion, matter turns into a transcendent being; the body becomes the rational soul.

This verse is very clear. Nevertheless, we also have other verses in the Noble Qur’an that convey this idea, such as:

Thereof [out of the earth] We created you, and thereunto We return you, and thence We bring you forth once more. (20:55)

This verse clearly says that We created you out of the earth. So the onset of human’s creation is corporeal.

And Allah caused you to grow out of the earth like a plant [or such a growth!]. (71:17)

Man’s growing from the earth indicates that the origin of his creation is corporal and material. And among these verses are the four expressions of the Glorious Qur’an regarding the origin of man’s creation:

... From dark putrid dried mud. (15:26)

... From dry clay like the potter’s. (55:14)

... From an extract of mud. (23:12) as well as

... And He began the creation of man from mud. (32:7)

... From an extract of some worthless water. (32:8)

There are also six verses in the Qur’an that imply that the origin of man’s creation is from soil and dust, including these two verses:

Allah created you of dust, then from a sperm-drop, then He made you pairs.... (35:11)

Truly, for Allah, the likeness of Jesus is as the likeness of Adam; He created him of dust.... (3:59)

The stages of man’s transformations in transubstantial motion

‘ALLAMAH. Overall, these verses imply that certainly man’s soul (nafs) originates from body and matter. Then, through transformations in its substance (jawhar), that original matter – the dry clay or distasteful mud – changes into the form of sperm, then into blood-clot (‘alaqah) and then crushed tissue (mudghah). God created Adam, the father of humankind, from soil. Then He bestowed existence to him by the word ‘be’, which is nothing but God’s Divine Will, and this was also a substantial motion.

It means that substance is inherently in motion. Man’s substance first had the quiddity (mahiyyah) of, say, an extract of mud. Then, due to motion in its essence and substance, it reached the status of a sperm and adopted the quiddity of a sperm. After that, the sperm moved substantially and essentially toward being an ‘alaqah; so it became an ‘alaqah and adopted its quiddity. That quiddity was in turn transformed to the quiddity of being a mudghah because of substantial motion. And then mudghah also moved in its substance and transformed into bones.

Then after growing muscles on the bones, suddenly matter turned into the immaterial soul: ‘Thereafter We produced him as another creation.’
So matter became the rational soul (al-nafs al-natiqah) and thereby the spirit (ruh) was attached to matter. The spirit is in the mould of the body. And when man departs this world, this immaterial spirit abandons matter at once and proceeds on its path after death. The matter is left on the earth without being connected to the soul:

Then indeed after that you will surely die. (23:15)

After death and its detachment from matter, the rational soul keeps moving toward its perfection based on substantial motion. And after passing its course in barzakh (the intermediate realm between this world and the Day of Resurrection), it achieves a tajarrud (catharsis, immateriality) which is appropriate for the Day of Resurrection [i.e. it will be disentangled even from forms]. It will put on a dress that is appropriate for that day:

Then on the Day of Resurrection you will surely be raised up. (23:16)

All these are through transubstantial motion. So long as man is sheer matter, the motion is in matter. Once he becomes a rational soul, his transubstantial motion continues with the rational soul.

We can liken these transformations to the light of a lamp that emerges from the wick. The origin of the light is oil, castor beans, firewood, or kerosene. The kerosene, castor oil, and their like transform into a flame of light due to the purification caused by combustion. And the flame turns into gas, emitting light and illuminating its surroundings.

Man’s arcs of ascent and descent toward perfection

STUDENT. In that case, what happens to the arcs (qaws) of ascent (su’ud) and descent (nuzul)? There are some narrations that God created the spirits (arwah) two thousand years prior to their bodies. There are also other narrations, with different wordings but a common theme, that the spirits were created before the bodies. More generally, there are narrations that imply that before coming to the realm of nature and matter, man had existence in other realms. He had certain conversations in those realms, and then he descended from those realms, one after the other, until he came to this world.

‘ALLAMAH. Those narrations in no way contradict the belief in the corporeal origin of man’s creation. Not only human beings, but everything in the realm of nature and matter has some heart (malakut) and spirit (jan), the reality of which is not of the physical and corporeal realm, but is rather of the superior realms. However, that spirit has somehow been attached to matter. The sperm has some spirit; the ‘alaqah has some spirit; the rock, the tree, the water and the earth, each has a spirit. Animals, birds, stars and planets, all have their own specific souls and spirits. These spirits are not from the corporeal world, but belong to the celestial realms. Each has descended from its specific place in the higher realms, and has attached to matter in its own way.

Likewise, the human soul is from the immaterial celestial realms. There it realised that it cannot achieve certain aspects of perfection by staying immaterial (mujarrad), and that those aspects are in the inferior realms of plurality (kathrah). Thus it came down in order to achieve the perfections of the realm of plurality, and afterwards ascend once again to attend the Precinct of the High Truth. Therefore it is from the superior, came to the inferior, and again returns to the superior.

In other words, the spirit was initially in the higher realms, but then it came down step by step, in a downward journey. In going through these stages of descension, its only objective was to attain the perfections of plurality, which can only be attained in the physical world and through materiality; that was its sole goal and objective.

If man only had his initial humanity (insaniyyah) and nothing beyond that, he would not have benefited from these multiplicities (i.e. the multiplicities that he engages in, in this world). Without the body, there would have been no variety of actions and attributes for the spirit.

In its descension to this world, the spirit adopts the colour of any realm that it passes through. At every plane that it reaches, it becomes an entity of that plane. As it reaches the realm of forms (mithal), it assumes an archetypal form just like the other beings in that realm, and becomes a member of the realm of forms.

And as it reaches this realm of nature and matter, it completely becomes a material entity and sheer matter. It becomes a sperm. The transcendent spirit has descended so much that now it is only a sperm. Then as a result of transubstantial motion, it transforms and changes to different forms and quiddities, until it jumps out of matter and once again becomes immaterial. This jump corresponds to the point when voluntary movement and activity is observed in the foetus, whereby the spirit comes to be.

When man is a sperm, his reality has descended to that of truly being a sperm. And after the transformations and changes of its form, when it reaches the stage of ‘Thereafter We produced him as another creation’ (23:14), the selfsame bones that are covered with muscle will actually turn into the immaterial rational soul, and then the rational soul goes through the subsequent stages. It is not that the body is separate and the spirit is infused into it. It is not that the spirit is apart from the body and matter, and that they are brought together for a few days and then they split up.

The merits and perfections of man are due to its endeavour in the realm of plurality. Had it not descended and become sheer matter and then resumed to the higher realms once again, he would not have any perfection. When the spirit descended, it was a single unit (with no multiplicity). Once it comes to this world, it starts to actualise its potentials and collect various traits and pluralities. It gathers and packs them all, and departs up, for good.

Subsistence of permanent archetypes in God’s Essence upon annihilation

STUDENT. Given that the higher realm is not a realm of multiplicity, how does the human soul carry up the multiplicities that it has acquired with itself? Multiplicities and their properties and components are specific to the realm of multiplicity, but there is no multiplicity in the realm of annihilation (fana’).

Zayd, ‘Amr, and Bakr belong to the stages prior to annihilation in God, but nothing exists in annihilation. Of course after annihilation, in the realm of subsistence by God (baqa’ bi-Allah), these multiplicities are again conceivable. Zayd, ‘Amr, Bakr and their properties and aspects of plurality will have their own place once again.

The perfections and properties of all beings will be found once again in the realm of subsistence after annihilation (baqa’ ba’d al-fana’), just as they used to be. But in the realm of annihilation, perfection (kamal) exclusively belongs to God. At that stage, there is nothing other than God to have any perfection. In other words, nothing can enter the realm of annihilation, because it is the realm of annihilation. There is only the Sacred Essence (dhat) of the Supreme One in that realm. How can Zayd go there and carry along his gatherings of multiplicities such as knowledge and scholarship?

Of course, perfection exclusively and entirely belongs to God from the beginning to the end, and no one else is entitled to any perfection. The ascription of perfection to people in the realm of plurality is only metaphorical (majaz). The veil of heedlessness and illusion had blinded and prevented them from seeing the beauty of the Truth (al-Haqq, i.e. God). After the lifting of the veil and the removal of the cover, it becomes patent that real perfection exclusively belongs to the Essence of the Truth, and ascribing it to others is utterly metaphorical. Perfection [for other beings] is to reach the status of annihilation in God, and this perfection has no aspect of plurality. All pluralities fade away, vanish and annihilate, and perfection belongs absolutely and exclusively to the Essence of the One and no one else.

Upon annihilation, no distance or cover will be left. All veils will be wiped out, even the veil of one’s existence:

Between me and Thee, is my being that opposes me;
Remove my being from in-between, by Thy mercy.

(Hallaj)

‘ALLAMAH. Man acquires certain perfections in the course of his life in this world. As a human being, any perfection that he acquires is acquired in this world. When he was individuated and determined and sent down, he did not have a body. Therefore he did not have a name, nor did he have the attributes of time and position. Once it reached the realm of pluralities, was dressed in a body, and came to the physical and corporeal world, these qualities appeared in him. That is when the names appear. It is at this stage that ‘This is a man,’ ‘This is Zayd’ and ‘This is ‘Amr’ are realised. Thus man acquires certain perfections through these pluralities, and when he returns to God and annihilates at the end, his Permanent Archetype (al-’ayn al-thabit) still remains.23 The Permanent Archetypes of Zayd, ‘Amr, and Bakr do not vanish and are not unified.

Annihilation in God’s Essence does not involve the elimination of the Permanent Archetype, which is not eliminated in any way whatsoever. The ‘Zayd-ness’ of Zayd, and the ‘‘Amr-ness’ of ‘Amr are never removed or destroyed. One’s identity is not nullified.

If the Permanent Archetypes are eliminated and if the identities are nullified upon perfection – which is the selfsame station of annihilation in God – then what are all these efforts, struggles and worship for? If there is going to remain no name, no identity, no ‘I’ and no ‘we’, then what is the call [of religions] for? And what do the prophets and saints call mankind to? They would be saying, ‘Endeavour! Struggle! So that your efforts may be destroyed and annihilated!’ If the result of acquiring perfections were total extermination, then the call would be pointless; no one would accept it and there is no point in accepting it.

Yes, all perfections are and have always been exclusively for the Essence of the Truth, Majestic and Exalted is He. The call is to absolute perfection, which is annihilation in the Essence of the One. Zayd’s perfection is his annihilation in the Absolutely Perfect. So there must remain some ‘Zayd’, some identity, and some determined entity and Permanent Archetype so that we may refer to it and say, ‘Zayd reached his perfection and was annihilated in the Essence of the Truth.’

It is correct to say that ‘Zayd was annihilated in God’s Essence, and that is his utmost perfection.’ However, it is unacceptable to maintain that Zayd is completely abolished due to annihilation, nothing of him remains, and there is no Permanent Archetype to be considered annihilated. We cannot claim so.

If there will remain no Zayd, no name, no identity, nothing and nothing, then he is going toward sheer nonexistence and non-being (‘adam). But every human being intrinsically feels that he moves toward absolute perfection and not toward nonexistence.

The meaning of ‘inniyyah’ in Hallaj’s poem

‘ALLAMAH. In the poem, ‘Between me and [between] Thee, is my being that opposes me’, there are four things: ‘between me’ (bayni), ‘between Thee’ (baynaka), ‘my being’ (inni), and ‘opposes me’ (yunazi’uni). One cannot claim that the narrator is asking for all these to be eliminated and destroyed to absolute nothingness.

Is there no trace of mankind and humanity in paradise and in the superior world? If nothing exists in paradise, which is the realm of annihilation, then what kind of a paradise is that?

STUDENT. In the realm of annihilation, there is nothing but the Essence of the One, for it is supposed to be the realm of annihilation in His Essence (dhat). And if one allows plurality to enter God’s Essence, countless problems will arise. ‘Zayd-ness’, ‘‘Amr-ness’, names, identities, determinations and Permanent Archetypes – all are subjects of plurality, and therefore have no path to the sanctuary of God’s Essence.

And all faces shall be humbled unto the Living, the Upright. And whoso carrieth [a burden of] some oppression is disappointed [and is a failure]. (20:111)

Thus, nothing persists in the realm of annihilation, for nothing can enter the sphere of God’s Essence, and that is for sure. Of course, in the realm of subsistence after annihilation, all multiplicities persist (once again), with all their limits, qualities, and properties. It means that after annihilation, when the soul (nafs) returns to pluralities and sets on its journey toward the creation by the Truth (sayr ila al-khalq bi al-Haqq), all properties of pluralities exist at their original place, not having shifted a bit. And it is in those realms that the soul enjoys and delights in all its acquired perfections; its knowledge, gnosis, and expertise all belong to the realm of subsistence [after annihilation].

However, there is nothing (there can be nothing) in the realm of annihilation. Over there, perfection hinges on non-being; that is the biggest perfection of all. Who can view himself possessing any perfection before the Essence of the One? Since He has perfection, there is no perfection to be found anywhere else. And this is the highest rank for a person and for humankind: to regard one’s self nonexistent, and see God’s Essence as the sole being.

It would be inappropriate to talk about existence and perfection for others where every existential perfection and reality exclusively belongs to God’s Essence. Given His existence, it would be unacceptable for one to have an identity (huwiyyah) or entity (‘ayn), or to carry along his Permanent Archetype with himself. That is the station of ‘He is He’ (Huwa Hu, i.e. only He exists, so even referring to Him is beyond our conception as there is nothing other than Him). What would the Permanent Archetypes be doing there?

... Whose is the kingdom today? It is Allah’s, the One, the Dominant. (40:16)

Confessing God’s Oneness means to accept that the Permanent Archetypes are eradicated and have no existence in the realm of annihilation. That is to acknowledge God’s guardianship (wilayah), which is His absolute right and entitlement to the worship and servitude (‘ubudiyyah) of His servants. And this does not make the matter of religion and a servant’s efforts pointless (rather it is in accordance with the servant’s worship and servitude being exclusively for God).

In the world of multiplicity (kathrah), man claims and demonstrates [some sort of] lordship (rububiyyah), as each of his attachments pulls his heart toward itself. However, when he reaches the realm of annihilation, he admits and confesses his absolute non-being and sheer nonexistence before the High One, and finally forsakes even his own existence at the last stage whereby annihilation is achieved. Then there is no ‘self’ over there that may see himself or see God, because there is no ‘self’ in God. Zayd and ‘Amr have no path to that domain. Over there, it is the Truth (al-Haqq) who observes Himself; the Truth comprehends the Truth, for there is nothing except the Truth. ‘There is no deity but He’ (la ilaha illa Hu) and ‘There is no he but Him’ (la huwa illa Hu).

And paradise and its pleasures all belong to the realm of multiplicity and appear upon subsistence after annihilation. There are eight paradises, in two of which nothing exists but the Essence of the Truth: the Garden of Vision (jannat al-liqa’) and the Garden of Essence (jannat al-dhat, which is the highest degree of annihilation). The ‘nonexistence’ at that stage is more ‘existent’ than all other existences. May everyone’s life be sacrificed for that nonexistence, for it is genuine existence and the reality of existence.

And although the four things that you mentioned are present in the poem ‘Between me and Thee, is my being that opposes me’, the poet is tired of them. He requests them to be abolished and turned into nothingness: ‘So remove my being from in-between, by Thy mercy.’ That is, ‘Remove my existence, annihilate me in Thy Essence and make me sheer non-being!’

If the one’s existence is eliminated, it follows that the other three things will also vanish. There will remain no ‘opposition’, no ‘between me’, and no ‘between Thee’, because these two relations and the opposition hinge on the person’s existence.

In the realm of tawhid, unity is absolute; otherwise it would not be tawhid. There is no one there other than God, Who observes Himself and is immersed in His Essence. No one’s name, existence, or Permanent Archetype is allowed to enter.

The verse, ‘Say: my Lord hath only prohibited indecencies, whether inward or outward’

The Messenger of Allah said:

Indeed Sa’d is very ghayur (protective),24 and I am more ghayur than he is, and the Supreme Allah is more ghayur than I am. It is as a result of His ghirah that He ‘hath prohibited indecencies, whether inward or outward.’ (7:33)25

Ghirah (protectiveness) requires the prevention of ‘others’ (ghayr) from entering [one’s domain and sanctuary]; otherwise it would not be ghirah. This is the reason for the prohibition of vices and indecencies. One’s reliance on his own existence against God is in fact Pharaohship (i.e. arrogance). How can one’s existence find way into the Essence of the Truth? He (God) would fling him in such a way that no trace of him would ever remain whatsoever. Subsistence of the Permanent Archetype upon annihilation would in fact deny annihilation. So maybe there is no annihilation in God’s Essence? If so, then what happens to the meaning of these verses:

... And to Allah is the return. (35:18)

...Be informed! All affairs return to Allah. (42:53)

... And every affair returns to Him.... (11:123)

Is annihilation in God’s Essence contrary to the intellect (‘aql) or the narrations (naql), so that we would have to reject it in favour of subsistence of the Permanent Archetypes?

‘ALLAMAH. But if the perfections belong to the realm of subsistence, and if the realm of annihilation is totally dominated by sheer non-being such that the Permanent Archetypes are also eliminated and destroyed, then what will the spirits return to in the realm of subsistence?

Because presumably nothing exists in the realm of annihilation, and the ‘Zayd-ness’ of Zayd has faded, vanished and disappeared. So then at the time of return to subsistence, what is there to return to? There is no Zayd, no entity, no Permanent Archetype. All pluralities would be the same in that case, and there would be no distinction between the different entities, beings, and quiddities. It (the spirit) wants to return, but to where and in what? Therefore subsistence would be totally meaningless. Besides, if nothing exists during annihilation, then what is going to return to subsistence (after annihilation)? There should be something with some identity and existence that would return after annihilation.

That reduces subsistence to a new creation and origination (huduth). There was some Zayd; he proceeded until he reached annihilation, vanished, and disappeared in God’s Purely Simple Essence, and no nothing of him was left whatsoever. Then God creates another entity and Permanent Archetype, manifests in it and gives it existence. But that would be a new creation and origination, not subsistence after annihilation (i.e. resumption of the same identities).

Therefore one should accept that the realm of multiplicities stays in its own place. Multiplicities are realities that exist, and each of these realities has its path and journey toward its perfection, to which it is called. That perfection would be senseless if we deny the persistence of the Permanent Archetypes. It is unacceptable to claim that, upon the resurrection and returning from annihilation, nothing exists except non-being! We cannot claim that there would be nothing but annihilation in God and that no multiplicities will remain.

And the subsequent realm of subsistence cannot be a new creation, because in that case there would be no room in the realm of subsistence for the annihilated beings, since the new creation would have no connection with them. No Permanent Archetype was left to allow for some bond of identity. Hence any new creation could be viewed as taking up the subsistence of any annihilated being.

For instance, we may assume the Zayd of the realm of subsistence after annihilation to be the annihilated ‘Amr, and the ‘Amr of the realm of subsistence after annihilation to be the annihilated Zayd. And thus we may take anything as the subsistence (resumption) of anything, the invalidity of which is obvious.

And narrations such as ‘Indeed Sa’d is very ghayur’ are not applicable here. The Qur’anic verses like ‘All affairs return to Allah’ (42:53) are all correct, but what do they mean? Do they imply that when the beings annihilate, their Permanent Archetypes vanish, or is their annihilation such that their Permanent Archetypes persist? Indeed the latter is the case, for it says, ‘All affairs return,’ so there must exist some affairs so that one can speak of their return to Allah.

Every immaterial species is unique

‘ALLAMAH. In philosophy, it has been asserted that among the immaterial (mujarrad) beings such as the angels, each species (naw’) is unique. Angels do not compose a species that has persons (sing. shakhs), for they are not corporeal, but they are mujarrad. The concepts of genus and differentia (jins and fasl) do not apply to them, and thus each immaterial species is unique.26

But then it has been objected that if these unique species have no multiplicity, how do they descend to this world? And how do they create these multiplicities? In the realm of angels, there is only one Gabriel and one Michael, so how do these pluralities – which are the existential effects of the angels – come to be?27

In response to this, it has been argued that the multiplicities appear as a result of the determination and entification (ta’ayyun) of their names. It is through these determinations that the pluralities emerge. So our notions of unity and multiplicity are not the same here. The sense of unity in the immaterial realm should not be mixed with the sense of many in the realm of pluralities. At any rate, it is not possible to establish plurality for the immaterial beings, such that they have real plurality (rather, the plurality applies to the descension and determination of their names).28

Gabriel’s unity and his connection with the many beings of this world

‘ALLAMAH. Gabriel is one: a single immaterial being. He comes to this world and creates some pluralities through his connection with this world. Gabriel is one particular being, and thus he is distinct from Michael, ‘Izra’il (the Angel of Death) and Israfil (the angel that will sound the trumpet). But since he is nominally determined (al-ta’ayyun al-ismiyyah), like sunlight, he spreads out through the world and creates pluralities.

The sun is one, and its light (sunlight) is also one. However, by shining on multiple locations, it becomes multiple in a sense. It shines on a thousand locations and everywhere it is named differently; thus it results in a thousand units.

The reality of Gabriel is one and devoid of plurality. But despite this unity, he creates multiplicities in the realm of multiplicity based on his determination. He is not plural himself, yet he creates pluralities.

Say: whoever is an enemy of Gabriel, [he must know that] indeed he hath sent it [the Qur’an] down upon thy heart, by Allah’s leave.... (2:97)

The Trustworthy Spirit (al-Ruh al-Amin) hath came down with it [the Qur’an] * Upon thy heart, so that thou mayst be [one] of the warners * In clear Arabic language. (26:193-5)

The point is that Gabriel adopts some sort of multiplicity as he descends to this world. It is based on this multiplicity that he connects with the multiple things in this world. That is how he has gone to the Prophet and the Imams. That is one view concerning the unique immaterial species like Gabriel. But regarding the spirits that annihilate, if we maintain that the Permanent Archetype (al-‘ayn al-thabit) totally vanishes during annihilation, then how will the annihilated being descend back and reach the realm of subsistence? There would be no determined entity or identity left for Zayd, so how would he connect back to the realm of plurality? Clearly he can have no kind of connection, because he has no determined entity whatsoever.

Annihilation, immolation, nonexistence, and relinquishing one’s determination

STUDENT. After reaching annihilation, the person does not see, hear, or understand anything (he has no comprehension, awareness, or conception). What is that state? If he is asked, ‘Who are you? Where are you? What were you? What will you be?’ what would he answer?

He is speechless, does not have awareness, intellect, or understanding. He is immersed in the rays of Divine Manifestations. He has lost [control and conscious of] himself, abandoned existence, and has let go of the outfit of his determination. He has drowned his existence in the rays of Magnificence of the Precinct of the Truth, Majestic and Exalted is He. He truly has no self, no name, and no identity. Neither does he comprehend when we talk to him, nor can he reply. In fact, there is no one there to reply.

It is only the Truth, Majestic and Exalted He is, that exists in that realm; has always been and will continue to be. The reply [by the annihilated ‘Zayd’] will be, ‘The Truth (al-Haqq) is the Truth, Beginningless (Azali) and Endless (Abadi).’ This person is annihilated in the rays of Mercy, Magnificence, Majesty, and Beauty of the object of annihilation, which is God, Glorious and Exalted is He.

All worship, struggles, and efforts were just to attain this degree of perfection, and that is the ultimate perfection and absolute existence. Before his annihilation, Zayd was constrained, his being was confined and determined, and he was troubled by this constraint, confinement, and determination. So he removed his determination and immolated and annihilated his existence in the comprehensive existence of the Supreme Truth. In other words, existence exclusively belonged to God’s Essence, but Zayd was ignorant of this. Then by tearing apart the veils of illusion, it became evident to him that existence belongs to God and no one else.

Every effort in worship is intended to bring about this stage. This sheer nonexistence is accompanied by sheer existence. This is the meaning of:

My servant, obey Me, so that I make thee like Myself.29

What is the goal of the butterfly when it flies into the candle, catches fire and burns? Does it want to keep its existence, identity and Permanent Archetype? Does it aim for some symbolic perfection? Does it want to add to its prestige and reputation? Or does it want to perish and fade away, become the candle and turn into light?

Once it burns, it does not have any determined entity anymore and its Permanent Archetype is gone. It is only the candle that exists thereafter. It is not that the butterfly is the candle, but it is the candle that is the candle; it is the light that is the light. The butterfly used to exist, but now it is gone; now only the candle exists.

It is this selfsame attire of determination that troubles man. Man’s nature tends to the realm of transcendence (tajarrud). This is an intrinsic, God-given, and natural movement in him that pulls him toward expansion and breadth.

Nothing exists over there. That is, in annihilation by itself, there is no laughter or weeping, no sorrow or sadness, no despondence or joy; and there is no person and no Zayd. One’s efforts are for God, not for one’s self. He and his selfhood were nothing but a veil of illusion (wahm). But now, as he reaches the Truth, the illusion is gone. The sun of reality rises, and [it becomes evident that] everything belongs to God. When the names and titles are removed, the Truth will manifest. Right upon our annihilation, we are immolated and sacrificed for Him.

What does ‘I have turned my face to Allah’ (wajjahtu wajhiya li-llah) mean? It means that may my action, thought, and inclination be sacrificed for Him (see 6:79). What does ‘May my father and my mother be sacrificed for thee’ (bi-abi anta wa ummi ) mean? What does it mean when we say it to the Messenger of Allah [in his ziyarah]? What do ‘May I be sacrificed for you’ and ‘May I be immolated for you’ mean? They mean, ‘May I vanish and annihilate for you and in you, such that no name or identity of mine remains.’

If one’s sacrifice involves the persistence of his being and the reinforcement of his identity, then that is not sacrifice. If that is what one means when he claims to want to be sacrificed for the Messenger of Allah, then that is no devotion toward the Messenger of Allah. The meaning of sacrifice is that ‘I would exterminate and disappear for the persistence of your existence and being, such that no trace or entity of mine would remain.’

When a mother throws herself in fire in order to save her child, what intention does she have? Does she want to strengthen and consolidate her own existence and identity? Or does she want to perish, fade away and cease to exist, so that her child may survive, gain existence and not be the subject of loss, fatality and death?

‘ALLAMAH. If nothing remains in the realm of annihilation and we have absolutely no role in that realm, then what do ‘I’ and ‘you’ mean? And what are these discussions, proofs, and disproofs for? What significance do they have for us? And why should we seek the Truth and search for Him? Then there would be no pleasure, and likewise no pain and no chastisement. So why should one worship?

‘I have turned my face to Allah’ (wajjahtu wajhiya li-llah) is true, and it has an underlying logical implication: this worship and turning of the face needs a subject (one who does the action). Otherwise, it would be vain and meaningless to talk about the turning of face to Allah. Because then there would be nothing there; no subject and thus no face (wajh) – no one to talk about, and no one to comprehend.

Not only is annihilation in God’s Essence possible, but it is in fact necessarily true. Moreover, the meaning of annihilation is its very conventional definition, not any other meaning. However, one should find the right way to prove this (i.e. to combine the seemingly contradictory suppositions).

‘May my father and my mother be sacrificed for thee’ and ‘May I be immolated for you’ are both true. They imply that I have a comprehension of certain realities about you, and I am willing to sacrifice and eliminate myself in order to preserve those realities.

All beings proceed to annihilation; there is nothing but Allah; ‘There is no he but Him’

STUDENT. In order for the Permanent Archetype to persist, one of the following two cases must be established: either annihilation in God’s Essence (dhat) is impossible, or we should discard our conventional definition of annihilation and replace it with another meaning.

As with the first case, is it not that annihilation in God’s Essence is true? For one thing, forced and involuntary annihilation is certainly true and undeniable:

There is none in the heavens and the earth but that cometh to the All-Merciful as a servant. (19:93)

And voluntary annihilation has always been the objective of the messengers, the prophets, and the Infallible Imams (peace be upon them all). It has been the way of the friends, intimates, and chosen servants of God. This is the true meaning of annihilation. And this reality should not be dispensed with, for it is the ultimate end of the path of perfection. If annihilation means anything else, or if there is no annihilation in God’s Essence, that would shake the whole basis of man’s path to perfection. In the journey to God, if the slightest ‘I-ness’ (ananiyyah) and personality remains for a servant, it means that his journey is not complete yet and he needs as much correction and refinement as the amount of annihilation that he is missing.

So long as a hair-tip of your being exists,
The practice of worshiping yourself persists.

‘I smashed the idol of conceit,’ you said, ‘so I’m freed’;
But this idol that ‘I’m freed of conceit’ persists.30

The principle that one’s personality and being persists is true for every goal and objective except annihilation. One who seeks annihilation would sincerely offer his whole existence, being and reality. And that is what makes this station most superior and its achievement most difficult. One does not easily consent to immolate himself and give up his existence in the path of the Truth, Majestic and Exalted is He. One would achieve real existence by means of nonexistence, by means of giving up one’s determined and notional existence.

A lover is willing to sacrifice himself for his Beloved because of his love. He wants to not see any being for himself before his Beloved’s being. This is the meaning of real love – that the lover does not see anyone other than the Beloved, does not talk to anyone and does not hear anything. Otherwise, it would not be love, but only a pretension. And if the Beloved detects that the lover wants to retain his being and Permanent Archetype, use this love to preserve his identity and personality, and achieve some perfection for himself, then He slaps him on the neck such that ‘neither a head remains nor a turban!’

What does ‘There is no he but Him’ (la huwa illa Hu) mean? If being, identity, and real existence exclusively belong to God, Glorified and Exalted He is, then the existence of all beings is illusory and unreal. Their existences are merely semblances and manifestations [of God] as opposed to genuine and real existences. In that case, the sooner this veil of illusion – of the existents ascribing existence to themselves – is torn apart, the better. Then existence will be left to its Possessor, and it becomes truly evident that ‘There is no he but Him.’ In other words, sheer unity (tawhid) becomes manifest and clear, and that involves the disappearance of all beings and creatures in the Essence of the Truth.

If the Permanent Archetypes are eradicated, a being cannot exist in God

‘ALLAMAH. I do not deny these concepts. The problem is that if annihilation entails the elimination of one’s identity (huwiyyah), then the call of religions (da’wah) would not make sense. And without making sense of the call, we cannot have any path to what it calls to. In that case, all aspects of da’wah – including the caller, the addressee, the destination, and the means of da’wah – would be senseless.

That requires us to justify what we mean by annihilation, while we have no justification (the concept is already clear). That is the problem.

I also know quite a bit of these mystical and lyric poems, but I deliberately do not want to argue based on poems. We must either prove that the state of annihilation is a reality beyond all realities, and there is absolutely no plurality, particularity, reputation and the like involved in it (i.e. deny the persistence of Permanent Archetypes); or else we should prove that even though annihilation is a reality whereby there would be no names or identities in God’s Essence, it is still possible to talk about Permanent Archetypes and certain pluralities. The latter would be similar to the case of immaterial species discussed earlier.

Only one person of immaterial species is realised. Despite this, they acquire pluralities due to their descension to the material realm. This does not contradict their being immaterial and having their own individual and nominal properties.

This is a very subtle topic, and it is not easy to digest or judge. The main idea of annihilation in God’s Essence is true and undeniable. One should find how to prove it, but rejecting the Permanent Archetypes is not the way to do it. Muhyi al-Din (Ibn al-’Arabi) believes in persistence of Permanent Archetypes, and he insists on it. This is while he also accepts annihilation in God’s Essence.

A similar idea has been said concerning the resurrection of the beings. Some have argued that, coming from the imaginal world (barzakh), the beings are immaterial, yet they have their own determinations and distinctions (i.e. pluralities). But their pluralities are not a source of evil (sharr) for them. That is, one cannot claim that they will be in chastisement and retribution and not in joy and reward because of their pluralities. At any rate, there are various arguments and questions that come up on these topics, but the important thing is to provide a solution and work them out.

I do not deny the noble statement, ‘There is no he but Him’ (la huwa illa Hu) which establishes the Sacred Essence of the One as the sole identity (huwiyyah). But how should we interpret this statement so that it is sound? This is my point.

In the realm of annihilation, there are no identities or beings; there is no earth and no sky. In that case, when we say, ‘There is no he but Him,’ there are no identities to be denied. The statement would deny ‘everything other than God’, but there is no ‘everything’, there is no ‘otherness’, and there is no ‘other than God’. The expression is correct, but one should decipher what it entails. Annihilation in God’s Essence is a fact, but one has to find the right approach to it and how to prove it.

You say that no condition enters the ‘realm of unity’. But based on what you said above, there is no ‘realm’ and no ‘unity’, whatever you say is not, and we cannot conceive or imagine anything there, because it is annihilation. There is no identity there, so what can we talk about?

The account of the butterfly’s sacrificing and burning itself and turning into light, the story of the mother’s entering the fire in order to save her child, and the description of the lover’s love reaching the level of annihilation and immolation are all correct. But we should find the right approach and solution to what they mean. Otherwise we are stuck. We know that these statements are all true, but we do not know anything beyond that. We know neither their apparent meanings, nor the details. The main theme is correct, but this (i.e. denying absolutely every identity and entity as suggested by the student) is not the way to prove it. Nonetheless one cannot overlook this topic (of annihilation), and I do not deny it.

‘Allamah’s own poems regarding annihilation in God

STUDENT. The way to prove and elucidate annihilation in God’s Essence is by these lines, inspired by God on one’s heart and tongue:

I’m a nameless mote that fell in the flood
It took me as it flowed, to the heart of the bay.
I reached the sun, not on my own;
I was an iota, Your love made me sway.
For a glance on Your brow, and Your heavenly hand,
My name and fame, I had to pay.31

The solution lies in the fact that man exists by God’s being (inniyyah) and identity (shakhsiyyah). Man’s existence is that of the Supreme Truth (al-Haqq). However, before annihilation, he thought that he possessed something – some being and existence – by himself. When a person advances toward annihilation, it means that he forsakes his limited being, identity, and determination (ta’ayyun), to be replaced by unconditionality (itlaq). And it is clear how enjoyable this journey is.

Annihilation means to put down the state of boundedness, not to lose existence. It means to tear up the illusion of a narrow and restricted existence and achieve Absolute Existence. And there is no room for the Permanent Archetype in Absolute Existence.

The following lines splendidly convey this meaning. They are most likely by Muhyi al-Din, and are quoted by Mulla Sadra in Asfar:

I hugged her, but my soul was still longing for her;
But beyond a hug, how can I be any closer?
I kissed her mouth to dissipate my fervour;
That only made my excitement greater.
As if there is no healing for my heart’s ardour;
Except if our souls are united together.32

Can one even imagine any trace of the Permanent Archetype when two souls are united? Mulla Sadra also quotes these two lines as evidence on this very topic of love:

The one who loves, and the beloved, is me;
Two souls we are in a single body.
When you look at me, it is him that you see;
And when you look at him, we are in unity.33

So wonderful and rich these verses are! Metaphorical and unreal (i.e. worldly) love is essentially a bridge toward real love (i.e. love of God). The similes, metaphors, expressions and figures of speech that are used for metaphorical love or for the manifestations and appearances of the Real Beloved can be quite representative and illustrative of real love. We see annihilation and immolation in the illusory loves of this world, the truth of which is as bright as daylight. So the same can be true concerning annihilation in the Essence of the One. We accept the disappearance of one’s identity, being and Permanent Archetype in worldly loves, so why should we not allow it for real love?

As mentioned earlier, when a mother sacrifices herself for her child, is she conscious and mindful at that time? Does she throw herself into the huge flames of fire in order to preserve her personality, and to retain her Permanent Archetype?

Or is it that if we can read her mind at that time, we would find nothing there but nonexistence and sheer non-being? She would be saying, ‘Burn me! Set me on fire! Chop me to bits and pieces! Throw me in a well and drop a millstone on me so that all my bones shatter into pieces! Drop Mount Abu Qubays on my head! Only that my child may survive.’

This exact sense of nonexistence and annihilation that is seen in this mother applies to a wayfarer in the realm of annihilation (fana’).

However, when he regains consciousness and returns to subsistence (baqa’), all those pluralities and their signs and components are again with him. Wife, child, father, mother, Heaven, Hell; everything is there. And the way to prove it is, again, to argue that the Arc of Descent (qaws al-nuzul), which is the very Will and Command of God that emanates and descends from His Sacred Essence (the realm of Huwa Hu, ‘He is He’), should go back to the same origin (God’s Essence). That is how these two verses will come to realisation:

...You will return as He originated you. (7:29)

... As We originated the creation at first, We shall bring it back. (21:104)

If the beings do not return to the origin from which they descended to the realms of plurality, then their journey would not be a journey toward God, and the cycle would not be complete.

Annihilation and the burning of the butterfly and the mother in fire

‘ALLAMAH. The verse, ‘You will return as He originated you’ (7:29) and the similar verses indicate that man returns to the same place where he originated from. That is for sure. The origin of anything is the very first point of realisation of the decree to its creation, which is in the Divine Realms. That first realisation is nothing but the Permanent Archetype (al-’ayn al-thabit), and the verse does not suggest anything beyond that.

When the mother or the butterfly burn (and likewise in other examples), one would say, ‘The mother was annihilated’ or ‘The butterfly burned.’ So there is some noun and some reference to the mother or the butterfly. That object of reference is the selfsame Permanent Archetype. In the sentence, ‘The mother was annihilated,’ if we do not have the third person conjugate ‘-ed’, we would not have a sentence, and our sentence would be incomplete. There would be no mother, no annihilation and no becoming. So this sentence is congruent and makes sense only when it has a noun, and that noun is the Permanent Archetype.

The realms of blackness, imagination and whiteness prostrate for Allah, Exalted He is

STUDENT. The reality of annihilation has been mentioned in the supplications of the Prophet and his family. On the night of fifteenth of Sha’ban, the Messenger of Allah used to utter in prostration, while the ground was wet with his tears:

O Allah, my blackness and my imagination and my whiteness have prostrated only for Thee.34

Clearly blackness (sawad), imagination (khayal) and whiteness (bayad) represent the three realms of being: the realm of nature (tab’), the imaginal world (mithal), and the realm of spirit (ruh, nafs). All these spheres have prostrated; that is, they have reached the station of annihilation.

Many verses in the poems of Ibn al-Farid, especially his ‘Rhyme of Wayfaring’ (‘Nazm al-Suluk’, also called ‘al- Ta’iyyah al-Kubra’) explicitly talk about total annihilation.

Apart from all these, how do you assume the Permanent Archetypes are central and principal, while you advocate the principality of being (asalat al-wujud) in philosophy? You support and consolidate it with a thousand lines of reasoning, strongly protect it against any doubt, and regard quiddity (mahiyyah) as merely a delimitation and a notional matter (i’tibar).

What do Permanent Archetypes even mean? We do not have anything ‘permanent’ except existence (wujud) and that which exists (mawjud). There is no intermediate between nonexistence and existence. So how can we claim that upon annihilation, one’s existence disappears but his identity (huwiyyah) subsists!? What meaning and result could this have, other than calling for some middle ground between existence and nonexistence?

In order to be consistent, we should still claim that principality is for existence, and that quiddity is a conceptual matter and nothing but the limits of existence. And existence continuously moves toward its own perfection, until it reaches a point where it disappears and annihilates in the Sacred Essence of the One. And when the existence is gone, it would be senseless to talk about the quiddity, for there would be no real instance of the quiddity. There would be nothing left of the quiddity other than a concept, without any external reality. At that point, what would it mean to claim that the Permanent Archetype persists?

Does not such a claim lead to inconsistency and contradiction? Instead of that inconsistency, we should deny the [persistence of] Permanent Archetypes altogether.

Gnostic ideas of Muhyi al-Din, Ibn al-Farid, and Hafiz Shirazi

STUDENT. And the arguments of Muhyi al-Din (Ibn al-‘Arabi) and the followers of his school in support of Permanent Archetypes do not agree with the principality of being (asalat al-wujud).

‘ALLAMAH. I did not mention Muhyi al-Din’s stand as evidence. There is no difference between Muhyi al-Din and others when it comes to reasoning. He has a couple of insipid poems early in his discussions, but he follows with some truly fascinating and interesting discussions. As with Ibn al-Farid, he is truly a mesmerising master in terms of the elegance and loftiness of his poems, and in conveying mystic ideas. We can truly claim that in Arabic poetry and mysticism, Ibn al-Farid is the counterpart of Hafiz Shirazi in Persian poetry and mysticism. Both figures are matchless; one in Arabic mystic-poetry, and the other in Persian mystic-poetry.

Ibn al-Farid’s Ta’iyyah alone consists of a total of between seven hundred to a thousand verses,35 and it is truly a superb and outstanding poem. According to our master, the late Qadi, Ibn al-Farid was a pupil of Muhyi al-Din (Ibn al-’Arabi). One day Muhyi al-Din told Ibn al-Farid, ‘Why don’t you write a commentary for your Ta’iyyah ode?’ ‘O our master,’ Ibn al-Farid responded, ‘this al-Futuhat al-Makiyyah of yours is a commentary of my Ta’iyyah.’

Muhyi al-Din was extremely close to Shi’ism.36 Generally speaking, the case of Shi’ism was different in early Islam and even in the subsequent centuries than it is today. Most prominent scholars and gnostics were actually Shi’a; however, they had no choice but to conceal their real faith (taqiyyah). They used to hide their actual beliefs so as to prevent external problems and conflicts. They would keep it in themselves and not reveal it except through secret words, hints or intimations. There are two verses by Ibn al-Farid whereby he clearly and explicitly expresses his faith in the guardianship (wilayah) of Ahl al-Bayt. He says:

Fruitless was my life; elapsed in vain;
Because from you, I had no gain.
Save for what I got for my allegiance
To the Prophet of Qusay and his descendant.37

STUDENT. But generally speaking, if we maintain that the Permanent Archetype persists upon annihilation, that entails the existence of some determined entity in the Sacred Essence of the One; but He is Glorified and Exalted above that.

Otherwise we would have to maintain that annihilation does not mean annihilation; that is, it does not mean nonexistence, eradication, and elimination. Or else we would have to say that annihilation in God’s Essence is fundamentally impossible, and any annihilation that takes place is actually in His Names and Attributes (not in His Essence).

The argument you presented is that if we advocate total annihilation in God’s Essence, we would be saying that perfection lies in nonexistence, and thus we would be calling everyone to non-being. But no being would like to let go of its existence for elimination and nonexistence. Thus, calling to and promoting total annihilation, obliteration and sheer nonexistence is actually promoting the total elimination of one’s identity, being and determination, which in turn leads to the elimination of the Permanent Archetype. And one’s instinct does not allow him to renounce his existence for nonexistence. This is one problem.

Another problem (that you mention) is that if annihilation is utter nonexistence and spares no Permanent Archetype, then what entity would the beings have upon subsistence (baqa’) after annihilation? There would be nothing left after annihilation; there would be no identity for the beings to return to. In that case we would have to maintain that subsistence is not subsistence (i.e. resumption of the beings that existed prior to annihilation) but is a new creation.

These are the two problems in short. And it is not difficult to answer them. Concerning the first problem, to move from existence to nonexistence is to move from confinement and determination to unconditionality. It is like changing dirhams for dinars (i.e. changing pennies for dollars or pounds).

And concerning subsistence after annihilation, we argue that all annihilated beings remain in the realm of annihilation (they remain annihilated). They do not have any subsistence after annihilation. The Arc of Ascent (qaws al-su’ud) ends by the return of beings to God, and that completes the cycle of perfection: ‘From Allah and to Allah’ (min Allah wa ila Allah). What about the people who actually have subsistence? For them, true annihilation has not fully taken place. If it is fully achieved, nothing of the person’s entity or properties would remain. And there is much evidence for this.

Subsistence of the noun upon annihilation

‘ALLAMAH. These are all true, but whom does the sentence ‘Zayd was annihilated’ refer to? The sentence needs a subject. ‘Zayd was annihilated’ refers to Zayd; thus, the ‘Zayd-ness’ of Zayd, which is his very identity, persists.

STUDENT . Do we need the ‘Zayd-ness’ of Zayd before his annihilation or do we also need it after he becomes annihilated? Before annihilation, Zayd is Zayd, and therefore he has some Permanent Archetype, identity, and being. However, after annihilation, he is not Zayd anymore. In that state, there is no name, noun, essence, identity, or property of him left.

When we say, ‘Zayd was annihilated,’ we are talking about a state where there is no Zayd anymore. That is the realm of unity (wahdah), and there are no names in the realm of unity. Upon annihilation, the annihilated Zayd is not Zayd anymore; over there, there is only the Truth and nothing else.

We use the noun (damir) as an instrument. That is, by ‘Zayd was annihilated’ we mean that, ‘That entity which had the identity of Zayd and the Permanent Archetype of ‘Zayd-ness’ before annihilation has become annihilated.’ It means that its Permanent Archetype expired and turned to non-being. It means that its confinement and determination turned into unconditionality. It means that it crossed the veil of determination and immersed into absolute existence; it faded away and became annihilated.

However, once annihilated, there would be no noun or subject anymore. The ‘-ed’ (the conjugate form of the verb referring to a third person singular subject) corresponds to the Zayd that used to be Zayd in the past. But there is no ‘-ed’ anymore.

Consider the sentence, ‘We dropped the sugar cube in the water and it dissolved.’ Once it is dissolved, there is no sugar cube anymore. So what does the conjugate form ‘dissolved’ refer to? It says that the sugar cube that used to be a sugar cube before being dropped into the water, dissolved. But when it is dissolved, it is not a sugar cube any more. Its determined entity and all of its effects and properties are gone. Of course the sweetness exists, but in this sentence we are talking about ‘the sugar cube’, which clearly has disappeared and vanished.

It used to be a sugar cube before being dissolved, but now it is nothing there except water. Before Zayd’s annihilation, he used to observe the Truth (al-Haqq, i.e. God). But after annihilation, Zayd does not observe the Truth anymore; it is the Truth that observes the Truth.

There is no doubt that no one can comprehend God’s Essence except God’s Essence. Thus Zayd cannot comprehend God’s Essence. If there is a Zayd, then he has not reached the station of annihilation. It is before annihilation that we have Zayd’s observing the Beauty of the Truth. But if annihilation has fully taken place, then there is no Zayd; he is gone, and there is no name or trace of him left. In the Sacred Essence of the Truth, there is the Truth and only the Truth, and that does not ever change.

When we speak about the sugar cube, do we have any uncertainty about its dissolving, disappearing, and being lost in water?

If we drop a droplet in water and that droplet loses its shape, then would there be any doubt that the droplet became water? Saying, ‘The droplet became water, and there is no droplet once it became water,’ is exactly the same as saying, ‘Zayd became annihilated in the Essence of the One, and there is no Zayd upon annihilation.’ The two sentences are similar in structure.

Zayd in ‘Zayd became annihilated’ is like the droplet in ‘The droplet became water,’ in the sense that both nouns are used as instruments to express an event (istikhdam). It means that that amount of water that was called ‘a droplet’ and had a spherical dimension and a particular shape has now lost its spherical dimension and has given up the name of ‘droplet’. By falling in water, it is no longer a droplet. At that stage, the water is all that there is. Within the container of water, there is no room for the droplet’s dimension and determination (ta’ayyun). Even if you establish a thousand Permanent Archetypes, the droplet is not a droplet after it enters the water! We cannot reject our own conscience and cognizance. There is no noun, label, subject, reference or object of reference at that stage. And using nouns and subjects as instruments is quite common in linguistics.

There must be a Zayd when we say, ‘Zayd became annihilated’

‘ALLAMAH. Regardless of what approach you take and what example you use, at the end of the day, the sentence has a subject to which it refers! You have to identify what the sentence refers to!

‘Zayd disappeared and annihilated,’ ‘The droplet became water,’ ‘The sugar cube dissolved’ – all of these have subjects. If we repudiate Permanent Archetypes, then what do these subjects represent? These examples do not solve the problem. When there is no noun for the pronoun and no object of reference, what good can be achieved by providing examples?

It is true that no one other than the Essence of the Truth can comprehend the Essence of the Truth. But it does not require the rejection of the Permanent Archetype when we say, ‘Zayd was annihilated in the Essence of the Truth.’ We cannot do away with the subject of the sentence. If we do, our sentence would be incorrect, for there are many people who annihilate in the Truth (i.e. there must be some means of distinguishing Zayd from others).

It is true that the droplet became water, but do not put it as ‘Now there is no droplet anymore!’ The way to put it is to say that ‘There was a droplet and that droplet disappeared and vanished in the Truth or the water!’ which means that we need to have some droplet. We should be able to identify a droplet that has disappeared in the Truth. And this does not make sense without the Permanent Archetypes.

When we say, ‘The droplet annihilated,’ if you remove the conjugate form ‘-ed’, we would be left with ‘the droplet’ and ‘annihilate’, without any connection between the two, which does not mean anything. You either have to show and identify the droplet or forget about annihilation! And since we cannot let go of annihilation, the droplet persists.

You maintain that only the determination of the droplet has disappeared, not its actual existence! That is right, but what do we do with the subject of the sentence? It is this subject that is causing the problem.

‘And thou threwest not when thou threwest, but Allah threw’

... And thou threwest not when thou threwest, but Allah threw. (8:17)

STUDENT. Looking at it from the world of multiplicity, it is the Prophet who threw and fired the arrows, and there is no doubt that he got hold of the bow and fired the arrow. But if we look at it from the standpoint of unity (wahdah) and annihilation (fana’), then there is no prophet over there; there is no messenger; there is no Muhammad.

... They are but some names that you and your fathers have named, for which Allah has sent no authority. (53:23)

From the viewpoint of tawhid, all beings are only manifestations and epiphanies (mazhar). They are only some names, without any existence of their own. They are appearances, not beings. You take away the names and nothing would be left! Even these names have only been assigned by the people: ‘You have named them.’

The floor, the ceiling, the door, the wall, and the carpet are some beings. If we look at their plurality, they are all determinations, delimitations, and instances of plurality and multitude. But if we look at their unity, we would have to put their delimitations and determinations aside. They would cease to have that aspect of plurality. And so is the case with Zayd’s annihilation.

If we look at his determinations, then he cannot be at the state of unity, for he has all those delimitations and determinations. But if we look at his state of annihilation, then he is sheer existence. And in either cases, when we look at Zayd and say, ‘Zayd is annihilated,’ the subject of our statement refers to the selfsame entity that used to be Zayd before annihilation, but is not Zayd after that. It used to be Zayd so long as it was outside God’s Essence, but there is no object of reference after he reaches annihilation; there is no Zayd anymore.

And if you claim that for annihilation to take place, the subject of the sentence, ‘Zayd was annihilated’ must refer to his Permanent Archetype and therefore the Permanent Archetype persists, we would respond that if so, then annihilation in God’s Essence is impossible, for it is impossible for the Permanent Archetype to enter God’s Essence.

Let alone the case of annihilation in God’s Essence, these same problems, questions, and answers also apply to the case of annihilation in the Attributes and Names of the Truth, Glorified and Exalted is He. If the Permanent Archetype persists upon one’s annihilation in one of God’s Name or Attribute, it entails the entry of Zayd’s determination into that Name or Attribute, and that is impossible. It would not be annihilation if his determination were to enter therein. But then again you would object that what does the subject of the sentence refer to? It is the same problem.

But, after all, can we deny annihilation in God’s Names and Attributes, such as ‘the Powerful’ (al-Qadir), ‘the All-Knower’ (al-’Alim) and ‘the Vivifier’ (al-Muhy)? Can we even deny annihilation in His particular names, like the annihilation of a being in another being, or the annihilation of the lover in the beloved? After all, every being is a signs and manifestation (mazhar) of God. All beings are His Names, either Universal (kulliyyah) Names or Particular (juz’iyyah) Names.38

Generally, in all its types and forms, annihilation necessitates the disappearance of the subject of the sentence. Annihilation – whether in the Divine Essence or a Divine Attribute – does not hold if the subject is preserved.

Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah and the subsistence of the Permanent Archetypes upon annihilation

‘ALLAMAH. Muhyi al-Din (Ibn al-’Arabi) has addressed the topic of subsistence of the Permanent Archetype. In al- Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, he more or less suggests that when a being annihilates in the Truth (al-Haqq), only its existence perishes – not its Permanent Archetype. Its existence (to which it owed its external realisation prior to annihilation) perishes, but its Permanent Archetype subsists.39 So we would know that it is Zayd who is now ‘lost’ and annihilated, and thus he is the Truth. That would make sense.

Of course, we cannot claim that the Permanent Archetype is in the Truth, but we can say that overall, the Permanent Archetype subsists. So we are actually saying, ‘Zayd, whose Permanent Archetype subsists, was annihilated in the Truth.’

Indeed there is no subject in the Essence of the Truth. And it is true that ‘There is no he but Him’ (la huwa illa Hu) and ‘Thou threwest not when thou threwest.’ But if you maintain that we had a Zayd at some point but not anymore, then Zayd was not annihilated, for the sentence ‘Zayd was annihilated’ has a subject. You have to take care of this issue. Take the viewpoint of plurality, or that of unity; take any perspective that you so desire; the pronoun would still need an object of reference and you have to be able to show it! But you cannot show it, and at the same time it would be wrong to conclude that there is no annihilation. Sure, we do not have this sense of annihilation, but we do have some annihilation, where Zayd’s Permanent Archetype is preserved.

Annihilation in God’s Attributes and Names is no different than annihilation in His Essence. In any case, there must be some object of reference for the subject of the sentence, and the Permanent Archetype has to subsist. In every type and stage of annihilation, when we say ‘a being was annihilated in the Truth’, that being is the noun and we should identify whom it refers to. It refers to the Permanent Archetype, which was previously attached to some existence. Now it has lost that existence due to annihilation, but the Permanent Archetype does not disappear.

Transformation of the quiddities, and ‘Whose is the kingdom today? It is Allah’s, the One, the Dominant’

STUDENT. Is it correct when we say, ‘The larvae in the water grew wings and flew to the sky’? There are certain wrigglers that breed and grow in stagnant waters, and then they grow wings, like mosquitoes, and fly off to the sky. Now, did this larva fly while it was a larva, or did it fly when it grew wings and became a mosquito?

Of course it flew once it became a mosquito. However, in this sentence we say, ‘The larva grew wings and flew.’ Obviously this is an inaccurate expression, for the larva does not fly while it is a larva. We mean that what used to be a larva has now flown. It converted to a flying quiddity, became a ‘flier’ (a being that flies) and took off.

‘Zayd was annihilated in the Truth’ means that whatever he possessed before annihilation – in terms of his human identity, Permanent Archetype, and ‘Zayd-ness’ – was transformed existentially, and moved from the realm of determination and being to the realm of unconditionality and non-being. It means that what used to be has now faded away and disappeared. Zayd is not the subject of the sentence anymore. Now, the Truth is the Truth (al-Haqq), not Zayd.

‘Zayd was annihilated’ is an inaccurate statement. Its real meaning is that God’s Essence – the Pure, Simple and Absolutely Transcendent Existence – was observing determination up to this point, but from now on It observes unconditionality.

This is just like the larva example: the larva was the larva; but now it is the mosquito (not the larva) that is the mosquito. And if we say, ‘The larva flew off,’ it is a neglectful remark, for the larva cannot fly, and everyone knows and it is understood that this expression involves some linguistic abstraction. It means that the being that had the determined entity of a larva flew off, but only after abstracting from and renouncing the quiddity of being a larva and adopting the quiddity of a ‘flier’.

So upon annihilation, Zayd is not Zayd, but he is the very Boundless (mutlaq) and Simple (basit) Existence. We had confined the Boundless and Simple Existence by Zayd’s determination, and had named the confined entity, ‘Zayd’.

But now we have broken free from that limit and have entered the vast ocean of limitlessness. Thus, there are no bounds to be identified as ‘Zayd’. There is no being and no identity anymore:

... Whose is the kingdom today? It is Allah’s, the One, the Dominant. (40:16)

In the realm of annihilation, kingdom, divinity, and being exclusively belong to Allah – the One Allah Who is Dominant and smashes all beings and crushes all identities. His Oneness (wahdah) is tied to His Dominance (qahhariyyah).

‘ALLAMAH. The sentence, ‘The larva turned into a “flier” and flew off ’ also needs an object of reference for its subject, and one should be able to show it. Any sentence without an object of reference for its subject would be incongruous.

We cannot claim that ‘Zayd was annihilated’ is an inaccurate and neglectful statement. That would mean that the reference to Zayd has been made inattentively, which means that speaking of annihilation is also metaphorical and unreal (majaz), which is not true.

If the meaning of annihilation in the Essence of the Truth is that there is the Truth and no other being and no ‘Zayd’ whatsoever, and that even his Permanent Archetype disappears, then annihilation cannot be called annihilation. Then one would not be able to say that ‘Zayd became annihilated.’ It would be only the Truth over there, Exalted and Bounteous He is, and it would be meaningless to speak of annihilation of anything in Him.

What one should say is: this being (Zayd) used to be related to and dependent upon the Truth. But now, that aspect of dependence has disappeared, and hence nothing remains except the Truth. In other words, ‘Zayd is the Truth.’ This is acceptable; but to claim that ‘Nothing remains except the Truth, and that there is not even any reference to Zayd’ does not seem to be correct.

STUDENT. After all, is it possible for mankind to know God or not? Yes, it is possible for God’s chosen servants (mukhlasin).

Glorified be Allah from that which they describe [of Him] * Except for Allah’s chosen servants. (37:159-60)

But can one have a complete knowledge (ma’rifah) of God without annihilation? No, it is never possible, because there is always some otherness (ghayriyyah) and ‘I-ness’ (ananiyyah) in any plane other than annihilation, and the other-than-God cannot know God. In every plane prior to annihilation, the knowledge of God’s Essence is relative, and true ma’rifah cannot be achieved.

If we ask Zayd at the state of annihilation, ‘Who are you?’ what would he say? Would he reply, ‘I am Zayd’? Or would he say, ‘I am the Truth’? Neither, by no means! He would not answer at all. We are asking Zayd; but in the state of annihilation, Zayd is annihilated (fani); there is no Zayd. At that state, the tongues are mute and the ears are deaf. Allah would reply Himself by His Splendour and Magnificence, ‘It is Allah’s, the One, the Dominant’ (40:16). He would say, ‘It is the Truth that is the Truth’ (i.e. there is nothing there but the Truth).

You once narrated that there was a dervish in Tabriz who used to walk around the market and the streets and say, ‘I seek Him, I seek Him.’ This went on for a while, but after some time he started saying, ‘I seek myself, I seek myself.’

What does this mean? Does it not mean that he used to search for God, but then he lost himself as he achieved the state of annihilation? Thus he began searching for himself so that he may find some essence or property of himself. But this is not possible; how could he find himself anymore? He cannot find himself in the state of annihilation. The only way to find himself is if his annihilation terminates and he returns to the realm of subsistence once again.

Zayd used to have a name, a quiddity and some personal limits. As the limits were removed, his being gradually expanded. So he passed beyond the limits, but not beyond existence. At every stage he lost a limit and adopted a broader limit, and thus he grew out of each limit for a broader one, until he finally left all limits behind. So he forsook himself and entered somewhere without any limits. Over there, there is no limit, there is no name, and there is no ‘Zayd’.

The verse, ‘And unto Him you are overturned’

‘ALLAMAH. The knowledge of God’s Essence through annihilation is indeed possible for His chosen and intimate servants. There is no problem with that. However, no matter how we manoeuvre and what approach we take, there is a reference being made to Zayd, and that does not vanish. We cannot say that ‘Zayd was annihilated and became Him’ means that ‘He [God] took Zayd’s position, so there is nothing but Him.’ Then what do we do with the ‘Zayd’?

And if we ask Zayd, ‘Who are you?’ he would not answer ‘I am Zayd,’ but he would say, ‘I am the Truth.’

And when that dervish uttered ‘I seek myself,’ he meant ‘I seek the Truth,’ Exalted and Bounteous is He.

What would be Zayd’s condition upon his annihilation in the Truth, the Exalted? The Qur’an puts it as, ‘... And unto Him you are overturned’ (29:21).

‘There was Allah and there was nothing other than Him, and now it is as it has always been’

STUDENT. We have to be able to combine the things that we know to be true. First we hold that knowledge of God’s Essence is possible for mankind. Second, annihilation means sheer non-being. Third, we know that true and complete knowledge of the Truth is not possible without annihilation, and that one can only have a relative knowledge at the lower stages.

Fourth, we know that there can be no determination in the Essence of the Truth. Otherwise it means that His Essence is divisible; but there is no he but Him, and His Exalted Station is beyond being a place of pluralities and determinations. The Essence of the Truth consists of nothing other than the Truth – not even anyone to say, ‘There is nothing other than the Truth.’

Now how can we combine all these?

There is absolutely no way that we can say, ‘Zayd became the Truth’ with the subject of the sentence referring to Zayd (i.e. his Permanent Archetype). That is because Zayd does not become the Truth, for ‘Zayd’ consists of a determination, and determination contradicts unconditionality. The Supreme Truth is unconditional (mutlaq) to the utmost degree of unconditionality.

There used to be a Zayd – with some determination – only so long as he had not reached annihilation. But once he became annihilated, he is not Zayd anymore, and there is no determination.

This is just like saying, ‘Zayd became nothing! He was obliterated, became nonexistence, and perished.’ Of course there must be some object of reference for the conjugate ‘became’ (or ‘-ed’), but that need not be the Permanent Archetype.

Think of the cases where the subject of the sentence does not have a Permanent Archetype, like when we say, ‘Uniting between two contradictories is impossible,’ or ‘The Creator’s partner does not exist.’ How do we deal with these? How do we identify the subject of the sentence? What does it refer to?

We imagine some sense of ‘the union of two contradictories’ and then we rule out its possibility, or we assume a concept of ‘the Creator’s partner’ in the external world and then declare its nonexistence. Likewise, here we talk about the annihilation of ‘a human being with Zayd’s personality, and a concept that had taken on Zayd’s determination.’ His annihilation means that he gave up his determination, took off the robe of existence, and nothing was left except a sheer concept (mafhum). And clearly mere concepts and quiddities – without existence – are only notional (i’tibar) and nonexistent (‘adam), particularly according to the principality of being (asalat al-wujud).

And thus is the case of the other examples, like ‘The larva flew off,’ and ‘The butterfly burnt in fire.’ Consider a fire, a heap of glowing and flaming fire! The butterfly throws itself into the fire, catches fire and burns. It becomes fire and light, unconditional and boundless. And we say, ‘The butterfly burnt and became fire.’ Where is the butterfly? Where is its Permanent Archetype? The butterfly was a butterfly when it had not fallen into the fire. Once it fell into the fire and became fire, then it is not that ‘the butterfly is fire,’ but ‘only the fire is.’ Whoever looks at the fire would say, ‘The fire is fire’ (without any reference to the butterfly).

As long as the butterfly had not approached the vicinity of the fire it had an essence and certain properties and traits. It was only then that it was called a butterfly. It had a self, a Permanent Archetype, and some name and identity. However, since it became fire, we cannot call it a butterfly anymore. No name, identity, determination, essence, or property of the butterfly is left. How much ever we search and look, there is only fire to be found; there is only the light and glare of the fire there. Hence, ‘[Only] the fire is fire.’

We claim that there is only One Being in all realms of existence, and that is the Existence of the Truth, Exalted and Bounteous is He. No other being has genuine and real existence. They are rather names, labels, limits, determinations and manifestations of existence (wujud). The names that we assign to them – such as Zayd, ‘Amr, ‘tree’, ‘stone’, and so on – describe the determination and the limits of each being’s existence. Therefore these names are names and descriptions not of existence, but of the determinations of existence.

So when we refer to Zayd as ‘Zayd’, it does not denote his existence, but it denotes his determination of existence. When Zayd annihilates, he lets go of that determination and crosses over all limits. Otherwise, real existence is the same as it used to be at first: it used to be unconditional and still is. It is only that a delimited part of existence was named ‘Zayd’, but now that limit has been removed. This is annihilation, whereby we do not see those limits [anymore], but we see the unconditionality. The being used to be delimited, and it regarded itself as an independent being. But now that view has changed to a view of dependence and dissolution; because after all, pluralities are merely notional matters. That is what annihilation means.

Zayd has changed only in terms of his comprehension and conception (ma’rifah). Otherwise there has been no real change whatsoever: previously only the Truth used to be, and so is now, there is only the Truth.

Many times we mentally abstract a certain concept from everything, and set it as a subject of a statement. For example, we consider mental existence – qua being mental – as the subject for certain predicates. Sometimes we even abstract from the mental existence of a concept and only consider its essence, and then we associate it with certain predicates. Therefore abstraction (tajrid) is a common mental process.

Likewise, we strip Zayd of his determination and say, ‘He is now annihilated in God’s Essence.’ Thus there would be no determination in God’s Essence. In that realm, only absolute existence is absolute existence. In other words, that being which we used to call ‘Zayd’ had a determined share of existence; we dismissed that determination, and therefore only the existence remains. So existence is existence, and that is the absolute existence, which is the existence of the Truth, Exalted and Bounteous is He.

And if one expects to find a full and complete object of reference for the annihilated Zayd, then he should keep on waiting!

There are two verses in the Noble Qur’an:

And unto Him you are overturned. (29:21)

... And thou threwest not when thou threwest, but Allah threw.... (8:17)

What do they mean? When God says, ‘You did not throw, but Allah threw,’ there is no one other than Allah there. ‘You’, ‘thou’, and ‘thou threwest’ do not hold in that realm. Thence nothing remains but the Essence of the Truth, and Its comprehension of Itself:

There was Allah and there was nothing other than Him, and now it is as it has always been.40

O Thee, Above what the intellect speaks;
And Higher than what the spirit seeks.

O, Superior to every high and low;
Who you are, only Thou can know.

No one can ever come to know Thee;
He who knows Thee is no longer he.41

There is some subject in every type of annihilation, and that is the Permanent Archetype

‘ALLAMAH. ‘Zayd became the Truth’ means that the Truth replaced Zayd in his being and became his hand, eye and ear. It means that Zayd is not Zayd anymore, but Zayd is the Truth. This is true and plausible.

It is Zayd who became annihilated! If there is no Zayd, then who was annihilated? God, Exalted is He, has ever been and will always be, and the Truth is always the Truth. But we are talking about Zayd’s annihilation. If we do away with the relation that bonds this incidence of annihilation with Zayd, then nothing would remain. It would be as if no annihilation has occurred.

In the other examples, we say that ‘The larva flew off,’ or ‘The butterfly became fire.’ But if there is no butterfly whatsoever, then there is no butterfly to have become fire, and it would not make sense to say, ‘The butterfly became fire.’

You have a subject, which you do everything to do away with. And at the end you want to maintain the butterfly but at the same time you want to have it become fire and be annihilated, such that nothing would remain except the fire and only the fire be the fire! Thus you are back to square one!

We cannot say that ‘The butterfly is,’ because it became fire. Any statement that the butterfly is something requires the preservation of the butterfly’s existence, which contradicts its annihilation. So ‘The butterfly was annihilated’ means that the butterfly had a real external existence; but then that external realisation (tahaqquq) was removed, and so now there is nothing but the fire. Therefore, what remains of the butterfly – when we say, ‘The butterfly became fire’ – is its Permanent Archetype and nothing else.

We do not contend that the Permanent Archetype of Zayd is in the Essence of the Truth, just as we do not contend that the Permanent Archetype of the butterfly is in the fire. There is nothing in the Essence of the Truth except the Essence of the Truth, just as there is nothing in the fire except the fire. However, we maintain that when Zayd annihilates and becomes the Truth, his Permanent Archetype subsists, just as the Permanent Archetype of the butterfly subsists when it becomes fire. And this does not entail the determination and entification of the Essence of the Truth. What happens is that the external reality of the Truth, Exalted is He, replaces Zayd’s being, without any loss of unconditionality. Upon the annihilation and disappearance of Zayd’s being, the external reality of the Truth (i.e. His absolute Essence) manifests and appears through Zayd’s Permanent Archetype.

The difference in Zayd’s degree of gnosis as he moves from limitedness to unconditionality and breadth is due to the substitution and realisation of the Truth in Zayd’s place. There must be an object of reference for the subject of the sentence. But after Zayd annihilates and loses his existence, nothing remains for the subject to refer to, except Zayd’s Permanent Archetype. If you say that ‘Zayd was annihilated’ means that no sign of him was left whatsoever, then what effectively remains of the sentence is only ‘was annihilated’ with no subject. What do we do with that?

Some have used the verse, ‘And unto Him you are overturned’ (29:21) in order to prove the subsistence of the Permanent Archetype. But Shaykh ‘Abd al-Karim Jili draws on this verse as he argues for the total annihilation of all beings when they return to God, Majestic and All-Mighty is He.42

It is true that ‘And thou threwest not when thou threwest, but Allah threw’ (8:17), and by no means does anything exist except Allah, as mentioned in, ‘And unto Him you are overturned.’ But when we say, ‘Zayd became annihilated and disappeared,’ does the conjugate form ‘became’ also disappear?

STUDENT. We are not making any statement inconsistent with the common or literary language, or against referring the noun to its object of reference. I agree that in ‘Zayd became annihilated,’ the conjugate ‘became’ refers to Zayd.

The sentence ‘Zayd became annihilated’ is no different than the other sentences. That is, the conjugate ‘became’ in this sentence should have the same meaning and be interpreted in the same way as in ‘The butterfly became fire,’ ‘The droplet became water,’ ‘The sugar cube became dissolved,’ and ‘The larva in the water became a “flier”.’ Do we uphold the subsistence of the Permanent Archetypes of the butterfly, the droplet, the sugar cube and the larva when they – respectively – become fire, water, dissolved or a ‘flier’? No, we do not. Likewise we do not uphold the subsistence of Zayd’s Permanent Archetype.

Once the butterfly becomes fire, there will be no butterfly anymore. It is gone, and there is only and only fire at that point. Previously there was a butterfly, but its existence turned to nonexistence, and it adopted the fire’s existence. There are only two beings: the butterfly and the fire. The Permanent Archetype is not anything at the level of existence. And other than existence, there is quiddity (mahiyyah), which is a mental derivation (intiza’) from an external reality. And after the elimination and collapse of a being’s existence, only a concept of quiddity will remain, without any subsistence or realisation (tahaqquq).

‘Zayd became annihilated’ means that Zayd used to have a certain determination of the pure (baht) and simple (basit) existence which encompasses the universe, and that particular determination of existence was named ‘Zayd’. Then he progressed and advanced in the path of servitude (‘ubudiyyah), step by step and stage by stage, advancing toward perfection. He crossed the boundaries one after another, until he reached a point where he dispensed with determinations altogether. What used to be in Zayd so far was his existence, but now there is no rapport between him and existence. ‘Zayd’ was the name of that particular determination, but there is no determination after annihilation.

You will return as He originated you. * A party He guided, while misguidance befell on a [another] party.... (7:29-30)

Based on the verses of the Noble Qur’an, all people surely return to the same point where they started. One has some existence and determination before getting there, but beyond some point, the person loses his self, and that is when he reaches the realm of annihilation.

It means that one can ascend, while retaining his selfhood and Permanent Archetype, up to the point of his origin. But to go beyond that, he has to give up his existence, and hence there is also no Permanent Archetype beyond that point. There is a Permanent Archetype from the point of one’s origin up to the point of one’s return. The Permanent Archetype appears where one comes into existence, and it ends at the same point. The realm of annihilation is above and beyond the realm of existence; the realm of annihilation is the realm of nonexistence.

The difference between Zayd’s existence and nonexistence is that when the former holds, God’s Sacred Essence observes Zayd; but when the latter is achieved, His Essence observes Itself. In other words, the Essence of the Truth used to see some determination, but now It sees Its Existence with no determination. Is this true or not?

When Zayd becomes annihilated, we cannot literally say that his Permanent Archetype is in God’s Essence. So the Permanent Archetype must be associated with God’s Names and Attributes. That is why saying, ‘Zayd was annihilated in God’s Essence’ involves some neglect in the language.

At the end of the day you either have to redefine what annihilation means, or you should maintain, as you just said, that God’s Essence was observing plurality up to the point of annihilation, but from then on It observes unity. This is an excellent way to put it. For instance we say, ‘So far Zayd was watching his ring, and now he is watching himself.’ This way there is no mention of a pronoun or subject referring to the ring, and there is no allusion to the ring’s Permanent Archetype. Thus, when we talk about annihilation, we do not put it as ‘Zayd’s determination annihilated,’ but we say: thus far, the Sacred Essence of the Truth was seeing Its Beauty through the determinations of Zayd, ‘Amr, and Bakr. It was observing Itself in these mirrors, manifestations and reflections. But now It observes Itself with no intermediary and not through any mirrors.

This is the meaning of ‘And unto Him you are overturned’ (29:21). It means that the determination is removed and overturned altogether.

Annihilation is one’s obliteration in God’s Being, removal of the determinations, and God’s observation of His own beauty

‘ALLAMAH. All these ideas equally apply to statements like ‘The butterfly became fire,’ ‘Zayd became dust,’ ‘So-and-so does not exist,’ and so on. If we do away with the subject, we would be left in dark and unresolved. There must be some subject that pertains to the message, and that subject is the Permanent Archetype. There used to be some reality and some being named ‘Zayd’. Now he loses that reality. Thus, there remains nothing but the Permanent Archetype.

And your assertion that ‘So far, the Supreme Truth used to see a determination, but from now on He sees Himself without any determination’ is quite appropriate. I have no problem with that and actually concur with it! But you should clarify that the Truth’s observation is through Zayd. The Supreme Truth used to observe Zayd, and now He observes Himself by Zayd. It would not make sense if Zayd is totally dismissed.

You maintain that God’s Sacred Essence – the Absolutely Simple Existence – was observing this determination (Zayd’s) up to now; but from now on It observes unconditionality. All this is absolutely correct. But still, ‘Zayd was annihilated.’ We want to find and identify this ‘Zayd’. Where did he come from? What does this ‘Zayd’ refer to? Could it be anything other than his Permanent Archetype?

And sure, the Permanent Archetype cannot be in God’s Essence, but it can be associated with God’s Names and Attributes. It is also true that before annihilation, God used to see through Zayd’s determinations, and now Zayd has become annihilated in the Truth, Exalted and Bounteous is He. But there is still some noun and subject that remain even after his annihilation.

If the meaning of ‘And unto Him you are overturned’ (29:21) is that even the Permanent Archetype of Zayd does not persist, and that it is the Truth that observes the Truth, then why do we say, ‘Zayd was annihilated’?

The true unity of God’s Essence is beyond all confinements

STUDENT. Why should we have any reference to a subject when we are speaking of absolute being (al-wujud al-mutlaq) and when we are not dealing with any determination? The subject is associated with the realm of God’s Names and Attributes, and is not allowed in the realm of God’s Essence. So in fact the subject of the sentence (‘Zayd’) retains its position – outside the realm of God’s Essence. Annihilation is where God’s Sacred Essence observes Itself. So let the subject of the sentence – our ‘Zayd’ – stay where it is, abandoned and overthrown, lying there for a thousand years! We have no business to do with Zayd, let alone his conjugate and reference!

Your insistence that Zayd’s Permanent Archetype and the subject of the sentence should be preserved complies with the principality of quiddity (asalat al-mahiyyah). But according to the principality of being (asalat al-wujud), nothing exists but the Truth, and no one other than the Truth can comprehend and observe the Truth, Exalted and Bounteous is He.

Zayd has endeavoured and grown in terms of being. He has reached the being of the Truth, has given up his own properties, and has entered the house where ‘There is no occupant in the house except Him.’ There is no one in that house except the Landlord. So how can Zayd enter therein, while the Landlord’s name is not ‘Zayd’?

If the flash of His ghirah (protectiveness) glitters, there will remain no Zayd and no ‘Amr, no friend and no companion, no name and no identity. That is a sphere where no one can enter. So how does Zayd want to go there, spread out his belongings, and run his business?

Zayd is prevented from entering that realm while retaining his selfhood. That is right! As long as Zayd is Zayd, he has no path to that realm. But the annihilated Zayd is not Zayd anymore, for he has broken out of determinations one after another, and at the end, he has sincerely offered his own being. His ‘self’ is gone because he gave up his being. It means that that the bounds that he had are transformed to boundlessness, and his restriction is converted to unconditionality.

It is not Zayd’s ‘Zayd-ness’ (i.e. his quiddity or Permanent Archetype) that moves, but it is his being (wujud) that moves, and it keeps moving until it reaches the unconditional wujud. Now, what does that mean? It means that he gives up his determination and takes on a superior determination. But then he also loses that determination and adopts an even higher status, and so on until the point where it is only the Truth who observes His Essence.

Then if one asks Zayd after annihilation, ‘Who are you, and where do you come from?’ he would reply ‘I am nothing. I am not Zayd. “Where do you come from?” belongs to the realm of multiplicity, but here is the realm of unity (tawhid). There is no time or space here; there is no Zayd or ‘Amr here.’

It is narrated from Bayazid [Bastami] that, ‘It has been thirty years that I have not talked to anyone but the Truth. Whoever has asked me a question has been the Truth, and the one answering the questions has been the Truth.’43 What does this mean? It means that I have been in the realm of annihilation. It means that I am not ‘I’ anymore. ‘I’ is for the realm of multiplicity; but here (in the realm of annihilation and unity) ‘I’ is the Truth, Exalted and Bounteous is He.

‘The glass is delicate and so is the wine’

STUDENT. That is right! When the glass and the wine are so fine and delicate that every time one looks at the glass or the wine they are seen as one, then how is it possible to make out or recognise any difference?

The glass is delicate and so is the wine,
Hard to tell them, as they intertwine.
As if it’s all wine, and no glass,
Or there is a glass but there is no wine.
(Sahib Abu al-Qasim Isma’il ibn ‘Abbad, d. 385/995)

Do the goblets glitter due to the wine?
Or is it through the clouds that the suns shine?
For the pureness of wine and delicacy of the glass,
The colours of the two amazingly combine.
As if it’s all wine and there is no glass,
Or all is the glass and there is no wine.
(‘Iraqi)

‘ALLAMAH. We cannot let go of Zayd, for the whole story of annihilation hinges on him. How can there be no ‘Zayd’ when we want to explore and study Zayd’s annihilation? It is true that he was annihilated, but there should be some reference for the ‘-ed’ conjugate.

I also argue based on the principality of being. I do not believe in the principality of quiddity. The efforts and the growth of Zayd, the poor servant of God, are in terms of being, and it is in terms of being that he achieves annihilation.

But do not say, ‘Zayd became annihilated in the Essence,’ because it means that there is some determined entity in the Essence of the High Truth. Rather, say, ‘Zayd became annihilated to God,’ which means that God sees, hears, and talks through Zayd’s determination.

Zayd spent a lifetime as a determined being, and once he annihilates, the Truth sees Himself unconditional and with no determination. At the end, it is Zayd who has grown out of determination, and so the subject remains in its position.

And when he is questioned, Zayd answers, ‘I am not me [Zayd], but I am the Truth.’ So the pronoun subsists. If Zayd were not the Truth and there were no connection between him and the Truth, how could he reply ‘Why do you address me? Why do you call Zayd?’ Because then there would be no ‘I’ to be addressed anymore; there would be no Zayd anymore.

And Bayazid Bastami’s words certainly indicate his state of annihilation. But when he says, ‘I do not exist anymore, but the Truth does,’ there is still a reference to himself. And when you say that ‘Zayd has lost himself,’ or that ‘He sees by the eyes of the Truth,’ all of these have subjects and predicates, and thus they require some object of reference. And the poems of wine and glass that you read are indeed very charming. But even saying that ‘It is as if the wine is the glass or that the glass is the wine’ involves a subject! At any rate, regardless of what path and approach one takes, there is no escape from the Permanent Archetypes, and one must accept that they persist during annihilation.44

The ‘known provision’ of mukhlasin

Except for Allah’s chosen servants * For them there is a known provision * Fruits; and they are honoured * In Gardens of Great Bounty [of paradise]. (37:40-3)

STUDENT. Here, ‘fruits’ is an apposition and description for ‘a known provision’. But mukhlasin (chosen, those who have been made sincere by God) are those who have reached annihilation in God’s Essence. So how come the verse sets and fixes a distinct reward of a certain (‘known’) amount for them? Is it not that one who reaches the station of annihilation owns and benefits from all of God’s blessings, without any limit? How can being mukhlas be compatible with the limitation and specificity of one’s reward and remuneration?

‘ALLAMAH. Apparently, having a ‘known’ (ma’lum) provision refers to a certain notability that their provision brings about for them.

In fact, a chosen servant would himself desire the achievement of such a reward. After all, mukhlasin are still among God’s servants: they are those servants who are mukhlas. In that sense, not only their provision, but they themselves will be known and determined. This is what some gnostics have affirmed – and it is a fair word – that one’s identity (huwiyyah) and quiddity (mahiyyah, which is one’s ‘what-ness’) does not disappear in the hereafter. The Permanent Archetypes subsist.

And actually that is how it should be, because even though they have reached annihilation, they nonetheless have some determined entity and instance of existence. And there is no contradiction between their being mukhlas and the subsistence of their Permanent Archetypes.

The impermanence of physical and spiritual imposed movements

STUDENT. Philosophers maintain that ‘Imposed motion cannot be permanent or usual.’45 Does the impermanence of qasr (imposed, forced and non-natural movement) contradict eternality (khulud) in hellfire? Also, is the impermanence of imposed motion only for physical movements or does it also apply to spiritual matters? And does it only apply to the moving body (mutaharrik) or does it also apply to the mover (muharrik)?46

‘ALLAMAH. It has been argued that imposed movements do not comply with divine grace (‘inayah). Divine grace – the diffusions, perfections and blessings that God bestows upon individuals – cannot be partial or incomplete. God does not grant imperfect and unfinished bounties (ni’mah). It cannot be that He forcibly gives someone a bounty and then forcibly retrieves it forever. That would not comply with divine grace. Therefore God’s bounties should be assumed to be eternal. If He bestows something, it is given forever, with no restriction.

But is this consistent with eternal punishment? Eternity in hell would entail that God’s bounties on those who face eternal damnation must have been imposed [and thus impermanent]. But the existence that the High Truth creates or bestows upon a being is not restricted. It cannot be that the existent possesses it for a few days and then God takes it back, for that would contradict divine grace. God’s bounties do not reach us through unnatural and imposed ways. It is not that His bounties are given to us for a few days and then they are terminated. Thus, it must be that those who face eternal punishment did not have imposed bounties in the first place.47

Also, imposed motions are imposed only with respect to the moved object. But with respect to the mover (the cause of the motion) the motion is natural, not imposed. For instance, when someone throws a piece of rock upward, the rock has an imposed motion as it goes up, but the action is not imposed for the person who throws the rock upward, and so is the case with other examples.

Moreover, one’s throw might be such that when he throws the rock, it moves on forever, like the spacecrafts launched every so often, that go even beyond the earth’s atmosphere. There are certain forces and causes that propel these spacecrafts, and the crafts continue moving as long as those forces and causes persist. Once the causes stop working, the spacecraft crashes, burns, or is destroyed in another way; or it enters a new gravitational field and moves accordingly in a new orbit.

And it is possible to consider a similar sense of impermanence of imposed motions for spiritual matters. That is, one may argue that imposed motion within spiritual bounties and divine mercies cannot be eternal or usual. Much like physical causes, spiritual causes always diffuse based on primary inherent motions.

1. [Translator’s note. It seems that the author deliberately does not identify the Trinity with Christianity, but rather with the Christians, since according to the teachings of Islam, the genuine doctrines of Christianity, as revealed by God, characterise a wholly monotheistic set of beliefs, completely in accord with Islam. And the concept of the Trinity was a deviation from that, introduced later on.]

2. [Translator’s note. For instance, see the first three commandments, cited in the Bible in Exodus 20:2-7 and Deuteronomy 5:7-11. Also see Luke 4:8, Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10-11.]

3. [Translator’s note. An Attribute of God (sifah) and its corresponding Name (ism) have the same reality, and their distinction is notional (i’tibari). When taken by itself, a quality of God is referred to as an Attribute; and when taken in its relation to and as a property of God’s Essence (the noun), it is referred to as a Name.]

4. [Translator’s note. What is being said here is that the belief in true tawhid and that the Essence of Allah is One contradicts the claim that the Names and Attributes of Allah are the same as His Essence, for that would entail the same incongruity that arises from the Trinity. Instead, the author advocates that the Names and Attributes are lower and manifest levels of the Essence. They emanate from and relate to the Essence, but are distinct from It. This is the view of the gnostics (‘urafa’). But the philosophers and theologians claim that even though God’s Names and Attributes are conceptually distinct from His Essence, they are existentially united. The topic will be expanded on in this section and is discussed more thoroughly in the author’s book, Tawhid-i ‘Ilmi wa ‘Ayni.]

5. [Translator’s note. Even today some Catholics are condemned for worshipping Mary.]

6. ‘Allamah Tabataba’i has elaborated on these topics in al-Mizan, 3:283ff. and 6:69ff. He says:
‘What the Christians say is similar to saying, ‘Zayd, son of ‘Amr, is a man’, which involves three things: Zayd, son of ‘Amr, and man. However, they all refer to a single entity, so they are really one. But they [the Christians] have not realised that, if this multiplicity (kathrah) is real (haqiqi) and not notional (i’tibari), it entails that the noun should also involve real multiplicity. And if the noun is really and genuinely one, it entails that the multiplicity of the qualities must be notional and unreal [so there would also be one real quality]. It is rationally unacceptable to combine real arithmetical multiplicity and real arithmetical unity.

It is for this reason that many Christian preachers and advocates have themselves acknowledged that the concept of Trinity is a matter of submission (ta’abbud) that has been received from their ancestors and forefathers [and should just be accepted without question], but cannot be figured out on intellectual and scientific grounds. But they have not realised that they should ask for proof for anything that they hear [as opposed to blindly accepting it], and there is no difference in this regard between what one hears from the earlier generations and what one hears from the later generations.

One should realise that the concept of Trinity was innovated and introduced by the Christians. They included it among the principles of Christianity by altering the Gospel. Otherwise, Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) is blameless in this, as he constantly called the people to the truth. Many verses in the Noble Qur’an bear witness to this. ‘Allamah Tabataba’i once drew upon the last verses of Chapter 5 (al-Ma’idah) as an incredible account of the politeness of Prophet Jesus, who presents himself as a faithful and obedient servant of God:

And when Allah saith: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind, “Take me and my mother as two deities beside Allah”?’
He saith, ‘Glorified Thou art! It was not mine to utter what I had no right to. If I had said it Thou wouldst know it. Thou knowest what is within myself but I know not what is within Thyself. Truly only Thou art the Omniscient of things hidden. * I said not to them other than what Thou commandest me, that “Worship Allah, [Who is] My Lord and your Lord,” and I was a witness over them while I remained among them. And when Thou seized me Thou wast Thyself the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over everything. * If Thou punishest them, they are truly Thy servants, and if Thou forgivest them, Thou art truly the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.’ * Allah saith, ‘This is a day that the truthfulness of the truthful benefiteth them. For them are gardens underneath which rivers flow; eternally therein forever; Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him; that is the great triumph’. * To Allah belongeth the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, and He is All-Powerful over everything.’ (5:116-120)

Notice how wonderful Prophet Jesus’ answer is! Such a superb speech and eloquent expression! In each and every word of his is a world of meaning, wisdom, and consideration of the Supreme Creator’s status of Lordship (rububiyyah). It represents his observation of the highest degree of manners of servitude (‘ubudiyyah). He says: if I had said so, then first, You would have known, for Your knowledge encompasses all beings. And second, what I told people was exactly Your command: preach unity (tawhid); and I did not exceed that frontier. Thirdly, I watched over them so long as I was among them. And fourthly, Your chastisement is totally just (‘adl), for they are Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are All-Mighty and All-Wise! Truly one cannot conceive of any statement more wonderful and superb than this.’

7. See al-Mizan, 3:297. [Translator’s note. For Paul’s stand against philosophy see Colossians 2:8-9 and 1 Corinthians 1:20-2, as ‘Allamah has quoted in al-Mizan. One can argue that Paul was not against philosophy altogether, but he was against certain types and usages of philosophy; see Acts 1, and his letter to the Romans, Romans 1:20.]

8. Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 1. [Translator’s note. Any attribute and description is a concept, and thus a mental matter with mental existence, but not an external reality. Mental concepts are all universal – i.e. they can be assumed to have multiple instances – while external realities (i.e. existence) are all particular and personal. In attribution, an attribute is identified with a noun as its external instance. Thus the predicate is a universal concept, while the subject is a particular instance, and the two cannot be wholly identical.]

9. [Translator’s note. For this topic and the relevant narrations see the author’s Tawhid-i ‘Ilmi wa ‘Ayni (Tehran, 1410/1989): 77-8.]

10. [Translator’s note. Pahlavi, or Fahlawiyyun in Arabic, ‘refer to the ancient sages of Persia and are derived from the writings of Suhrawardi, who saw in their teachings the perfect combination of rational and intuitive knowledge.’ S.H. Nasr, Islamic Philosophy from its Origin to the Present (Albany: SUNY, 2006): 79. Also see Sabzivari, Sharh al-Manzumah, annotated by Ayatullah Hasan Zadah Amuli (3rd ed., Qum, 2005), 2:104ff.; Suhrawardi, Majmu’ih-yi Musannafat-i Shaykh-i Ishraq (Tehran, 1976), 1:502ff. and 2:128 and 157.]

11. [Translator’s note. Mahiyyah (quiddity, ‘whatness’) of a thing is the answer to ‘what is it?’. In itself, it entails neither the existence nor the nonexistence of that thing, and thus it only applies to contingent beings. It is a conceptual matter that defines and confines the existence of a being, for existence is a single reality across all existents. Thus, the assertion that God’s quiddity is His existence – which is absolutely unlimited – is equivalent to saying that God has no quiddity. The only thing that can conceptually define and differentiate God from other things is His limitlessness (i.e. that He cannot be defined and delimited).]

12. Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 185.

13. See Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, Nihayat al-Hikmah (Qum, 1417/1996): 73.

14. [Translator’s Note. See note 145 below]

15. See Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, The Return to Being: A Translation of Risalat al-Walayah, trans. F. Amjad and M. Dasht Bozorgi (London: ICAS Press, 2010).

16. See Sabzivari, Sharh al-Manzumah, 3:546ff and 586ff.

17. See Nihayat al-Hikmah (Qum, 1417/1996): 214.

18. [Translator’s note. In summary, assuming that God’s Names and Attributes are identical with His Essence means that the former, which are multiple concepts, can be derived from the latter, which is absolute and simple in every aspect, and that is impossible. If the Names and Attributes are considered outside the Essence but at the same level, then that is also impossible, for there is nothing outside absolute existence. Even if the Names and Attributes are thought of as mere concepts with nothing other than mental existence, they will still be independent of the Essence and external to it inasmuch as being concepts with mental existence. Therefore God’s Names and Attributes should be thought of and derived from lower planes than His Essence. And does not entail lack of any perfection in God’s Essence, as every existence and existential perfection is ultimately derived from It and there is nothing external to It. This topic is very similar to how multiple effects can emerge from an absolutely simple existence – which is explained by emergence of the First Intellect, which encompasses and stands above the Second Intellect, and so on.]

19. See Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi, al-Hikmat al-Muta’aliyah fi al-Asfar al-‘Aqliyyah al-Arba’ah (Beirut, 1981), vol. 3, part 2 (vol. 7 of 9): 358-9.

20. Ibid., vol. 4, part 1 (vol. 8 of 9): 347.

21. Hellenic and Islamic Peripatetic philosophers like Ibn Sina believed that the creation of the soul (nafs) is from the non-material world (‘alam al-tajarrud) and separate from that of the body. The soul is bound to the body in order to perform its actions, and in effect the body is an instrument for the actions of the soul. However, based on transubstantial motion, Mulla Sadra proved that the nafs needs the body for its original existence; that is, the nafs is realised through the body. Man is a graded being whose beginning is matter and whose end is intellect. The human soul starts as a single sperm-cell; then it evolves and passes through the stages of sensation (hiss), imagination (khayal) and conception (wahm) and reaches the stage of intellect (‘aql), and thus it becomes non-material (mujarrad) and eternal.
The human soul (nafs) is like a butterfly in a cocoon, a foetus in the womb or an almond or walnut kernel at its initial stage when it is mixed with the skin. It evolves and develops with the body and then follows its own path toward perfection. The nafs is with the body for a while, but then it becomes self-supporting and independent of the body as a result of substantial perfection. It separates from the body like almond or walnut oil, or like a butterfly that exits the cocoon, or an animal that sheds its skin. Thus the soul departs the body, continues without it, and becomes non-material. See ibid., vol. 4, part 1 (vol. 8 of 9): 330ff.

22. [Translator’s note. Although spirit (ruh) and soul (nafs) are often used interchangeably, strictly speaking, ruh is the source and element of life, which is independent of the body. When it is attached to the body it is called nafs. The rational soul (al-nafs al-natiqah) is the human spirit, which moves toward its perfection when it is placed in the body.]

23. [Translator’s note. The concept of al-a’yan al-thabitah (well-translated by T. Izutsu as ‘Permanent Archetypes’) was first discussed in detail by Ibn al-’Arabi. Though the concept is quite similar to Platonic ideas, it is best to think of a being’s Permanent Archetype as its container; the water (i.e. existence) that each being can have is subject to the shape and capacity of the container. They are the quiddities and intelligible forms of all beings that are the object of God’s eternal knowledge. They are called thabitah (fixed, permanent) to be distinguished from the external existents (al-a’yan al-kharijiyyah), not that they are at some intermediate plane between existence and nonexistence, for there is no such a plane. See T. Izutsu, Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts (Berkeley, 1984): 159ff, Hasan Zadah’s annotation on Sabzivari, Sharh al-Manzumah, 3:574, and the translators’ note on Sabzivari, The Metaphysics of Sabzavari (Delmar, 1977): 225, translated by M. Mohaghegh and T. Izutsu. In the pages that follow, the student argues against the subsistence of the Permanent Archetypes upon annihilation in God’s Essence (therefore they would not be so ‘permanent’ after all); while the ‘Allamah advocates that there is some subsistence for them even upon annihilation in God’s Essence. The book leaves the debate without a conclusion, but the student finally convinces ‘Allamah, at which he humbly says, ‘Allah made you the means for my guidance.’ Muhammad Muhsin Husayni Tihrani, Harim-i Quds (Qum, 1428/2007): 113-14.]

24. [Translator’s note. Ghirah or ghayrah (Persian ghayrat) is often translated as ‘jealousy’, and ghayur as ‘jealous’, which is not quite accurate. As the author explains, ghirah means intolerance toward outsiders and intruders. Therefore ghirah involves a sense of protectiveness and possessiveness.]

25. [Translator’s note. See al-Mizan, 8:95; al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-’Ummal (Beirut, 1409/1989), 11:688; and Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Istanbul, 1981), 8:174, with minor differences.]

26. [Translator’s note. See Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, Bidayat al-Hikmah, Chapters 5.6 and 12.10. In short, multiple persons of a species occur due to separable accidents (al-’arad al-mufariq), and only material beings can have accidents.]

27. [Translator’s note. The realm of angels (malakut) is different from the corporeal world. Here there are many human beings that have their own distinctions between themselves, and stand parallel with respect to one another. But in the realm of angels there is only one Gabriel with no similar, and there is one Michael with no similar. There is only one intermediary for effusion of knowledge, and that is Gabriel. No other being can perform this task. Likewise there is only one Michael for effusion of power and only one Israfil for effusion of life.]

28. [Translator’s note. The following example may help clarify what is meant here: consider an individual in a room covered with mirrors. There are multiple and distinct pictures seen in the mirrors, but there is only one real source for all that multiplicity. The one is entified and determined into many images, but it is one in reality, not many.]

29. See Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Hurr al-’Amili, al-Jawahir al-Saniyyah (Baghdad, 1964): 361; Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut, 1983), 90:376 and 102:164.

30. [Translator’s note. Similar versions of this poem are attributed to Ahmad Jami and Sa’di.]

31. These are ‘Allamah’s own poems that are drawn upon here as evidence.

32. Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi, al-Asfar, vol. 1, part 3 (vol. 3 of 9): 179; where he says, ‘As one of them has said’ (kama qala qa’iluhum), apparently referring to Muhyi al-Din.

33. Ibid.: 178.

34. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi, Misbah al-Mutahajjid (Beirut, 1411/1991): 840.

35. The exact count is 761 verses.

36. Mulla Muhammad Salih Khalkhali has presented several pieces of evidence and reasons for Muhyi al-Din’s Shi’ism in the introduction to his Sharh-i Manaqib-i Muhyi al-Din ‘Arabi (Tehran, 1985): 9-18.

37. From the last few lines of Ibn al-Farid’s Ya’iyyah ode. [Translator’s note. Qusay was an ancestor of the Prophet.]

38. [Translator’s note. In this classification, God’s Universal Names (al-asma’ al-kulliyyah) include both His Essential Attributes (the three Attributes of Life, Knowledge and Power) and His non-Essential Attributes (the rest of them, including those that pertain to God’s Actions, and those that can be traced back to the Essential Attributes). The Particular Names (al-asma’ al-juz’iyyah) here refer to the particular instances of God’s manifestations (i.e. His creation).]

39. See al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah (Beirut, 1999), 4:221 (bk. 223).

40. [Translator’s note. For the first part see al-Kulayni, al-Kafi (Tehran, 1388/1968), 1:107 and 8:94; al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal, 10:370. And the second part is narrated from Junayd; see Sadr al-Din al-Shirazi, al-Asfar, vol. 3, part 2 (vol. 7 of 9): 350; and A. Sha’rani’s notes on Mazandarani, Sharh Usul al-Kafi (Beirut, 2000), 3:123 and 4:97. Also see Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (3rd ed., Beirut, 198?), 6:206; Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Tawhid (Qum, 1416/1995): 178-9 and 316; Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj (Najaf, 1386/1966), 2:187 and 213.]

41. Lahiji, Mafatih al-I’jaz fi Sharh-i Gulshan-i Raz (Tehran, 1958): 75.

42. ‘Abd al-Karim Jili, al-Insan al-Kamil (Misr, 1981), 2:23-4.

43. [Translator’s note. No reference was found for the above statement by Bayazid, though Rumi has attributed a similar idea to him. See Mathnawi, vol. 5, the title before line 1685.]

44. While writing up these conversations, it came to this humble being’s mind that annihilation in the Sacred Essence of the Truth occurs in two ways. One is annihilation prior to death, which occurs for the faithful and sincere servants who complete their journey toward God and annihilate while they retain their worldly life. This state of annihilation occurs for one as a determined entity (ta’ayyun), and therefore the Permanent Archetype subsists in this type of annihilation. It is this type of annihilation that has been referred to in the tradition: ‘No servant of Mine seeks proximity to Me by anything more loved by Me than what I have made obligatory on him; and he certainly comes close to Me [gradually] by supererogatory worship until I love him. Then when I love him, I become his ear by which he hears, his eye by which he sees, his tongue by which he speaks, and his hand by which he grasps. If he calls Me I answer him, and if he requests from Me I grant him.’

According to the Sign of the Truth, the late Mirza Jawad Aqa Maliki Tabrizi, all Muslims agree on this tradition. It has been reported with different lines of transmission in major Shi’a and Sunni sources. See Maliki Tabrizi, Risalat Liqa’ Allah (Qum, 1405/1985): 24; Barqi, al-Mahasin (Tehran, 1951), 1:291; Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul), 2:352; al-Hurr al-’Amili, al-Jawahir al-Saniyyah: 121; Ghazzali, Ihya’ al-’Ulum al-Din (Beirut, 2004): 1349, book of ‘Love and Passion for Allah’.

Apparently Muhyi al-Din’s claim regarding the subsistence of the Permanent Archetype is also concerning this type of annihilation. Likewise is the annihilation of all beings in the Essence of the Supreme Truth – like the minerals, plants, trees, mountains, stars, heavens, and the earth. They are in a state of annihilation, humility and meekness while their identities and Permanent Archetypes subsist: ‘There is none in the heavens and the earth but that cometh to the All-Merciful as a servant. * Indeed He hath counted them and hath numbered them exactly.’ (19:93-4)

The other type of annihilation is achieved by the intimate and chosen servants of God after leaving everything behind, dying of their life of this world, and passing through the stages of the Intermediate Realm (barzakh) and the Resurrection (qiyamah). They have departed their bodies, and have gone beyond the realms of barzakh and qiyamah. Thus, they are free from matter, form (surah), and soul (nafs) altogether. They have entered the precinct of the Truth, and have passed beyond all determinations. Therefore there is no Permanent Archetype for them anymore. This might be the annihilation that is achieved five hundred years after one’s death according to Shah Waliullah Dihlawi (Hama’at [Hyderabad, 1964]: 63, part 11). This type of annihilation involves an essential transformation (dhati), like when a dog falls in a salt marsh and changes into salt, whereby the essence and the properties of the dog are totally gone.
In the above discourses, ‘Allamah’s stand seems to be pertaining annihilation of the first type, though some of his assertions may also be applied to annihilation of the second type.

45. [Translator’s note. Quoted from al-Mizan, 1:413.]

46. [Translator’s note. Qasr is the motion of an object against its will and natural tendency. In other words, it is the motion that is neither voluntary (iradi) nor natural (tabi’i). Thus it may be translated as unnatural, imposed and involuntary motion. The typical example is when a rock is thrown up; it is necessarily caused by an outside force, and the upward motion is against the natural tendency and course of the rock. The philosophical doctrine discussed here is that any such motion cannot be permanent, as it is against the natural state and trend of the object. The student is inquiring about the implications of this doctrine, especially regarding eternal damnation.]

47. [Translator’s note. If one has God’s bounties upon entry into hell, that person would not stay therein forever. Eternity in hell is for those who destroyed and wasted all of God’s bounties upon them in this world by their voluntary actions, and so they enter hell without any of His bounties. Thus, there is no contradiction between eternal punishment and the rule discussed above. See See Sadr al-Din al- Shirazi, al-Asfar, vol. 4, part 2 (vol. 9 of 9): 347.]

5. Mystical Discourses

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

STUDENT. There are a few questions concerning the revelation of the Qur’an and Allah’s orders and prohibitions to His Messenger (peace be upon him and his family). It has been reported that when receiving revelation, the Prophet used to pale and turn yellow or white, and his body would become heavy, like an unconscious person. Did this always happen during revelations, or only sometimes?

Also, would he recite the verses for the people and the scribes who recorded the revelation in that very unnatural state, or would he wait to recover from that condition? And did the scribes accompany him all the time so as to write down the revelation, or would they write it down later? Moreover, did the Prophet receive revelation to through Gabriel, or did the High Truth (al-Haqq, i.e. God) directly reveal to him with no veil or intermediary?

‘ALLAMAH. One cannot maintain that the condition of the Messenger of Allah always changed at the time of revelation. There is no evidence for such a claim. There were times when he had a change of condition, whereby he would faint like a dead person until later on when he would recover.

Also, it is not quite evident whether he used to recite the verses in that peculiar state or after recovery. It is inferred from some narrations that there were instances when he read them out before recovery. Then when he reverted from state of annihilation (fana’) to the state of subsistence (baqa’), he would check how his Companions had recorded the verses. This shows that he sometimes recited the verses in the state of annihilation and unconsciousness, and would recite them once again after returning to normal.

It is narrated that Imam Sadiq was asked, ‘O son of the Messenger of Allah! Did the Noble Messenger use to faint and lose consciousness because of not having the endurance and strength to meet and confront Gabriel?’ Imam Sadiq replied,

The fainting occurred when the Supreme Allah revealed, addressed, and spoke to His Messenger directly and with no intermediary.1

Otherwise, Gabriel used to stand by like a slave and serf before his master, ask for permission, and then convey the message. That was the case when revelation was conveyed by Gabriel. But those instances when the state and condition of the Prophet changed were when Allah Himself was revealing and speaking to him.

For example, it is narrated that Chapter 5 (al-Ma’idah) was revealed when the Noble Prophet was entering Medina. The revelation of this chapter was so weighty, tough, and intense that the camel on which the Prophet was mounted was about to sink down to the ground and lie down because of the pressure.2

‘Unless through revelation or from behind a veil or by sending an emissary’

‘ALLAMAH. There are different verses and narrations concerning how the chapters (sing. surah) of the Qur’an descended. Some imply that the Supreme Allah used to manifest and reveal with no intermediary, while it is inferred from others that the revelation was done through Gabriel. The whole story is summarised in a verse toward the end of Chapter 42 (al-Shura):

And no human being is spoken to by Allah, except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger who reveals what He wills by His leave. Truly He is All-High, All-Wise. (42:51)

Here, Allah’s revelation is mentioned in parallel to His sending of a messenger. That is, ‘by revelation’ (wahyan) is on a par with ‘He sendeth a messenger’ and also with ‘from behind a veil.’ It means that Gabriel (i.e. a messenger) was not involved in cases of [direct] revelation.

This verse clearly shows that when the Qur’an was sent down through revelation, it was a direct revelation by the Supreme Truth (i.e. God) unto the Noble Messenger, and not through Gabriel. And when the Qur’an was sent down through Gabriel, there was no direct manifestation of Allah to the Prophet. This is very clear and is deduced from having an affirmation after a negation (i.e. the verse first denies God’s speaking to anyone, but then affirms it in three cases: by revelation, from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger). Thus whatever is sent down through Gabriel or his associates is distinct from [direct] ‘revelation’.

Revelation of the Qur’an to the Prophet

‘ALLAMAH. For example, the first verses of the Qur’an that were revealed are:

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All- Compassionate * Read in the name of thy Lord Who created * Created man from a blood-clot * Read; and thy Lord is the Most Gracious * [He is] Who taught by the pen * He taught man what he knew not. (96:1- 5)

It seems that these verses were first revealed directly by Allah, Exalted is He. That means that the revelation of these verses by Gabriel occurred later on.

Three verses in the Qur’an say that the Qur’an has been sent down through Gabriel (Jabra’il), the ‘Holy Spirit’ (Ruh al-Qudus), and the ‘Trustworthy Spirit’ (al-Ruh al-Amin):

Say: whoever is an enemy of Gabriel, [he must know that] indeed he hath sent it [the Qur’an] down upon thy heart, by Allah’s leave.... (2:97)

Say: the Holy Spirit hath delivered it from thy Lord in truth, that it may confirm those who believe.... (16:102)

The Trustworthy Spirit hath came down with it [the Qur’an] * Upon thy heart, so that thou mayst be [one] of the warners * In clear Arabic language. (26:193-5)

These verses apparently imply that it was Gabriel who brought down all of the Qur’an. I have come up with an explanation that clarifies the fact of the matter and takes into account all verses of the Qur’an concerning revelation. I do not know how plausible and graspable it is, but it goes like this:

There are three stages for the process of revelation. The first stage is Allah’s direct revelation upon the Prophet, with no intermediate. The second stage, which is inferior to the first, is when the verses are not directly revealed by Allah, but are sent through Gabriel. That is, Gabriel is also involved in Allah’s sending of revelation, and Allah reveals by means of Gabriel. The third stage, which is yet lower, is when revelation is not even directly carried out by Gabriel, but by his associates and agents. In this case, revelation descends from Allah by means of Gabriel, and then from Gabriel by means of his associates. Thus, Allah, Gabriel, and his associates are all involved in this type of revelation.

The Noble Qur’an mentions this last type, where revelation is carried out by Gabriel’s associates, by saying that these divine verses are contained in certain ‘tablets’ carried by ‘noble and righteous envoys’. That is how the verses were descended upon the Messenger of Allah:

No indeed, it is a reminder * And whoso willeth pay heed to it * On high-honoured pages * Elevated and purified * By hands of envoys * [Who are] noble and righteous. (80:11-16)

The different types and stages of revelation were due to the different states and circumstances

‘ALLAMAH. In each of these three stages, the three agents of revelation – that is, God, Gabriel and the ‘noble and righteous envoys’ – were all present, and revelation in every stage was done by them all. However, in some cases, the main focus was on God Himself, such that Gabriel and the envoys were not seen. Those were the cases when the state and condition of the Messenger of Allah would change. These cases are referred to as ‘by revelation’ (wahyan) in verse 42:51 (mentioned above).

And in some instances, the main focus was on Gabriel, such that the envoys were not considered, and God was considered through the ‘mirror’ and means of Gabriel. And in other instances, the main focus was on Gabriel’s agents and associate angels – the ‘envoys’. There, Gabriel and the Supreme Truth were observed through the beings and determinations of the envoys. The part of the verse in Chapter 42 that says, ‘or that He sendeth a messenger’ corresponds to the two latter cases, where the messenger was sometimes Gabriel, and sometimes the noble and righteous envoys who are Gabriel’s agents and associates.

So based on the verse ‘And no human being is spoken to by Allah, except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger,’ (42:51) Allah’s revelation is when He speaks Himself and without employing any intermediary; that is, when God manifests and speaks directly to the His Messenger.

These stages are very comparable to death and the taking of spirits upon death. The Noble Qur’an mentions three stages for taking the spirits (qabd al-ruh):

Allah captureth the souls at the time of their death, and that [soul] which hath not died [He captureth it] in its sleep.... (39:42)

Say: the angel of death, who hath been authorised over you, captureth you.... (32:11)

... Until when death cometh to one of you, Our emissaries capture him, and they neglect not. (6:61)

There are also other verses in the Noble Qur’an similar to the last verse. Overall, it is deduced from these verses that at one stage, Allah directly seizes the spirit. At another stage, the act has been attributed to the Angel of Death (malak al-mawt), and at a lower stage it has been attributed to the angels and emissaries appointed to seize the spirits.

Allah – Exalted He is – the Angel of Death and the angels that seize the spirits are all involved in each of these three stages. The only difference is that in some cases, since the dying individual is inattentive of all but Allah, the Supreme High Truth seizes the spirit Himself, without any intermediary. That is, the dying individual does not see ‘Izra’il (the Angel of Death) or any other angels, even though they may be involved in the process.

And in some cases, the dying person is not at such a rank to be able to totally immerse himself in the divine lights of the High One. Nevertheless he retains certain degrees of sincerity. Therefore the process of expiration is carried out directly by ‘Izra’il. And in some cases it is done by ‘Izra’il’s agents and subordinate angels. In the second stage, the person does not observe God; and in the third stage, he observes neither God nor ‘Izra’il. So the difference between these stages hinges on the degrees and stations at which the dying individuals are. And apparently the different stages at which the Qur’an was revealed had a similar story: the three stages were due to the different states, stations and circumstances at which the verses were sent down.

‘And he speaketh not out of desire * It is naught but a revelation that is revealed’

And he speaketh not out of desire * It is naught but a revelation that is revealed * The Intensely Powerful hath taught him. (53:3-4)

STUDENT. Does this verse mean that everything that the Messenger of Allah said was a revelation? Or does the primary and apparent (zahir) sense of the verse imply that only what the Prophet recited as Qur’an were revelations?

Drawing on the above verses, some have argued that even the regular speeches of the Messenger of Allah were revelations from God. For instance, when speaking about the Prophet’s order regarding the dispatch of Usamah’s army,3 or his request for some paper and an inkwell at the time of his death so that the Muslim community (ummah) may never go astray,4 they make reference to these noble verses that ‘And he speaketh not out of desire * It is naught but a revelation that is revealed.’ But is it true that what the Messenger of Allah said concerning personal, family and social matters was also revealed? Of course even his casual and everyday speeches were true and righteous, but is it correct to establish this by the above verses?

‘ALLAMAH. The first verse – ‘And he speaketh not out of desire’ – is absolute and unconditional (mutlaq). That is, it applies not only to the verses of the Qur’an, but also to the other words of the Prophet. So one can claim that the Messenger of Allah did not speak out of desire or personal proclivity. However, the verses ‘It is naught but a revelation that is revealed * The Intensely Powerful hath taught him’ are about the Noble Qur’an in particular. They do not refer to the everyday speeches of the Prophet and his orders concerning personal affairs.

STUDENT. Some people refrain from using the pronoun ‘I’ when they talk. Instead of saying, ‘I did such and such,’ ‘I went,’ ‘I said,’ and so on, they use the third person pronoun, ‘he’ (huwa). They say, ‘he did so,’ ‘he went,’ and ‘he ate.’ Is this out of self-discipline – so as to not get accustomed to saying ‘I’ and to refrain from egocentricity and ascribing actions to one’s self? Or do they mean to ascribe actions to the Truth (al-Haqq), and want to not bring in themselves as a being alongside God? Of course such an approach would not be absolute tawhid (unity), because in absolute tawhid nothing is seen other than the High Truth, and so even if one attributes an action to himself it would be identical to attributing it to the Truth, Exalted and Bounteous is He.

‘ALLAMAH. Apparently for some people it is for the purpose of self-discipline. They do not want to get accustomed to saying ‘I’ here and there, as a preparation for the station of tawhid.

And concerning tawhid, there is a narration from Imam Sadiq in which he shows a particular inclination and preference to identifying the term huwa (he) with Allah, i.e. God’s Essence.5 In that case, there is no ‘he’ (huwa) but Allah, and that settles the case for everyone else.

Say: He, Allah is One. (112:1)

Had We sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, thou wouldst have verily seen it humbled and cleaved asunder out of fear of Allah; and such parables We propound for mankind, haply they may reflect. * He is Allah but Whom there is no deity, the Knower of the invisible and the visible; He is All-Merciful, All- Compassionate. [‘ Allamah added: ‘There is no deity but Huwa [He].’] * He is Allah but Whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Sacrosanct, the Peaceable, the Trusty, the Predominant, the All-Mighty, the Irresistible, the Grandiose; Glorified be Allah from what they associate [with Him]. (59:21-3)

All this is about the Huwa and describes the Huwa.

Imam ‘Ali’s dream of Hadrat Khidr and his teaching of the Greatest Name

‘ALLAMAH. It is reported that on the night before the battle of Badr, Imam ‘Ali dreamt of Hadrat Khidr and told him, ‘Teach me an invocation (dhikr) that I may recite and thus defeat the enemy!’ Hadrat Khidr told him,

Say: O He! O Who there is no he but Him.

Next morning Imam ‘Ali narrated his dream for the Messenger of Allah, who told him, ‘O ‘Ali! Thou hast been taught the Greatest Name (al-Ism al-A’zam).’6

And truly such a meaningful expression it is: ‘O He! O Who there is no he but Him’ (ya Huwa ya man la huwa illa Hu). This finishes the story of tawhid; ‘O He! O Who is He! O Who He is He! O Who there is no he but Him.’

So Imam ‘Ali recited this invocation as he fought the next day, ‘I was engaged in this invocation through the battle of Badr.’ And Huwa (He) was indeed showing some of His manifestations! That is right, all these things around us are His manifestations. People look with blind eyes, but Imam ‘Ali looks with a different pair of eyes. All these things around us are different forms and types of manifestations of the Truth, Majestic and Exalted is He.

The late Qadi and tawhid

STUDENT. The late Qadi was a very strange man. He was like a mountain: solid, vigorous, resourceful and talented. Yet some of his students did not learn about tawhid even after ten or twelve years of meeting with him, and had no share of the unity of the Supreme Truth.7 Maybe this was because he used to walk at their pace. At any rate they just got engaged in the realm of multiplicity until the late Qadi passed away. But some of his other students were very quick in acquiring divine knowledge, like learning about God’s Names and Attributes, and His unity of Essence. Did the late Qadi, with whom may Allah be pleased, ever discuss and speak about subtle topics of tawhid (monotheism, unity) in the meetings he had with his select friends and students?

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, the late Qadi used to speak of these topics with some of his students who were quite trustworthy. The late Qadi was certainly a strange man. He treated each student in accordance to his states and aptitude. And his students were also very different. Some of them used to prosper sooner, but others had a slower progress.

Generally speaking, the late Qadi was usually accessible for ten to twenty days, during which his friends used to drop by and have conversations and discussions. Then he used to disappear all of a sudden, and was not found at all for a few days – not at home, not at school, not at the mosque, not in the Mosque of Kufa and not in the Mosque of Sahlah. There was absolutely no trace of him. Even his wives had no idea where he had gone and what he was doing; nobody knew! During these days, his friends used to search for him everywhere that they could think of, but could not find him. He was totally gone. Then he used to reemerge after some days and resume his lessons and private sessions at home and school. Likewise he had many other peculiarities and wonders, and many strange and unfamiliar states.

Monotheistic states of the late Qadi

‘ALLAMAH. There was an account of him that I heard from quite a few scholars in Najaf. I later asked him myself and he confirmed it.

At the time, the late Qadi was ill, with an aching leg that he could not bend or move. One day he was sitting in the terrace of his house, and it was during the days when the two tribes of Dhikurt and Shimirt were fighting in the noble city of Najaf. One side of the city was fighting against the other. They had taken the rooftops of the city buildings as barricades and were firing at each other on top of the buildings.

Eventually the Dhikurts overcame the Shimirts and drove them back. Thus, the Dhikurts were advancing and taking over the rooftops house by house. Incidentally, the late Qadi’s rooftop was occupied by the Shimirts, who were firing at the Dhikurts. As the Dhikurts advanced and took over his rooftop, they killed two of the Shimirts who were on his rooftop. This was while the late Qadi was sitting in the terrace watching. As the Dhikurts captured the roof, the Shimirts retreated and the fight was carried to the courtyard. So two of the Shimirts were killed on the terrace and another two in the courtyard, for a total of six.

‘When they killed those two people on the roof,’ the late Qadi narrated, ‘blood flowed down the waterspout like rainwater. And I was just sitting there where I was and not moving at all.’ After all that, which was quite a scene, the Dhikurts raided into the rooms despoiling and taking anything of their interest.

Of course, the flavour and subtlety of the story was that, as the late Qadi said, ‘I did not move. I kept sitting where I had sat, and watched.’ ‘There was blood coming down the waterspout, there were two dead bodies lying on the terrace and another two in the yard; and [yet] I was [just] watching.’ Such states and dispositions are called annihilation (fana’) in tawhid, where the wayfarer (salik) does not see anything other than Allah. He perceives every act and movement as a manifestation of the Truth.

There was another account of the late Qadi which I myself observed. A friend of the late Qadi had a room in the well-known Hindi Bukhara’i School of Najaf. As he was leaving for a journey, he left the room to the late Qadi so that he could use it for sleeping, holding gatherings, or any other needs and activities. The late Qadi used to go there everyday near sunset, and his intimate students used to join him for congregational prayer. They were about seven to ten students in total. After prayer, the late Qadi used to hold a discussion session until two hours after sunset, and the students used to ask him questions and benefit from his speeches.

One night, we were sitting in the room with the late Qadi, who started lecturing about God’s Unity of Actions (al-tawhid al-af‘ali). He was quite into explaining and expanding on the unity of actions when suddenly it was as if the ceiling was coming down. There was a stovepipe at one side of the room, which began to make a plunking sound, as if something was falling, and the room was filled with noise and dust. All my fellow students and I got to our feet and rushed to the door, pushing and shoving each other in order to exit.

In the meantime, it became evident that the ceiling was not damaged, and therefore we came back and sat down where we were sitting. But our late master (Mr Qadi) had not moved a bit. He had been sitting right where he was, even though the damage in the ceiling had started from above his head. ‘Come! O you believers of the unity of actions!’ he told us as we came back and sat down. Yes, that is right! All of the students were stunned, not knowing what to reply. Then he continued and finished his speech about the unity of actions.

That was a trial for us, because our late master was speaking about such matters and this relevant incident came up. That is why he said, ‘Come! O you believers of the unity of actions!’

Later on we came to know that the school was connected to another school, such that the rooms of the two schools were almost side by side and the replica of one another. Only a wall separated the two schools. So, on that occasion, the ceiling in the twin room had come down, and the noise and dust was from the other room, as the two rooms were connected through the heater duct. Yes, that is how we were tested.

God’s Unity of Actions

STUDENT. There are those who argue that if a person is offered a present, he should accept it on the account of God’s Unity of Actions (al-tawhid al-af ‘ali), because according to the unity of actions, the [real] donor is Allah and it is not appropriate to reject a present and favour from Allah. One should choose God’s favour over his own dignity and nobility of soul (‘izzat al-nafs), and open a path for himself toward God’s unity of actions by accepting the gift as a present from Allah.

But others have different considerations like the nobility of one’s soul, and so they do not accept all that they are offered. In order to reach and realise tawhid, what should a wayfarer of the path of Allah do in this regard? Which one is more important: the preservation of one’s nobility of soul, or the view of God’s unity of actions?

In many cases, the donor offers the present as an aid or charity, with some sort of inner sense of pity. Or the gift may be a ‘semi-bribe’, so as to prepare the grounds for acceptance of a future request – whether legitimate or not. And in many cases, acceptance of gifts results in some right and entitlement for the donor, whereby he would expect and demand some attention and right in return, which could be harmful for a wayfarer’s progress. And the least is that accepting a gift involves some obligation (minnah). So on one hand it is not apt for a wayfarer to be indebted to others, but on the other hand it is also harmful for his spiritual journey if he detaches himself from others, disregards Allah’s creatures and rejects their requests.

‘ALLAMAH. It is necessary to accept a gift, on the condition that it does not entail humiliation or illegitimate consequences. Rejecting a present is not commendable. It is reported from Imam ‘Ali that ‘Only a donkey rejects favours.’8 And there are other narrations that only a hard rock or a disturbed and aberrant person rejects a favour. Of course, it seems better not to accept a present if it involves negative consequences such as humiliation, obligation, or the like. And a wayfarer in the path of Allah should take these aspects into account. But as a general rule, it should be held that accepting a gift is mandatory, for ‘only a donkey rejects favours.’ This is a general rule of thumb. But when it involves humiliation, obligation or other improper implications, then ethical considerations overrule the acceptance principle. That is because the very acquiescence of humiliation or obligation impedes a wayfarer’s progress.

‘ALLAMAH. The late Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli Hamadani truly had an astonishing character. He trained about three hundred students, including his direct students and his students’ students. Some of them were more or less perfect individuals, like the late Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i, the late Shaykh Muhammad Bihari, Sayyid Muhammad Sa’id Habbubi, and Mirza Jawad Aqa Maliki Tabrizi (may Allah be pleased with them).

It is reported that once, certain individuals (jurist scholars) conspired against the late Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli, and wrote a petition against his mystic, esoteric, and monotheistic practice, which they submitted to the late Ayatollah Sharabyani. (That was when the late Sharabyani held the authority of [Shi’a] Muslims and was recognised as the absolute Source of Emulation.) Their objection was that Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli was following the Sufis.

The late Sharabyani read their letter, picked up a pen and wrote underneath their letter, ‘I wish Allah would make me a Sufi like the Akhund.’ And with this statement, Sharabyani put an end to the matter, and all their plots fell flat.

Our late master, Mirza ‘Ali Qadi, narrated that his master, the late Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i, said, ‘We continually used to be at the service of Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli Hamadani and he was totally ours (may Allah be pleased with him). But as soon as Shaykh Muhammad Bihari became acquainted with the Akhund and joined the circle of his students, he started attending his service all the time and “stole” the Akhund from us.’

The late Qadi also told us this story about his master, the late Sayyid Ahmad Karbala’i: while on a journey, Aqa Sayyid Ahmad came across an illuminated and bright-hearted dervish. ‘I have been ordered to let you in on two things,’ the dervish told Sayyid Ahmad. ‘The first is alchemy, and the second is that I will die tomorrow, and you should undertake my funeral and bury me!’ The late Sayyid Ahmad replied, ‘As with the first matter, I have no need for alchemy. But I will carry out your funeral.’ So the dervish passed away the next day, and Sayyid Ahmad took care of his funeral, shrouding, and burial.

One of the individuals with whom the late Qadi was closely associated for many years was the late Sayyid Murtada Kashmiri, who was among the well-known ascetics and saints of the time. He was a man of clairvoyance and unique states and stations, and was a truly courteous, moral, and noble scholar. However, his field was not that of the late Akhund Mulla Husayn-Quli – i.e. the field of tawhid and gnosis. Nevertheless he was a very treasured and honourable character in terms of his spiritual states and conditions.

The late Qadi told us:

One day I and Aqa Sayyid Murtada Kashmiri went from the noble city of Najaf to the holy city of Karbala’ to pay a visit to the tomb of Imam Husayn. As we arrived there, we headed for a room located in the school in the bazaar between the two shrines (bayn al-haramayn). The room was at the end of a set of stairs, which the late Sayyid Murtada started climbing, and I followed him behind. We finished climbing the stairs, only to find out that the door of the room was locked. The late Kashmiri glanced at me and said, ‘It is narrated that a closed lock can be opened if one utters the name of Prophet Moses’ mother. And my mother is no lower than Prophet Moses’ mother.’ So he took hold of the lock and said, ‘O Fatimah!’ He put aside the opened lock as we entered the room.

The Prophet’s station of subsistence after annihilation

STUDENT. The Messenger of Allah had certain states and characteristics that are absolutely astonishing. On one hand, we know that he was aware of the secrets, intentions, and the plots made against him. He had full knowledge of all the things that happened inside and outside his house. His knowledge also included the events that would occur after his death: the afflictions that would happen to his dear daughter, Fatimah Zahra’, and the battles of Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan.9 For example one day he told his wives:

I wish I knew which one of you will be riding the hairy camel, barked at by the dogs of Haw’ab?10

He also spoke about the deserters of Usamah’s army,11 and the oppression that Imam ‘Ali would face.12 He was well-aware of what was going on when he requested paper and an inkwell in order to write something so that the Muslim nation may never go astray – which was prevented by some of the Companions, who said that the Messenger of Allah was hallucinating and talking nonsense.13

And on the other hand he put up with them (the hypocrites) a lot. He used to treat them leniently, did not change his manners and conduct (in response to all their mischief ), and did not exhibit any violence or harshness. Instead, he was all tolerance, patience, and endurance, from head to toe. Was this behaviour and tolerance of the Messenger of Allah because he used to see these events with a view of unity of actions (al-tawhid al-af‘ali), that all these events are from the Supreme Truth? That is, was it similar to what you narrated of the late Qadi in the case of Dhikurts and Shimirts, or the breakdown of the heater in the neighbouring room?

‘ALLAMAH. No! The condition of the Messenger of Allah was far superior and more advanced than that of the late Qadi. The Messenger of Allah had reached the station of subsistence (baqa’) after annihilation (fana’). In that station, the properties and features of the world of multiplicity – such as feeling pain, disease, grief, and emotional distress – are all present. The Honourable Messenger fully displayed every aspect of the realm of plurality, and at the same time he was at the state of unity, with the signs and properties of tawhid. That is why when his son Ibrahim died, his eyes were shedding tears, and he described it as a sign of Allah’s mercy. But at the same time he did not say anything but the truth, for the event was from Allah. He had submitted to Allah, and was pleased with His pleasure:

The heart grieves, and the eyes weep, yet we say not but the truth, and we are certainly sorrowful because of thee, O Ibrahim.14

These incidents (the mischief and conspiracies) were harder and more pressing on him as he knew what was going on. He fully realised the details and consequences of these affairs, but he was the man of ‘And certainly thou art of a tremendous conduct’ (68:4). So he used to tolerate and forbear, and his patience and endurance never ran out. There is a famous narration from him:

No prophet was ever bothered as I was.15

I reckon that this narration was concerning this very issue of hypocrites within the community of the Muslims, not the infidels and polytheists on the outside. No words can describe the troubles and difficulties that the Messenger of Allah incurred because of the hypocrites, both from inside and outside his house. They were those who had apparently joined Islam even though they had no inclination toward Islam or the Messenger of Allah. Save for the troubles caused by the hypocrites, the calamities of the Noble Messenger were insignificant compared to those of the previous prophets. The afflictions that the previous prophets had to face were seemingly more intense and more severe. For example, some of them were thrown into boiling cauldrons, but the Messenger of Allah was never tortured like that. Yet he says, ‘No prophet was ever bothered as much as I was.’ So it must have been the selfsame issue of the hypocrites. In this regard, the annoyance and trouble that the hypocrites caused for the Messenger of Allah is truly beyond our comprehension and description.

The marvels (irhas) of the Imams

STUDENT. Did the Pure Imams achieve the unveiling of tawhid (the reality of God’s unity) by going through the path of perfection, taking on efforts, and finally realising their talents, or was it something inborn in them? For example, how was it that Imam Muhammad Taqi Jawad became an Imam in childhood?

‘ALLAMAH. This is known as irhas (‘marvel’). Irhas is a supernatural act that occurs before its maturity and usual time. For example, it is reported that when Hadrat Fatimah bint al-Asad gave birth to her son, Imam ‘Ali, and came out of the Holy House of Allah, the Noble Messenger came forward and received the newborn. There, Imam ‘Ali started reading Chapter 23 (al-Mu’minun) for the Messenger of Allah, from the beginning to the end. This was while he was an infant and was only a few hours old. That was a case of irhas.16

Other sorts of supernatural acts are either called karamah (‘charismatic power’) or mu’jizah (‘miracle’). But if it occurs prior to its time, it is called irhas. Our Imams had several cases of irhas. For instance, Hadrat Fatimah Zahra’ used to talk (to her mother) in her mother’s womb.17 That is irhas, not mu’jizah (a prophetic miracle). And so is the case with Imam Jawad and many other Imams. In fact, it has more or less been with all the Imams.

The Imams’ playing games in childhood

STUDENT. Did the Imams play games in their childhood? And did they use to play the same kind of games as other children? Has this been reported in reliable narrations and valid histories and hagiographies?

‘ALLAMAH. There is nothing wrong with their playing games per se. And there are two stories that are reported regarding Imam Jawad. The first one is that he was playing with the kids in the street, when Ma’mun (the Abbasid caliph) passed by. There, Ma’mun asked him some questions and Imam Jawad answered them.18

The second one is narrated by the Sufis. They mention that Imam Jawad was once playing hide-and-seek with Bayazid Bastami. They decided that Imam Jawad would hide and Bayazid would go and find him. So Imam Jawad hid, but Bayazid could not find him in spite of searching everywhere in the world. This story is narrated as a karamah of Imam Jawad. Then apparently Imam Jawad called Bayazid from deep in his heart, ‘I am here! Where are you searching?’19

I do not exactly remember where I saw this account. It could have been one of two books: Ma’sum ‘Ali Shah’s Tara’iq al-Haqa’iq (The Paths of Realities) or ‘Abd al-Rahman Jami’s Nafahat al-Uns (The Breaths of Intimacy). That is narrated by the Sufis, and of course it would make sense that Bayazid could not find Imam Jawad.20

We have two Jamis: ‘Abd al-Rahman and Ahmad. ‘Abd al-Rahman was more in-depth than Ahmad, and has some good books and nice discussions and poetry.

The rise of Imam Mahdi

STUDENT. Do you remember anything from the late Qadi regarding the emergence of Imam al-Hujjat ibn al-Hasan (may our spirits be sacrificed for him)?

‘ALLAMAH. Based on the narrations, once Imam Mahdi appears, he will start his call from Mecca, where he will stand between the rukn and maqam, with his back to the Ka’bah.21 He will make his proclamation, and three hundred and sixty of his elect companions will congregate before him.22 According to our master, the late Qadi, Imam Mahdi will give them certain instructions whereby they will all split up and spread out around the horizons of the world. And since they will all be capable of tayy al-ard (instantaneous self-transportation), they will search the entire world and realise that, apart from Imam Mahdi, no one else possesses the status of Unconditional Divine Guardianship (al-wilayat al-mutlaqah al-ilahiyyah), no one else owns the treasuries of Divine Secrets, no one else is the Director of God’s Command (sahib al-amr), and no one else has been ordered to emerge and rise. Then they (the Imam’s companions) will all return to Mecca, submit to the Imam and pledge allegiance (bay’ah) to him.

The late Qadi (may Allah be pleased with him) once told us, ‘I know the word which Imam Mahdi will tell his companions when they all spread around the world.’ I saw the same thing in a narration from Imam Sadiq – that he said, ‘I know that word.’23

The late Qadi told us that some of the people of our time have certainly had the honour of meeting and attending the presence of Imam Mahdi. One of these cases occurred in the Mosque of Sahlah, in the Station of Imam Mahdi, known as Maqam Sahib al-Zaman. The person was engaged in supplication and invocation, when he suddenly saw the Imam approaching him in the midst of a very intense light. The splendour and magnificence of the light was such that he was about to die. He had one or two remaining breaths and before dying and adjured the Imam by the Majestic Names of Allah to not come any closer. And two weeks later, the same person was engaged in invocation (dhikr) in the Mosque of Kufa, when the Imam appeared to him, whereby he attained what he wanted: the honour of meeting. The late Qadi revealed the identity of that person: Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Amuli.

1. See Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut, 1983), 18: 256; from Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Tawhid (Qum, 1416/1995): 115, with minor differences.

2. Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (Beirut, 197?), 2:252.

3. See Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 27:334 and 30:432-3.

4. See note 32 on Chapter 2.

5. See Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul) (Tehran, 1388/1968), 1: 91.

6. The narration, reported from Imam Muhammad Baqir, continues:
And he [Imam ‘Ali] – peace be upon him – also recited Chapter 112 (al-Ikhlas) in the battle of Badr. When he was done with the battle, he said, ‘O He, O Who there is no he but Him, forgive me and help me against the disbelievers.’ And he used to say the same thing in the battle of Siffin as he attacked. Then ‘Ammar ibn Yasir asked him, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, what are these intimations?’

‘It is the Greatest Name of Allah’ he replied, ‘and the pillar for Allah’s unity. There is no he but Him.’ Then he recited the verse, ‘Allah, [while] standing on justice, bears witness that there is no deity save Him, and the angels and the people of knowledge [also bear witness]; there is no deity but Him, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise’ [3:18] and also the last [four] verses of Chapter 59 (al-Hashr). Then he performed four units (rak’ah) of prayer before noontime.

Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan (Beirut, 1995), 10:486, in exegesis of Chapter 112; originally reported by Shaykh al-Saduq in al-Tawhid: 89. It is narrated with a complete line of transmission, from Abi al- Bakhtari Wahab ibn Wahab, from Imam Sadiq, from Imam Baqir, who reports the above narration as he comments on the verse 112:1. The Imam narrates from his father, from his grandfather (Imam Husayn), from Imam ‘Ali.

7. [Translator’s note. In gnostic discussions, what the author intends when he speaks of God’s unity (tawhid) should not be confused with the ordinary sense of the term. In these contexts, tawhid refers to the deep and subtle levels of one’s gnosis of Allah’s unity. It is not a matter of pure knowledge any more, but is a status of vision and unveiling of the limitlessness of God’s knowledge, power, and life.]

8. Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul), 2:659, with minor differences.

9. [Translator’s note. These were the three internal battles that Imam ‘Ali fought during the first three years of his caliphate (35-40/656-661).]

10. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (Cairo, 1959-), 9:311; Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 32:163.

11. See note 171 above.

12. See Kitab of Sulaym ibn Qays, no. 6 and no. 66; Muhammad Rayshahri, Mawsu’ah al-Imam ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib (2nd ed., Qum, 1425/2004), 9:408-15; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (Cairo, 1959-), 4:106-8.

13. See Chapter 2, note 32.

14. See Chapter 3, note 105.

15. See al-Mizan (Beirut, 1970), 6:53; Ibn Shahr Ashub, Manaqib-i Al- i Abi Talib (Najaf, 1956), 3:42.

16. Ibn Shahr Ashub, Manaqib-i Al-i Abi Talib, 2:23; Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Tusi, al-Amali (Qum, 1414/1995): 708. ‘Allamah Majlisi has reported from both sources in Bihar al-Anwar, 35:18 and 35:35 respectively.

17. Ibn Shahr Ashub, Manaqib-i Al-i Abi Talib, 3:118; Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Amali (Qum, 1417/1996): 690; al-Qunduzi, Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah (Tehran, 1416/1995), 2:134.

18. Baha’ al-Din Muhammad ibn Husayn al-’Amili (Shaykh al-Baha’i), Miftah al-Falah (Beirut, 1324/1906): 171; Muhammad ibn Talhah al-Shafi’i, Matalib al-Sa’ul fi Manaqib-i Al-i Rasul (Beirut, 1420/1999), 2:141. [Translator’s note. Note that the narration in Miftah al-Falah does not explicitly say that Imam Jawad was playing with the children, and based on Matalib al-Sa’ul the children were playing and the Imam was standing there.]

19. [Translator’s note. There seems to be a confusion concerning the figures known as Bayazid Bastami, as there have been other Sufis with that name besides the famous Bayazid. And due to his legendary character, various unauthentic stories and anecdotes have been reported about him, which at many times contradict one another. The most famous year reported for Bayazid’s death is 261/874, which actually complies with the possibility of his having met Imam Jawad (195-220/811-35). It might have been a different Bayazid who is reported to have served Imam Sadiq (80-148/699-765). See Sami’i’s introduction on Lahiji, Mafatih al-I’jaz fi Sharh-i Gulshan-i Raz (Tehran, 1958): 48; and Baha’ al-Din al-’Amili (Shaykh al-Baha’i), Kashkul (Qum, 1957-), 1:112-13.]

20. [Translator’s note. After his migration to Medina, in one occasion the Prophet recalled and described for his companions where he used to play with the kids in his trip to Medina with his mother when he was six. See Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Beirut, 1376/1958), 1:116. No doubt the way and manner that a child plays differs across children based on their talents and mentalities, and one who watches them can realise these differences. The playings of the Prophet and the Imams were certainly not vain and childish acts for the sake of enjoying the game. These acts were rather manifestations of the realities and perfections within them at the minor and lower level of children. They were normal human beings whose attainment of the higher perfections did not prevent them from undertaking regular human affairs. Nevertheless their higher level of maturity and mindset were certainly evident to the other children and could be seen by anyone who observed them.]

21. [Translator’s note. Rukn here is referring to the southeastern corner of the Ka’bah, where the Black Stone (al-hajar al-aswad) is situated. Maqam Ibrahim is a stone on the east side of the Ka’bah, on which Prophet Abraham stood as he was rebuilding the Ka’bah, and which bears his footprint.]

22. See Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), Kamal al-Din wa Tamam al-Ni’mah (Qum, 1405/1984): 331, with minor differences.

23. [Translator’s note. The reference was not found.]

6. Scientific Discourses

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

STUDENT. God has made the Noble Qur’an graspable by everyone:

And truly We have made the Qur’an easy for remembrance. Is there anyone that remembreth? (54:17, 22, 32, 40)

But then why is it that some verses of the Qur’an are utterly complex and intricate, such that it is so difficult to reach their real meaning and message? For example, consider the noble verse,

He directeth the command from the heaven to the earth, then it ascendeth toward Him in a day that is a thousand years of your measurement. (32:5)

Reaching the real meaning of this verse and having a proper grasp of it is very hard. What is the process of descension of command from the Realm of Command (‘alam al-amr) to the Realm of Creation (‘alam al-khalq)? And what does it mean that it takes a thousand years of our common years for the command to ascend back? Without deep contemplation, only a simple interpretation and a straightforward literal meaning of the verse would be understandable to everyone.

Or for example, there are some terms in the Noble Qur’an whose definitions require exegesis and commentary.

One cannot know the meaning of these terms without referring to a commentary. For instance:

By those that pluck out vehemently * By those that gently draw out with comfort * By those that float swiftly * And those that hasten surpassingly * And those that direct the command. (79:1-5) 1

Do all people understand these verses? Or should they inquire into them and refer to books of exegesis in order to realise that they mean particular groups of angels?

Another example is the term falaq (disjunction) in the following verse:

Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of falaq. (113:1)

According to some exegetes, falaq either means ‘the daybreak and morning that opens up’, or ‘being (wujud) that emerges out of non-being’.2 But how can one know these meanings without referring to the exegeses?

Or for example, concerning the term wayl (literally ‘woe’) in Chapter 83 (al-Mutaffifin), there is a narration that

Wayl is a well in hell.3

Is this a matter of naming – that different locations in the Hereafter have different names, like in this world? Or is it a symbolic interpretation?

The Qur’an is easy to understand; the difficulties and complexities relate to its hidden meanings

‘ALLAMAH. In terms of the meaning that initially comes to the reader’s mind, it seems that all of the Noble Qur’an has been set forth very simply, such that it is understandable by everyone. Nevertheless, there are other planes and layers of meaning beyond the initial meaning that gradually become harder and more difficult to understand. Those are the inward and hidden (batini) meanings of the Qur’an.

The apparent (zahir) meaning of every verse of the Qur’an is plain, simple, and intelligible. But the hidden meanings become more and more complex. As they become deeper, they become more difficult and more distant from the understanding of common people:

Truly the Qur’an has an inside, and its inside has an inside, up to seven insides [or up to seventy insides].4

The ‘insides’ refer to the different planes of the Qur’an’s meaning. Each plane involves a particular reality that is not found in the other planes. Such are the various planes of the Qur’an. So it is not that the Qur’an can be looked at from a single plane, which would be either very easy and straightforward, or difficult and unintelligible.

As with Chapter 79 (al-Nazi’at), once we attach those verses to the other verses of the Qur’an, it becomes evident that they refer to the angels. ‘Those that direct the command’ should imply the angels, because Allah, Exalted is He, would consign the direction and execution of the affairs of the universe only to one who is qualified. It is the angels who should deal with these matters and take the affairs under their own watch and protection. These verses are very similar to the verses at the beginning of Chapters 77 (al-Mursalat) and 37 (al-Saffat) and some other parts of the Noble Qur’an, whereby the angels are ordered to carry out their assignments in different ways.

And the initial meaning of the term falaq in the verse, ‘Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of the falaq’ (113:1) is the splitting and opening of the morning. Then there is this general meaning that comes to mind, and that is the splitting and emergence of any being from non-being. So if its definition requires an interpretation even at the first plane, it would be an interpretation that clarifies the meaning of the verse by simpler terms. An initial interpretation is not one that that unravels a complexity or introduces a [deeper] reality.

And as with wayl, it has been defined as misfortune, woe, disaster and fatality. And its meaning as a well [in hell] is a symbolic meaning (tamthil), intended to represent the idea conveyed in the adjacent verses. Otherwise it is not a specific exegesis for the term [and does not represent a hidden meaning of the verse].

The creation of the angels and the Holy Spirit

STUDENT. What does ruh (‘Spirit’) mean in the Noble Qur’an? For example it appears in the verse,

The angels and the Spirit (ruh) descend on that Night [of Determination (qadr)] by the permission of their Lord for every command. (97:5)

And what is meant by Ruh al-Qudus (‘Holy Spirit’) and al-Ruh al-Amin (‘Trustworthy Spirit’)? Is there any connection between the Spirit (ruh) as used in the Qur’an and the human spirit? And why are the angels mentioned alongside the ruh?

‘ALLAMAH. Ruh al-Qudus (the Holy Spirit) and al-Ruh al-Amin (the Trustworthy Spirit) refer to Gabriel (Jabra’il):

Say: the Holy Spirit (Ruh al-Qudus) hath delivered it from thy Lord.... (16:102)

The Trustworthy Spirit (al-Ruh al-Amin) hath came down with it [the Qur’an] * Upon thy heart. (26:193- 4)

And the ruh is apparently creature that is superior to all angels, including Gabriel and Michael.

On the day when the Spirit (ruh) and the angels stand in ranks; they speak not save whoever is permitted by the All-Merciful and speaketh aright. (78:38)

The above verse mentions the ruh in addition to the angels. Thus the ruh cannot be Gabriel, for Gabriel is one of the angels.

The ruh is a transcendent being who stands at a superior existential plane compared to the angels. The angels are supported by the ruh, and get help from the ruh in the tasks that they carry out.

There are two verses in the Noble Qur’an that indicate that God sends the ruh to His prophets and messengers who call the people toward Him, and that the angels also descend with the ruh:

He descendeth the angels with the Spirit (ruh) of His command upon whomever He wills amongst His servants, that they warn [people] that there is no deity save Me, so keep your duty unto me. (16:2)

...He casteth the Spirit (ruh) of His command upon whomever He wills amongst His servants, that he warneth [people] of the Day of Encounter. (40:15)

In his descents, his direction and planning of the world and in whatever he carries out, Gabriel gets help from the ruh. It is as if the ruh is with Gabriel and helps him through.

And the wording of the second verse is quite remarkable. It says that Allah ‘casts’ and ‘throws’ (ilqa’) the ruh on any of His servants that He sees qualified for warning and cautioning about the Day of Resurrection, which is the Day of Encounter.

In short, the ruh is a superior being and a sublime reality that comes down with the angels when they descend to execute the affairs of the world, and aids the angels in their missions. So Gabriel is different from the ruh, and its relation to the ruh is not that of a person to its species or a species to its genus. The Ruh does not consist of persons, but is a species that exclusively consists of one individual. Gabriel is an angel, and the ruh is a reality that is different from the angels.

At any rate, the angels and the ruh are two distinct groups. Moreover, the angels are such that they get help from the ruh. They are accompanied by the ruh when they depart to carry out their tasks, and the ruh supports them: ‘He descendeth the angels with the Spirit (ruh) of His command upon whomever He wills amongst His servants.’ (16:2)

Also, given that ruh (Spirit) is expressed in singular form in the Qur’an while the angels are mentioned in plural, one may infer that the status of the ruh is more comprehensive ( jami’) than that of the angels. The ruh is closer to God, even closer than Gabriel, and there are narrations that confirm this.

The spirit and the angels

STUDENT. What rapport is there between this Spirit (ruh) and the human spirit (ruh)? Why is the human spirit called ‘ruh’? Is it because it has some bond and connection with the Spirit? Can we think of the relation between the Spirit and the human spirits as that of a natural universal (al-kulli al-tabi’i) and its particulars?5

Also, in the noble verse,

And they ask thee concerning the ruh. Say: the ruh is of the command of my Lord... (17:85)

which ruh is being questioned about? Is it the same Spirit as in the other verses, or is it the human spirit?

‘ALLAMAH. As already mentioned, the ruh is a creature greater than the angels, and it is has nothing to do with man or the human spirit. It is a matter of terminology that they both share the same term ‘ruh’, but their meanings are different. The connection between the two might be that by means of effort and worship, man’s rational soul (al-nafs al-natiqah, i.e. the human spirit) can reach a station where it becomes parallel to and on a par with that Spirit (ruh).

And in the noble verse mentioned above (17:85), the question is about ruh in its absolute and unrestricted sense, not the human rational soul in particular. And the response is, ‘The ruh is of the command of my Lord,’ which indicates that the ruh belongs to the Realm of Command (‘alam al-amr), as opposed to mankind, which belongs to the Realm of Creation (‘alam al-khalq). Those asking the question do not mention the human spirit at all. It seems that the question is about ruh as mentioned in the Qur’an. And what is quite remarkable is that the verse ends with,

... And you have been given of knowledge but little. (17:85)

It means that it is beyond human knowledge to know the creation and reality of the ruh; it is not easily graspable.

The first thing that Allah created

STUDENT. Is this ruh the same as what is referred to in some narrations as ‘The first thing that Allah created’? That is, is it the ‘closest screen’ (al-hijab al-aqrab)? And in philosophy, is it the same as the First Intellect (al-’aql al-awwal)?

‘ALLAMAH. The narrations have mentioned several things as ‘The first thing that Allah created.’ For example:

The first thing that Allah created was the light of your prophet, O Jabir.

The intellect, the water, the Tablet (lawh), and the Pen (qalam) have also been identified as the first thing that Allah created.6 But among all these, I think the clearest and most robust narration is that ‘The first thing that Allah created was the light of your prophet, O Jabir.’ There is a verse toward the end of Chapter 42 (al-Shura):

And thus We have revealed to thee a Spirit of Our command. Thou knew not what the Book was nor the faith; but We made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed thou dost guide unto a straight path. (42:52)

It is inferred from this verse that the Messenger of Allah came to know the faith and the Book through Allah’s revelation of the ruh upon him. And this happened through the connection that the Prophet’s spirit (ruh) had with that great creature, the Spirit (ruh). So the Prophet’s spirit had the same origin as the Spirit, and that is ‘the first thing that Allah created.’

In philosophy, the First Intellect may be identified as the ruh, on the condition that it does not lose its properties. That is, the First Intellect should maintain its immateriality and unconditionality; otherwise it would not be the First Intellect. As it comes lower and becomes more and more determined (ta’ayyun), it becomes other (lower) intellects, and the lower it goes, the more it loses its breadth and unconditionality (itlaq).

In its Arc of Ascent (qaws al-su’ud), the spirit of the Messenger of Allah has reached the same position where it came and descended from, which is the plane of the ruh (Spirit). That is because the first thing that God created was the light of His Messenger, which is the same as the ruh. Then after its creation, the spirit of the Messenger of Allah set on its Arc of Descent (qaws al-nuzul) and passed the realms one by one, until it reached the realm of nature and matter. Therefore through its Arc of Ascent, it reached the same initial position once again, whereby the beginning (azal) and the end (abad) are united together.

So the Spirit (ruh, which is not separate from the Prophet’s spirit) descended from its origin and kept descending until it reached the corporeal world. Then, by means of transubstantial motion (al-harkat al-jawhariyyah), it gradually advanced toward its perfection, until it ultimately reached the same status of ‘The first thing that Allah created was the light of your prophet, O Jabir.’ So nothing new comes to existence. It is exactly what used to be – only that it has gone through a cycle of descent and ascent.

It is very strange how the affairs of the universe are managed, how the angels direct and coordinate everything, and how the Spirit plays a role in all that. Of course there is no contradiction between their roles. Their involvement in creating the affairs of the corporeal world is truly astonishing and incredible.

Imagine how many angels would be required for something very particular. For example, consider the creation of a single atom in a person’s body or elsewhere. If that involves one angel, then think of the number of atoms in the human body; there would be as many angels. What a crowd that would be!

And of course there are different angels out there, like those that bestow power, those that bestow knowledge, and so on. There are certain angels as guards and protectors, whose job is to ward off afflictions and tribulations, and to prevent people from suffering injuries.7 Likewise there is a different group of angels for each affair. So imagine how many angels there are for each human being. And going beyond one person, how many angels there are for all human beings? Then think of the number of all animals, plants and objects. Glory be to Allah; such a universe we have!

STUDENT. Is any of the four archangels – Gabriel, Michael, Israfil and ‘Izra’il – superior (jami’) to the others?8 That is, apart from the ruh, is there a superior angel, who directs and commands over the other angels?

‘ALLAMAH. Apparently there is no superior among the four archangels, although there seems to be some hints about Gabriel, as mentioned in Chapter 78 (al-Naba’).9 But still it is not the case of a superior being. One cannot say that Gabriel’s supremacy over the angels under his command is that of a superior (jami’) over the individuals (afrad).

(May Allah guide us. We cannot do anything. With these conditions, all these ups and downs, the ascent and the descent, where should one turn to? What can our intellect grasp? How should we even approach these topics? By God I do not know.)

The impact of supplication and the role of the angels in its acceptance

STUDENT. Sometimes a person makes a supplication (du’a’) that is accepted (i.e. realised). For example one may pray for a garden to blossom, a well to spring water, a patient to recover, and so on. As a result of that, thousands of angels will be assigned to plan, process and carry out the supplicant’s request. And they finally realise and objectify it by God’s permission (idhn). That is, there are all these different groups of angels who work in order to actualise and bring about that matter. So can we say that in a sense, these angels are ‘under the command’ of the supplicant?

‘ALLAMAH. Instead of saying that they are under the command of the supplicant, it is better to say that they are under God’s command to realise the supplicant’s request.

STUDENT. Previously you mentioned how there can be unity in plurality,10 and you discussed these three verses:

Allah captureth the souls at the time of their death.... (39:42)

... The angel of death captureth you.... (32:11)

... Our emissaries capture him.... (6:61)

The act is an action of God, nonetheless the Angel of Death is also involved under God’s permission (idhn), and the other angels are involved with the permission of the Angel of Death. So in this sense of unity (wahdah) in plurality (kathrah), can one consider the angels that bring about a supplication as being under the command and order of the person who makes supplication and petition (du’a’ and tadarru’) to Allah?

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, that is also one way of putting it and it is true if the full account is given. For, after all, ‘There is no occupant in the house except Him.’

The whole universe absolutely and fully belongs to God alone, and no being has any impact in the cosmos except by God’s will and permission. Therefore any impact that we observe from any being reduces to God and belongs to Him.

STUDENT. There have been times when one of the prophets or saints (awliya’) had a wish deep in his heart, with an inner inclination and desire for it to come true. Yet he would not make a supplication for his wish, but despite that, the wish would come to realisation by itself. That is, their mere will and inner inclination would influence and take control of the external function of the angels. But there have also been other times when their inner inclination, even when accompanied with explicit supplication, had no impact, and their wish would not be realised as they wanted.

Can one say that in the latter cases their supplications and requests were at odds with the supplication of another soul or souls? That is, can one say that in the supernatural realm, the request was prevented by the power of one or more other souls?

This of course happens a lot for other than the prophets and saints, when their wish is against the wish of a more powerful soul who wants the opposite. Therefore each person’s supplication provokes and arouses a different set of angels to carry out the task, by God’s permission of course. Thus, the purer and stronger soul would dominate, and the set of angels working for that request would take the lead from the other group of angels and objectify the
request of the stronger soul.

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, all these are possible, and there is a verse in Chapter 13 (al-Ra’d) that implies this idea.11

STUDENT. Previously you had a great passion for philosophy, much more than now. Now you are more engaged in the Noble Qur’an. And you would not refrain from talking about your personal states like unveilings (mukashafat) and intuitions of the heart (waridat), but now you have strangely and mysteriously closed the doors tight! What is going on?

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, I guess ‘that crock broke, and that glass tipped over’ (i.e. those days are over). Currently my physical condition, particularly the forgetfulness that has overcome me, holds me back from my activities. I cannot work anymore, and it is by God’s grace that I am engaged in the Glorious Qur’an – may Allah accept it! But the peculiar amnesia of mine is really tough on me. In terms of studying and writing, I used to be busy almost day and night, with rarely any exception. I was always so busy writing, contemplating and studying. But all that has stopped for now.

STUDENT. Well this is a merit after all! Being immersed in the universal (kulli) prevents one from the particular. It is like absorbing the universal Spirit (ruh) in a state of trance (khalsah).

‘ALLAMAH. Is that so? Now you call that a merit? We would be thankful for the merit that Allah gives, no problem, but is this a merit? This is amnesia. Your point is correct, but what I feel is just amnesia. A state of sleepiness is usually noticeable in my eyes, as if they are filled with sleep or with dust. But then if I try to sleep I do not fall asleep. It is just this [odd] condition. Anyway, ‘The good is in that which happpened’ (al-khayr fima waqa’a). My condition is not like a state of trance; it is a certain state of lethargy, especially with the drowsiness in my eyes. We have to pray to Allah for recovery, if He wills. Only may Allah aid us; otherwise we cannot do anything on our own.

Barzakh is for everyone

A third person: Is the realm of barzakh (the intermediate life between one’s death and the Day of Resurrection) for everyone, or is it only for those who have reached perfection in either faith (iman) or infidelity (kufr)? One of the verses of the Qur’an about barzakh is:

And count not those who were slain in Allah’s way as dead, but they are living, and receive provision there with their Lord. (3:169)

This verse establishes the receipt of provision in barzakh only for those who have been killed in God’s way. Therefore can we conclude that barzakh is not for everyone?

‘ALLAMAH. In some narrations there is this idea that only those who have achieved perfection go through barzakh after death. That is, barzakh is only for two parties: those who have perfect faith and those who have perfect infidelity. And a third party consists of those who have not achieved either perfect infidelity or perfect faith, and thus they will not experience barzakh. That would mean that barzakh is exclusively for the perfect ones among the people of Islam and the people of infidelity (kufr).

But based on some other narrations barzakh is not just for the perfect ones. Instead, everyone goes through the realm of barzakh after death and before the Resurrection (qiyamah).

And the above verse (3:169) does not imply that no one apart from the martyrs in the path of Allah receives provision in barzakh. That is because first of all, the following verse says,

[They are] jubilant because of that which Allah hath bestowed upon them of His bounty, and rejoice for those behind them who have not joined them, for they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. (3:170)

This verse says that the martyrs are happy for those who have not joined them yet. And it is evident that those who have not joined them are all of the believers that are still alive and not necessarily those that will become martyrs.

The realm of barzakh starts right after one’s death

‘ALLAMAH. And second, there are two verses in the Noble Qur’an that entail that barzakh is for everyone, and that people enter the realm of barzakh right after death and with no delay.

The first one is in Chapter 36 (Ya-Sin), which narrates the story of two prophets who were sent by Prophet Jesus to the city of Antioch for preaching. The two prophets went there and started preaching, but the general population did not accept their call. [Neither did they accept their call when a third prophet was sent.] Thus a man from the outskirts of the city came to help the messengers:

And there came a man from the furthest part of the city, running; he said, ‘My people, follow the messengers.’ (36:20)

He preached and advised his people, and he finally said,

Lo! I believe in your Lord, so hear me, (36:25)

whereby the mob killed that man of God. Then the Qur’an says:

He was told, ‘Enter Paradise!’ He said, ‘I wish my people would know * That my Lord forgave me and made me of the honoured ones.’ (36:26-7)

He was told to enter the Paradise right upon his death, and that is when he said, ‘I wish my relatives and my tribe knew how God blessed me with His grace, forgiveness and honour.’

The second verse is in Chapter 71 (Nuh) and is similar to the first one, except that it is the other side of the story. That pervious case was about a believer, and this one is about the infidels and transgressors:

Because of their sins they were drowned and thereupon entered a fire.... (71:25)

Noah’s tribe were exterminated and drowned as a result of their sins, wrongdoings and misconduct. And after drowning, they immediately entered the fire. ‘Thereupon they entered a fire’ means that there was no pause or delay.

Most of the famous and multiple (mustafidah) narrations imply that barzakh is for all classes of infidels and Muslims, including those with perfect salvation or damnation and those in between. There are some narrations against that, but they are not reliable. Shaykh al-Mufid, be he blessed, held the view that ‘No one is questioned in the grave except the one who perfected faith to the utmost or the one who perfected infidelity to the utmost; the rest are neglected.’12

Heaven and hell currently exist

And speed toward a forgiveness from your Lord and a paradise whose breadth is the heavens and the earth, prepared for the self-restrained. (3:133)

STUDENT. In the above verse, does the term ‘has been prepared’ (u’iddat) imply that paradise exists now?

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, more or less.

STUDENT. If so, how would that comply with the embodiment of deeds (tajassum al-a’mal)?13 For an action must first be carried out in order for it to build the heaven or hell!

‘ALLAMAH. But there is also another point in the Noble Qur’an:

Truly thou wast in heedlessness of this; thus We have now removed from thee thy covering, and so thy sight is piercing today. (50:22)

This verse affirms that what is observed on the Day of Resurrection had existed and was observable in this world, except that people were heedless of it. Heaven and Hell had actually existed in this world and people had observed them, but they were heedless in their observation.

People are heedless of the fact of the matter and the reality of the world. Therefore Heaven and Hell are present in this world, though people are inattentive of them. And as we said before, the believer from the family of Yasin entered Heaven right after he was killed (36:26), and Noah’s tribe entered the fire right after their drowning in water (71:25).

The speaking of ruwaybidah and the emergence of Ya’juj and Ma’juj

STUDENT. There is a tradition that mentions the signs of the end of the universe (akhir al-zaman). It says:

And at that time the ruwaybidah will speak.14

What is meant by ruwaybidah? And [in the other narrations,] who is the Dajjal? And what about Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog)?

‘ALLAMAH. Based on the narrations, one of the signs of the Resurrection (ashrat al-sa’ah) is that the ruwaybidah will speak, and apparently ‘ruwaybidah’ refers to the ignoble and insignificant individuals in the society. Their ‘speaking’ means that they will become administrative and political authorities.

Then there are many narrations on the topic of the Dajjal (lit. ‘liar’ and ‘deceiver’). He emerges before the appearance of Imam Mahdi (may our souls be sacrificed for him) and misguides the people. There are some narrations that describe him in detail, but those narrations are not reliable. For example, there is a narration that the Dajjal is a man who rides a donkey, and as he moves, the Paradise and Hell move with him on his right and his left [respectively].

The Dajjal is also mentioned in the narrations reported by the Sunni authorities. There are narrations about his birth, and there is even a narration that the Messenger of Allah was informed about him, whereby the Prophet went to him, or he came to the Prophet. Some of what has been said about him is certainly not reliable; for example it is said that his donkey is one farsakh (about 5.375 km) long. How could that be?15

And Ya’juj and Ma’juj are apparently two societies of mankind from the Caucasus (Qafqaz) Mountain. That is where Dhu al-Qarnayn built a dam to prevent them from attacking that region (see 18:92-8). And some have held that they were two Mongolian tribes.16 There is a verse in the Glorious Qur’an about Ya’juj and Ma’juj, that they will rush down from all heights [before the Resurrection]:

Until when Gog and Magog are freed, and they hasten out of every mound. (21:96)

There are some narrations about the details of their creation, like that their ears are so huge that they turn one into a mat on which they sleep and use the other as a blanket. These narrations are reported by Sunni authorities, and it seems quite clear that they are unauthentic, and should not be accepted.17

The Messenger of Allah was also the prophet of the jinn

STUDENT. How is it that the prophet of the jinn is from mankind? On one hand, based on the Noble Qur’an, the prophet of every group, class and kind of creatures should be of the same kind. That is why in the Qur’an Allah requires the polytheists to follow His Messenger, who is a human being. And when they objected that ‘Why did God not send angels toward people to convey His message,’ the Noble Qur’an replies,

And had We made him an angel, We surely would have made him a man, and confused for them what they confuse. (6:9)

On the other hand, there are other verses in the Noble Qur’an that clearly speak of the belief of the jinn in the Prophet and the Qur’an:

Say: it hath been revealed unto me that a company of the jinn listened [to the Qur’an] and then they said, ‘We have indeed heard a marvellous Qur’an * It guideth to rectitude, so we believe in it, and we never associate with our Lord anyone.’ (72:1-2)

And indeed when we heard the guidance we believed in it; and whoso believeth in his Lord shall fear neither any loss nor any oppression. (72:13)

And when We turned toward thee a company of jinn listening to the Qur’an; and once they were in its presence they said, ‘Be silent!’ Then as it ended they returned to their people warning * They said, ‘O Our people, indeed we have heard a book that was sent down after Moses, confirming what was before it, guiding to the truth and to a straight path * O our people, respond to Allah’s summoner and believe in Him; He will forgive you part of your sins and shield you from a painful punishment * And whoso respondeth not to Allah’s summoner cannot frustrate Him in the earth, and hath no supporter apart from Him. Those are in obvious misguidance.’ (46:29-32)

O tribe of jinn and men, if you are able to penetrate through the confines of the heavens and the earth, then penetrate [through them]. You shall not penetrate except with an authority [from Allah]. (55:33)

This last verse is more evident than the other ones, as it addresses and challenges both the jinn and mankind. But if the Messenger of Allah were not a prophet and messenger for the group of jinn, it would have not been appropriate for the Glorious Qur’an – which flows from the Prophet’s tongue – to challenge them.

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, apparently the prophet of the jinn is a human being. And incidentally when the jinn were asked about this at time of summoning (ihdar) they replied, ‘We do not have any prophet from the jinn; but our prophet is Prophet Muhammad son of ‘Abdullah (peace and mercy be upon him and his family).’

STUDENT. In order to explain this, one may say that man and jinn are both corporeal beings, except that man is of earth and jinn is of fire and smoke. In fact, it is due to the jinn’s extent of delicacy that they cannot be seen by physical eyes. Man and jinn both fall under the same category, but jinn are of a lower degree [of existence] compared to man. That is why the same rules apply to both of them. Is that a reasonable explanation?

‘ALLAMAH. That is the only thing one can say in order to explain this matter. The creation of jinn is subsidiary to mankind and their existence is for the sake of human beings. That is why they have the same prophet. And the duties and rites have been specified and tailored for each of the two groups according to their strengths and weaknesses. The following verse bears witness to this:

O tribe of jinn and mankind, did messengers from yourselves not come to you, recounting to you My signs and warning you of the encounter of this day of yours?... (6:130)

This verse addresses both the jinn and men and tells them, ‘Did messengers of your own kind not come to you?’ But we know that the jinn do not have a prophet of themselves, and they share the prophet of men. But it is still true to say, ‘messengers from yourselves’ because jinn and man are both material and corporeal. They are of the same genus (jins) and so the same prophet has been sent for both groups. It is only that compared to the jinn, man is stronger and jinn is relatively weaker. So in the above verse, ‘from yourselves’ does not mean being specifically of earth or fire.

The science of abjad Letters and its branches

STUDENT. Please speak, in brief or at length, about the abjad letters, their inferences, extrapolations, and significance, as discussed in the books. Also, please explain how the abjad calculation is divided into kabir (‘big’), saghir (‘small’) and wasit (‘intermediate’), and the significance of each.

‘ALLAMAH. Apparently al-abjad al-kabir (big) is a well-established and agreed-upon process. It involves the division of the twenty-eight letters of the Arabic alphabet over the numbers ranging from one to one thousand. And all Muslims – both Shi’a and Sunni – unanimously concur on it. The scholars of both sects, such as Baha’ al-Din al-‘Amili (Shaykh al-Baha’i) and Muhyi al-Din [ibn] al-’Arabi have expounded on the subject.

Al-abjad al-kabir is also known among non-Muslims. It was practiced by the Jews before Islam, and Muslims adopted it from Hebrew. Incidentally, the Hebrew alphabet has only twenty-two letters. They lack the last six letters in the abjad order: thā’, khā’, dhāl, ḍād, ẓā’, and ghayn. Therefore their letters only go up to qarishat (see below). Nonetheless they believe in al-abjad al-kabir and split the numbers ranging from one to a thousand over their letters.

One day I was attending a session with some experts in this field. They were discussing how the numbers one to one thousand can be divided over the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty-two letters. I objected, ‘The Hebrew alphabet only goes up to qarishat, and letter tā’ is number four hundred [i.e. the highest number that their alphabet reaches]. So how can they practice abjad?’ They explained that ‘They incorporate the other six numbers in their alphabet by certain means, so that their numbers start from one and end with one thousand.’

There was also a Japanese philosopher in that meeting.18 I asked him, ‘Do you [also] believe in the impact and power of the letters?’

‘Yes, we believe in the letters of al-abjad al-kabir!’ he replied. ‘And we have some truly remarkable ancient books on this subject’ – even though Japanese doctrines are rooted in those of the Chinese, who are not monotheists.

Apparently the Japanese and Chinese alphabets have three hundred letters (characters). But they somehow manage to divide the twenty-eight numbers (of abjad) that span from one to a thousand over their entire alphabet. That is amazing. Perhaps they end up counting many of their letters that have a similar pronunciation as one letter, like in Persian where ch is treated as j (jim), zh as z (zā’), g as k (kāf) and p as b (bā’). That is why calculating the abjad numbers in Chinese is very difficult. It is a skill in itself, and as it has been said, only their adept scholars can go about it.

One of the impacts of the abjad calculation is that dividing and placing the noble verse, bism Allāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥim (In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate) into a square based on the abjad letters is beneficial in repelling the jinn and those possessed by the jinn.

In al-abjad al-kabir, each letter of the twenty-eight Arabic letters has a number, and the numbers begin with one and end with one thousand. It goes like this: abjad, hawwaz, ḥuṭṭi, kaliman, sa’faṣ, qarishat, thakhkhidh,
aẓigh, lā.

ﺃ | ﺏ | ﺝ | ﺩ | ﻩ | ﻭ | ﺯ | ﺡ | ﻁ | ﻱ
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
‘ | b | j | d | h | w | Z | ḥ | ṭ | y

ﻙ | ﻝ | ﻡ | ﻥ | ﺱ | ﻉ | ﻑ | ﺹ | ﻕ | ﺭ
20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 | 100 | 200
k | l | m | n | s | ‘ | f | ṣ | q | r

ﺵ
ﺕ
ﺙ
ﺥ
ﺫ
ﺽ
ﻅ
ﻍ
ﺍ
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1
Sh
t
th
kh
dh

ẓ
gh
ā

Hamzah (‘) and alif (a, ā) are both number one. Letters with stress (shaddah, tashdīd) are only counted once. For example, the term ‘Aliyy (i.e. ‘Alī) is numbered 110, because ‘ is 70, l is 30 and y is 10. So they add up to 110 ( y counts only once).

And the word Quddūs is numbered 170; since q is 100, d is 4, w (ū) is 6 and s is 60. Here, d is not counted twice.

And the word Fa’’āl is numbered 181; because f is 80, ‘ is 70, ā is 1 and l is 30.

One exception is the l (lām) in the Majestic Word ‘Allah’. It has a stress, but it is counted twice. Also, the middle ā (alif ) in ‘Allah’ is not counted. Therefore ‘Allah’ is 66, because a is 1, l is 30 (and it counts twice), and h is 5. That is why in writing, ‘Allah’ is not written with a stress (shaddah), for the l (lām) is written twice and thus it should not be stressed again. It is for the same reason that the middle ā (alif ) is not written, because it is not included in the abjad calculation. So the word is written with two consecutive ‘l’s and without an ‘ā’, like ‘Allh’ (الل ه)

If it were not for the exception, the word should have been written as ‘Aḷāh’ (with a stress on l i.e. الّاه ). Since Arabic writing is based on abjad numbers, ‘Aḷāh’ should be written as ‘Allh’ [as it is conventionally written, except that it should not have a shaddah].

The fact that the stressed letters are written only once shows that they should count only once when retrieving the abjad number of a given word. And for the same reason, the word ilāh (deity, worshipped one) is written as ‘ilh’ (إله), without the middle ā (alif ). That is because the middle ā in is not included in the count, and so the corresponding number to ilāh is 36. Similarly, the ā in Raḥmān is not counted either. That is why it is written as ‘Raḥman’ (رَحمَن) without the ā (alif ), which means that its number is 298.

This was about al-abjad al-kabir (‘big’ abjad).

But in al-abjad al-saghir (‘small’ abjad), the number of a letter is the remainder that is obtained when we divide the abjad (al-kabir) number of that letter by nine. For example, letter y (ya) is numbered one in al-abjad al-saghir, because it is number 10 in al-abjad al-kabir, and deducting nine from that gives us one. Letter n (nun) is five in al-abjad al-saghir, because when five times nine is deducted from fifty (the number of n in al-abjad al-kabir) the remainder is five. And therefore in al-abjad al-saghir, letters ṭ (ṭā’), ṣ (ṣād) and ẓ (ẓā’) do not have a number at all (because they are whole multiples of nine). If multiples of nine are deducted from their al-abjad al-kabir number, nothing would remain.

And as with al-abjad al-wasit (‘intermediate’ abjad), it numbers the letters based on the remainder of their al-abjad al-al-kabir number when divided by 12, just like the procedure in al-abjad al-saghir.

There is also al-abjad al-akbar (‘greater’ abjad), where the number of each letter is multiplied by ten. For example, letter y (yā) would be number 100 in al-abjad al-akbar, and the letter gh (ghayn) would be 10,000, and so on with the other letters.

Apart from the above division, one should also know that there are two methods of numbering any word: mujmal (‘undifferentiated’) and mufassal (‘differentiated’).

The mujmal method is to count the letters of a word as they appear in the word (as discussed above). For example, the word ‘Quddus’ (‘Sacrosanct’) has four letters: q, d, w, s, with numbers 100, 4, 6 and 60, respectively. And the word ‘Fa’’āl’ (‘Doer’) has four letters: f, ‘, ā, l, with numbers 80, 70, 1 and 30, respectively. And there are ten letters in ‘yā Aḥad yā Ṣamad’ (‘O One, O Independent’):

10 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 90 | 40 | 4
y | ā | ‘ | ḥ | d | y | ā | ṣ | m | d

Therefore in the mujmal method, ‘Quddūs’ is 170, ‘Fa’’āl’ is 181 and ‘yā Aḥad yā Ṣamad’ is 169.

But in the mufassal method, each letter is counted as it is pronounced. It includes the subsequent letters that appear in each letter’s name. For example ‘Quddūs’ has four letters: q, d, w, and s:

Q is pronounced qāf, so it should count as three letters: q (100), ā (1), and f (80). Thus, qāf alone will be 181.

D is pronounced dāl, therefore it should count as three letters: d (4), ā (1), and l (30). Thus, dāl is numbered 35.

W is pronounced wāw, thus it should count as three letters: w (6), ā (1), and w (6).

And s is pronounced sīn, so it should count as three letters: s (60), y (10), and n (50).

Hence, the word ‘Quddūs’ will be 349 based on the mufassal numbering, while it was 170 under the mujmal method.

Another example: ‘yā Aḥad yā Ṣamad’ is pronounced as:

10 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 90 | 40 | 4
y | ā | ‘ | ḥ | d | y | ā | ṣ | m | d

But once we expand it, it will be pronounced as: ‘yā, alif, alif, ḥā, dāl, yā, alif, Ṣād, mīm, dāl’.19 Therefore, each of these letters should be included in the count:

10 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 80 | 1 | 30 | 80 | 8 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 30
y | ā | ‘ | l | f | ‘ | l | f | ḥ | ā | d | ā | l

10 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 80 | 90 | 1 | 4 | 40 | 10 | 40 | 4 | 1 | 30
y | ā | ‘ | l | f | ṣ | ā | d | m | y | m | d | ā | l

Hence, the mufassal number for the phrase, ‘yā Aḥad yā Ṣamad’ is 619, while it was 169 under the mujmal method.

Tayy al-ard and the beginning of Chapter Ta-Ha

STUDENT. What is the truth behind tayy al-ard (‘folding up of the earth’, instantaneous self-transportation)? And how can it be explained philosophically?

‘ALLAMAH. Its reality is the winding of the earth beneath the feet of a walker.

My brother, the late Sayyid Muhammad Hasan Ilahi had a student who used to summon spirits (not using a mirror or a triangular table, but he used to instantly summon the spirits by passing his hand over his eyes). One day, through that student, my brother asked the spirit of the late Qadi about tayy al-ard.

The late Qadi answered, ‘Tayy al-ard is six verses from the beginning of Chapter 20 [Ta-Ha].’

Ta-Ha * We have not revealed the Qur’an upon thee so that thou be distressed * But as a reminder to him who feareth * A revelation from Him Who created the earth and the high heavens * The All-Merciful [Who] arose [and dominated] upon the Throne * To Him belongth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth and whatsoever is between them and whatsoever is beneath the ground * And if thou speakest aloud, then He truly knoweth the secret and that which is more hidden * Allah is but Whom there is no deity; for Him are the Most Beautiful Names. (20:1-8)

STUDENT. What does that mean? Was the late Qadi indirectly and secretly implying that tayy al-ard is achieved when one realises and characterises the Divine Attributes in one’s self?

‘ALLAMAH. No. My brother was a sharp and discerning man. The way he quoted Mr Qadi’s reply was as if he had already arrived at the procedure for tayy al-ard from these verses.

These verses are very remarkable, especially the verse, ‘Allah is but Whom there is no deity; for Him are the Most Beautiful Names’ (20:8). It makes note of all the excellent Names that are gathered in the Sacred Being of God. In this regard there is no verse as comprehensive as this verse in the Noble Qur’an.

The late Qadi always used to go from Najaf to Karbala’ on days of ziyarah (‘pilgrimage’; the days when ziyarah of Imam Husayn is specifically recommended). But no one had ever seen him get on a vehicle, and no one found about his secret, except for a tradesman in the Clock Market (also called the Great Market, bazar-i buzurg, in Najaf ). The tradesman had gone to the sanctified city of Mashhad and saw the late Qadi there. There was a problem with that person’s passport, for which he sought help from the late Qadi, and the late Qadi solved his problem. When that man returned to Najaf he claimed to have seen Mr Qadi in Mashhad.

And that infuriated the late Qadi. ‘Everyone knows’ he said, ‘that I have been in Najaf and have not taken any trips.’

The late Qadi’s inquiry about Prophet Solomon’s flying in the air

‘ALLAMAH. Then, through his student, my brother asked the Honourable Qadi, ‘Was Prophet Solomon’s carpet, on which he used to sit and fly to the East and West, made with ordinary instruments, and did it operate based on natural laws? Or was it an independent divine invention without any connection to with the laws of nature?’

The late Qadi replied, ‘I cannot think of an answer for that at the moment, but a creature that lived the time of Prophet Solomon and was involved in that business is currently alive. I will go and ask him.’ Thus the late Qadi set off and walked for a while, until a mountain came into view. As he reached the hillside, a ghost that resembled a human being was seen in the middle of the mountain. The late Qadi talked to the ghost for a while and asked some questions, of which my brother’s student did not understand anything. Then the late Qadi returned and said, ‘He says that it was a totally new and unique creation of God, and it did not operate based on natural causes.’

STUDENT. But the matter of tayy al-ard is still ambiguous. There are a few things here. One is that in tayy al-ard, the traveller does not walk over the earth as would be the case of speeding up and getting to the destination in no time or in a short time. Neither does the person exterminate his body at the origin and create it at the destination. But rather the earth winds beneath the traveller’s feet, and he gets to the destination in a very short time as a result of this winding. But there is a clear problem with this.

First, we see that the condition of the earth does not change when one performs tayy al-ard. Everything stays in its own place, people are all in their own positions, and the winding and wrapping only occurs with respect to the traveller. But assuming that tayy al-ard is a real occurrence in the outside – and not an imaginary or illusive event – then it would not be reasonable for a material body (the earth) to move without changing its relationship and position with respect to the beings with which it is related.

Moreover, it is possible to have two folding-ups of the earth at the same time in opposite directions. That would entail the movement of matter in two opposite directions, and the change of position and relation of every related object in two opposing ways, which is logically impossible.

Second, in your discussions about the miracles (i’jaz) of the prophets in al-Mizan, you have argued that ‘A miracle is not opposed to the physical laws. It does not deny the natural systems of causes and effects, but it [only] causes the speeding-up of the process whereby the causes give rise to the effects. For example, it is naturally possible for a cane to become a living organism and a serpent, as it did for Prophet Moses (peace be upon our prophet and his family and upon him). However, it would take thousands of years for this transformation to take place through its chain of various natural causes. But in a miracle, these causes do their job instantly, and the effect and result appears right away, due to the will of God or His messenger.’20 But tayy al-ard would violate the order of nature, because the existents cannot maintain their original positions with respect to the traveller.

‘ALLAMAH. (Replying after a long period of thinking, with his head down) Tayy al-ard is a supernatural event (khariq al-’adah).

STUDENT. Fair enough, tayy al-ard is a supernatural event; but the problem is the logical impossibility.

It is like when one physically passes through a wall or ceiling without the splitting or tearing of the wall and without its being broken and fixed again. Yet prominent mystics claim that there is nothing wrong with that, and it does happen.

‘ALLAMAH. That is right; there is no problem with that. And the evidence for it is that in one gathering, they wanted to show that the jinn can enter through closed doors and take whatever they want. So they locked the lid of a chest containing bundles of clothing, and had a stout man sit on the chest.

Even so, they immediately found the bundles of clothing outside the chest, and when they opened the chest they found it empty. So it became clear that the jinn had brought out the bundles at once, and that was not an illusion or magic.

STUDENT. But that does not solve the problem. And the question, with all its complexities, remains as it was.

‘ALLAMAH. It is a supernatural matter (kharq al-’adah).

STUDENT. Did Ibn Sina do any study and analysis on the subject of tayy al-ard? After all, he was quite good at identifying and investigating the physical causes of various events.

‘ALLAMAH. I have not seen any discussion of tayy al-ard anywhere in his works. But he believes in supernatural events and confirms the miracles of the prophets.

Incidentally, there is a verse about the throne of Bilqis (the Queen of Sheba):

And one with whom was some knowledge of the Book said, ‘I will bring it to thee before thy glance returneth to thee ( yartadda ilayka tarfuk).’ Then when he saw it settled before him he said, ‘This is of my Lord’s bounty... ’. (27:40)

Here, ‘yartadda ilayka tarfuk’ does not mean blinking of the eye, because tarf does not mean eyelid. It is a thousand times faster than blinking. If it meant blinking of the eye, the verse should have continued with, ‘Then when he saw it settled before him before having blinked.’

Rather, tarf means to look with the side of the eye, and thus ‘yartadda ilayka tarfuk’ means, ‘before your look returns.’ It concerns the act of seeing. What happens when one sees an object is that the rays of light reflect from the object and enter the person’s eye, based on the laws of reflection and refraction. So he is saying, ‘I will bring Bilqis’ throne for you before you see what you are about to see!’

That means faster than the speed of light, which is fifty thousand farsakh per second (almost three hundred thousand kilometres per second).

And the Qur’an does not mention that the person brought the throne, but it says, ‘When Solomon saw the throne before him.’ That is, after this conversation and discussion with the person who had some knowledge of the Book, he suddenly found the throne settled before him. This is a case of tayy al-ard.

The stages of tayy al-ard and its reality

STUDENT. Does tayy al-ard (‘folding up of the earth’, instantaneous self-transportation) consist of exterminating one’s body at the origin and generating and emerging it at the destination? Is this not the basic idea behind tayy al-ard, that the person who possesses this power generates and emerges himself at once at the desired location, through the divine and celestial will with which he is endowed?

‘ALLAMAH. That seems to be it.

STUDENT. Seems to be, or is?

‘ALLAMAH . It really is so.

STUDENT. Then there are some issues to be resolved. It must be that only the purified divine souls can possess this power. As long as one has not achieved gnosis of the soul (ma’rifat al-nafs) accompanied by gnosis of the Lord (ma’rifat al-Rabb), and as long as one cannot alter and take control (tasarruf ) over the contingent beings, he should not be able to perform tayy al-ard. But then how can one explain the accounts of tayy al-ard performed by non-complete individuals?

‘ALLAMAH. There are no such accounts about non-complete individuals. It is only performed by those who have achieved perfection.21

STUDENT. Based on narrations and historical accounts, perfect individuals have sometimes taken others with themselves on tayy al-ard. That would mean that in addition to creating his own body, the divine and creative soul of a perfect person is also capable of creating other bodies at the desired destination.

‘ALLAMAH. That is right.

STUDENT. How is it that for some people, tayy al-ard is not instantaneous, but takes some time, say five or ten minutes or more?

‘ALLAMAH. Their tayy al-ard is incomplete because they have not reached the state of perfection. So they need to spend some time and apply more power in order to create bodies at the desired destination. For example, the tayy al-ard of the jinn usually takes time. When talking about bringing Bilqis’ throne the Noble Qur’an says:

A devil of the jinn said, ‘I bring it to thee before thou risest from thy place... ’. (27:39)

And rising from one’s place certainly takes some time, even if it is very quick.

STUDENT. If so, then why should one insist on reconciling tayy al-ard with physical causality, like the attempts that have been made to show that the miracles of the prophets are nothing beyond the laws of nature?

Instead, one can say that tayy al-ard occurs as a result of a divine will, ‘Be!’ (kun), which directly and instantly brings about the result (yakun). (In that case, one would not argue that one’s body rapidly passes through the series of required intermediate stages in a transubstantial motion, al-harkat al- jawhariyyah.) So the first body – with its characteristics of position, time, and other properties – becomes a second body with another set of properties of position, time, and so on. And so is the case with miracles and supernatural events (i.e. there is no need to explain them as accelerated processes of physical causality).

‘ALLAMAH. Yes, it can be put this way.

‘The name should delight you’; ‘And truly of his followers was Abraham’

STUDENT. There is a narration from Imam Baqir that ‘The name should delight you!’

The reporter asked, ‘May I be sacrificed for you, what name?’ The Imam replied, ‘The two words [i.e. verses] of Him [Allah]:

And truly [one] of his followers (shi’ah) was Abraham (37:83)

... Thus he who was of his followers (shi’ah) implored him for help against him who was of his enemies.... (28:15)

Therefore this name should delight you.’ 22

What does this narration mean? ‘His follower’ (shi’atih) in the first verse refers to Prophet Noah’s follower, and in the second verse it refers to Prophet Moses’ follower.

‘ALLAMAH. It apparently means that since the term ‘shi’ah’ has been used in the Noble Qur’an and the idea of tashayyu’ (‘followership’) has been attributed to the followers of Noah and Moses, thus it is a pleasant name, and it is a sign of blessing that you Shi’as are also called ‘shi’ah’ (literally, ‘follower’).

So there is a nominal similarity between you ‘followers’ of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the ‘followers’ of Prophets Noah and Moses. And this in itself is a source of hope for your salvation and felicity. The name carries some sense of honour with itself.

Hurr al-’Amili: ‘The Prophet’s knowledge is inherited from the previous prophets’

STUDENT. In the preface of the book, Ithbat al-Hudah (‘Proof of the Guides’), Shaykh Hurr al-’Amili says,

And then it has also been repeatedly reported (mutawatir) that the Prophet (peace and be upon him and his family) has inherited his knowledge – partly or mostly – from the previous prophets and their successors.23

Is this true? How could it be, given that the Messenger of Allah apparently had no contact with the previous prophets and their successors so that he may ask them questions and benefit from their knowledge?

‘ALLAMAH. It seems that the above claim is not true since there was no encounter between the Messenger of Allah and the previous prophets. Of course, it might be true from an esoteric point of view, that the Prophet got some of his knowledge from his predecessors by talking to them and asking questions inwardly (batini). And a verse in the Noble Qur’an bears witness to this:

And ask those of Our messengers whom We sent before thee: did We ever set deities other than the All- Merciful to be worshipped? (43:45)

It is inferred from this verse that the Messenger of Allah had the means to speak to and ask questions from the prophets in the Divine Realm (malakut).

The universality of the resolute prophets (ulu al-’azm)

STUDENT. There are some verses in the Glorious Qur’an about the universality of the call (da’wah) of the Noble Messenger, Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him and his family) – that his call encompasses every human being until the Day of Resurrection. For example:

And We have not sent thee except as a bringer of good tidings and a warner for all people, but most people know not. (34:28)

And We sent thee not save as a mercy for everyone. (21:107)

...O mankind, truly I am the messenger of Allah to you all; [of ] Him to Whom belongeth the kingdom of the heavens and the earth; there is no deity but Him; He gives life and death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the unschooled prophet who believeth in Allah and His words, and follow him, haply you may be guided. (7:158)

Then how will it be when We bring a witness from every nation and We bring thee a witness against these? (4:41)

This is also proven by the fact that the Messenger of Allah reached out to all mankind in order to call them to Islam. He wrote letters to the kings of Rome, Persia, Ethiopia and the nations and tribes elsewhere. Hence, there is no doubt in the universality of his call, and it is evident like the sun at midday. But then there are other verses that may suggest that his call was specific to his own people. For example:

He is Who hath aroused amongst the unschooled a messenger of their own, to recite His revelations to them.... (62:2)

And for every nation there is a messenger; and when their messenger cometh, they will be justly judged between, and they will not be wronged. (10:47)

And We never sent a messenger save with the tongue of his people, that he may elucidate for them; thus Allah misguideth whomever He wills, and He guideth whomever He wills; and He is the All-Mighty, the All- Wise. (14:4)

These three verses are ambiguous about whether the message of the Prophet was confined to his own people or not. However, since the first four verses explicitly speak of the universality of his call, they clarify the ambiguity of the other verses.

Prophet Moses was sent to Pharaoh, a non-Israelite

STUDENT. But this might have been different concerning Prophets Moses and Jesus (peace be upon our prophet and his family and upon them). There are some verses in the Glorious Qur’an that seem to indicate that their calls were specific to the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’il). For example:

And truly We sent Moses with Our signs, that ‘Bring forth thy people from the darkness to the light, and remind them of the days of Allah.’ Lo! Surely therein are signs for every forbearing and grateful person. (14:5)

And [recall] when Moses said to his people, ‘O my people, why do you persecute me, while you well know that I am truly the messenger of Allah to you?’ Then when they deviated, Allah deviated their hearts; and Allah guideth not the people who are transgressors * And [recall] when Jesus son of Mary said, ‘O Children of Israel, I am indeed the messenger of Allah to you...’. (61:5-6)

And most evident of all is God’s response to Prophet Jesus’ mother, Hadrat Maryam (Honourable Mary):

She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no mortal has touched me?’ He said: So [it will be]. Allah createth what He will. When He decreeth a thing, He only saith to it, ‘Be’ and it is * And He will teach him the Book and the Wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel * And a messenger to the Children of Israel.... (3:47-9)

Furthermore, when the Qur’an quotes Prophet Moses, his speeches are addressed to the Children of Israel.

Also, the hajj (pilgrimage) was not decreed as a ritual in the religions of either Prophets Moses or Jesus. Had they been universal, they should have followed Prophet Abraham’s universal religion, which had prescribed the hajj (peace be upon them all).

If one studies the religions of these two great prophets, he realises that despite calling to the unity of Allah, Glorified and Exalted He is, they include certain rules that are completely foreign to Islam and the religion of Prophet Abraham.

‘ALLAMAH. Your points and remarks are all true in their own right. But despite all that, there are certain verses and narrations, as well as historical evidence from the life of the Noble Prophet, which indicate that the message and call (da’wah) of these two great prophets were universal. For instance, it says in the Noble Qur’an,

Go both of you unto Pharaoh, [for] indeed he has transgressed. (20:43)

Prophet Moses promoted his religion to Pharaoh and his tribe (the Qibtis), who were certainly not among the Children of Israel (referred to as the Sibtis). In fact, ‘Qibtis’ is used as the opposite of ‘Sibtis’.

Also, the Noble Messenger recognised the religions of the Arab Jews and Christians who were in Mecca, Medina, Ethiopia, and elsewhere as official religions. If the religions of prophets Moses and Jesus were specific to the Children of Israel, then adoption of these religions by the Arabs would have been wrong and should not have been endorsed by the Messenger of Allah.

One other piece of evidence is that the Noble Messenger was willing to do mubahalah with the Christians of Najran.24 He challenged them to a mystical battle, even though they were also Arabs.

And even though the hajj was a tradition (sunnah) of Prophet Abraham, he decreed it only for Arabs and not for all of his followers. He did not prescribe the hajj for the inhabitants of Palestine. Otherwise, prophets such as Isaac, Jacob and the other Israelite prophets would have definitely performed this divine ritual. Nonetheless, the ritual was passed down to Prophet Ishmael (Isma’il) and his descendants, who resided in Arabia. And there is no evidence that the hajj was decreed or should have been decreed universally at the time of Prophet Abraham.

And regarding the verses that you mentioned, just because a prophet was sent to the Children of Israel did not necessarily mean that his message was only for them. The verse, ‘And We never sent a messenger save with the tongue of his people’ (14:4) only establishes that every prophet speaks the language of his people, and that is different from saying that his call is exclusive to his people.

Attributing actions to the Supreme Truth; ‘So that Allah may know who supporteth Him and His messengers unseen’

STUDENT. There are some verses in the Noble Qur’an that identify God, Sacred He is, as the Doer of the actions. Some of these verses are truly astonishing, such as:

And whoever maketh a breach with the Messenger, after the guidance hath been elucidated for him, and followeth other than the way of the believers, We turn him over to what he hath turned to, and We enter [or burn] him in hell – a miserable return. (4:115)

In this verse, God has identified Himself as the cause of diversion of those who oppose the Messenger of Allah and do not follow the way of the believers. What the verse means is that, ‘About that person who diverted, It was We Who diverted him. That is why he diverted.’ Another verse is:

O you who believe, take not the disbelievers as masters [and friends] in place of the believers. Do you want to give Allah a clear authority [and proof ] against you? (4:144)

Truly whenever I, the lowest, think of the meaning of this noble verse, my amusement increases. Such a fine meaning, subtle content and comprehensive message! It is amazing how Allah, Glorified and Exalted He is, has forbidden the believers to befriend and affiliate with the infidels, and eventually take them as masters and superiors, while abandoning the believers. Then the verse regards the authority and dominance that the infidels acquire over this group of people – due to their wrong action (i.e. alliance with the infidels) – as Allah’s authority and dominance. That is, the dominance and supremacy of the infidels over the Muslims is God’s supremacy over them. So it is saying, ‘O you Muslims! Do not do this, so that God does not do that.’

‘ALLAMAH. The language of the Qur’an when talking about God’s Unity of Actions (al-tawhid al-af’ali) and relating every action to the Supreme Truth is truly outstanding. In one occasion it says,

Then We raised them up, that We might know which of the two parties would better calculate the time they had tarried. (18:12)

It is clear that here, knowledge refers to objectified knowledge (al-’ilm al-fi’li), which is the appearance and realisation of particular beings before the Supreme Lord. There are many instances in the Glorious Qur’an where what is meant by God’s knowledge (‘ilm) is the actions of beings. For example:

... So that Allah may know who supporteth Him and His messengers unseen.... (57:25)

So that He may know they have conveyed the messages of their Lord.... (72:28)

One of the exegetes has given a good interpretation of what is meant by ‘ilm (knowing) here: that it means, ‘So that what We knew would be disclosed as We knew it.’25

And never say of anything, ‘I will do that tomorrow’ * But only ‘If Allah wills’.... (18:23-4)

The above verse implies that God’s decree and will includes the actions that a person does. And so does the verse,

And had We made him an angel, We surely would have made him a man, and confused for them what they confuse. (6:9)

All actions are subject to God’s permission and decree

‘ALLAMAH. In general, what the Glorious Qur’an teaches us is that whatever there is in the universe (‘alam al-wujud), be it an existence (dhat), an action ( fi’l) or an effect (athar), they all belong to God. ‘He is One and there is no partner for Him’ (wahdahu la sharika lah), and it is His decision to do whatever He wills with His ‘belongings’.

Anything other than God has no choice or power whatsoever, except for what God bestows upon it, and only to the extent that He gives it power. God is the Absolute Owner of every being. He is the Absolute Owner of man and his possessions, and there are abundant verses in the Qur’an that signify this reality.

No being in the universe is self-reliant in its actions and effects (even though we consider these beings as causes and means). In their causality, they are not independent of the actions and effects of God, Exalted is He. They cannot do any action and cannot cause any effect save for the action and effect that God wills. That is, God grants them the power to do an action or cause an effect, and if He wills otherwise, the beings would lose the power to bring about that action and effect.

In other words, in itself, there is no system of causes and instruments (asbab) in the universe that can cause any effect. What a being does is done because God gives it the power for that action or effect, and because He does not will its opposite. That is to say, God facilitates and smoothes the path to that action or effect, and thereby permits it. God’s permission (idhn) is His bestowal of power and removal of the impediments.

There are abundant verses and narrations that the action of any agent is conditional on God’s permission, and that no doer does anything except by God’s permission.26 For example:

No affliction befalleth save by Allah’s permission.... (64:11)

As for the good land, its vegetation cometh forth by the permission of its Lord.... (7:58)

And no soul may die except by Allah’s permission.... (3:145)

Any palm-trees you cut down or left standing on their roots was thus by Allah’s permission.... (59:5)

And We sent no messenger save that he should be obeyed by the permission of Allah.... (4:64)

Therefore it is incumbent on any person who has knowledge of his God to not regard himself self-reliant in his actions, and not consider himself independent of Allah. One should rather view himself as the doer of the action as a result of God’s endowment, and capable of doing it by His power. Allah says,

... Truly power belongeth entirely to Allah.... (2:165)

Any believer that wants to commence on any action must do so by trust and reliance on Allah, and should lean on His support:

... So when thou art resolved then rely on Allah.... (3:159)

And when he wants to promise something or speak of the future, that ‘I will do this and that,’ he should condition it on God’s permission and decree.

Allah attributes actions to people, but denies their independence

‘ALLAMAH. Though the above is true, there is also no doubt that one’s actions belong to himself. In many places in the Qur’an, Allah has attributed actions to the Prophet and the people, such as:

... Then say: for me is my deed, and for you is your deed.... (10:41)

... We have our deeds and you have your deeds.... (42:15)

At the same time, He denies the singularity of this attribution to the person who does it, and refutes the independence of the person from Allah’s permission and decree.

So based on what was said, the exception in the verse,

And never say of anything, ‘I will do that tomorrow’ * But only ‘If Allah wills’.... (18:23-4)

only states the exception, but not what is excepted (al-istithna’ al-mufarragh). It is implied that the exception includes all conditions or all times, and a conjunctive ‘by’ (ba’) should be assumed to connect the two verses. Hence, the meaning of the verse would be something like, ‘And never say of anything, “I will do that tomorrow” at any time or any condition, unless you accompany it by saying, “If Allah wills”.’

1. [Translator’s note. In accordance with the author’s argument, several meanings and interpretations have been put forward for many of the terms in these verses, and so the translations vary. Also, all these vows are to emphasise what follows in the following verses, about the hereafter.]

2. See Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani (Beirut, 198?), 30:280

3. Al-Mizan (Beirut, 1970), 14:81; ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, Tafsir al-Qummi (Beirut 1387/1968), 2:410. [Translator’s note. In addition to 83:1, the term wayl appears in several other occasions in the Qur’an.]

4. See Muhammad ibn Murtada (Mulla Muhsin) Fayd al-Kashani, Tafsir al-Safi (Tehran, 1416/1996), 1:31ff.

5. [Translator’s note. The natural universal (al-kulli al-tabi’i) is a quiddity (mahiyyah) that ‘possesses universality in the mind and is capable of corresponding to a multiplicity of things’ (whether mental or external). See ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, The Elements of Islamic Metaphysics (London, 2003): 47; trans. A.Q. Qara’i.]

6. See Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut, 1983), 54:306ff.; Muhammad Salih Mazandarani, Sharh-i Usul al-Kafi (Beirut, 1421/2000), 4:193.

7. [Translator’s note. See note 202 below.]

8. [Translator’s note. Jami’ is a being that is existentially superior to the other beings of its kind, called the individuals (afrad), such that the individuals are the manifestations of that superior being.]

9. The verse is: ‘On the day when the Spirit (ruh) and the angels stand in ranks; they speak not save whoever is permitted by the All-Merciful and speaketh aright’ (78:38). Maybe what ‘Allamah meant was that the verse hints at a sense of authority for the Spirit (ruh) over the angels.

10. See Chapter 5: Mystical Discourses.

11. ‘Allamah might have been referring to this verse: ‘There are guards [angels] for him [every person] before and behind him, protecting him from Allah’s command. Allah changeth not what a people are at until they change what is in themselves. And when Allah willeth misfortune for a people there is no turning it back, nor have they a guardian other than Him’ (13:11). In this verse, the ‘guards’ and their ‘protection from Allah’s command’ confirm the points of the discussion above.

12. Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Furu’) (Tehran, 1388/1968), 3:235, which reports four narrations in this regard with similar meaning.

13. [Translator’s note. The embodiment of deeds (tajassum al-a’mal) is the belief that one’s reward or retribution in the hereafter consists of the manifestation and appearing of his actual deeds being repaid to him; however, the reality of the deeds will only be realised at that time.]

14. Part of a long hadith about the signs of the resurrection; see ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, Tafsir al-Qummi (Beirut, 1387/1968), 2:307; and al-Mizan, 5:396.

15. See Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), Kamal al-Din wa Tamam al-Ni’mah (Qum, 1405/1984): 252 and 525ff.; al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-’Ummal (Beirut, 1409/1989), 14:282ff and 599ff.; See Ibn Majah Sunan Ibn Majah (Beirut, 1996), 4:396ff (Kitab Ta’bir al- Ru’ya); Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (Beirut, 197?), 5:353ff.

16. See al-Mizan, 13:395.

17. See Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq (Beirut, 1995), 2:233; and Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an (Beirut, 1995), 16:29.

18. [Translator’s note. He was none other than Toshihiko Izutsu.]

19. [Translator’s note. Note that letters like yā’ and ḥā’ have a hamzah at the end, but it is not included in abjad calculations since it has the same number as the preceding alif.]

20. See al-Mizan, 1:75.

21. As ‘Allamah explains later, it might be that the traversing (tayy al-ard) of less-than-perfect individuals is done through the perfect individuals. That is, whenever they want to traverse the earth, they can do so under the permission of a perfect person, who would appear right away and take them on tayy al-ard. Or he may take them to the desired destination merely by his will and without his appearance.

22. Muhammad Baqir Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar (Beirut, 1983), 12:29; ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi, Tafsir al-Qummi (Beirut, 1387/1968), 2:223; with its own line of transmission.

23. Hurr al-’Amili, Ithbat al-Hudah (Qum, 1959-60), 1:23.

24. [Translator’s note. Mubahalah (mutual cursing) is when two parties pray to God to put the wrong party in curse and damnation. It is a gnostic combat whereby each party – which claims to be rightful – uses its spiritual connection with truth, which is the source of every power in the world, in order to put down the other side. Verse 3:61 is known is the Verse of Mubahalah, and Najran is a city in Yemen.]

25. Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan (Beirut, 1995), 6:315.

26. One must obey Allah’s order because of Allah and because it is His order, not because of anything else. There are some short demonstrative arguments about this in al-Mizan, 8:26 that comprise a book of wisdom. It says, ‘His word is the truth; and it is incumbent that His order is obeyed because it is His order, not because of any maslahah (expediency, welfare) or for any good or benefit that it involves. Otherwise that would dismiss God of His Lordship (rububiyyah) and Mastership (mawlawiyyah), and would make considerations of expediencies and benefits central to everything. And since those considerations and benefits pertain to His creatures, that would set God on a par with the other things.’

7. Historical Discourses

In the name of Allah, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

Abrogation in the Noble Qur’an and its possibility based on the religion and the intellect

STUDENT. Some people believe that there is no naskh (abrogation, substitution of one verse for another) in the Noble Qur’an. Therefore they deny the existence of abrogating (nasikh) and abrogated (mansukh) verses (i.e. verses after and before the substitution of a law). However, we can see that some verses clearly abrogate some other verses, such as the Noble Verse of the Relatives (ulu al-arham; 8:75, see below). But why are some people so obsessed with and insistent on denying abrogation? Have they rejected the concept of abrogation because of any problem in it?

‘ALLAMAH. It is true that some deny abrogation (naskh) in the Qur’an, and apparently what they mean is that there are no abrogating and abrogated verses. But it seems undeniable that some verses are abrogating and abrogated with respect to one another. The case of giving charity for whispering with the Prophet is a very obvious one. It is about an order to the Noble Prophet that ‘Henceforth, any companion who wants to whisper something to you should have given something in charity first.’ That law was only carried out by Imam ‘Ali. The other Companions did not come anywhere close to performing it:1

O you who believe, when you whisper to the Messenger, offer something in alms before your whispering. That is better for you and purer. But if you cannot find [the wherewithal], Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (58:12)

Another example is the case of inheritance and revelation of the Verse of the Relatives’ (ulu al-arham). Early in Islam, the believers used to inherit from one another according to the Islamic brotherhood (ukhuwwah) that the Messenger of Allah had established between his Companions. But when the Verse of the Relatives was revealed, it substituted the previous law. So it was decreed that the individuals should inherit from one another based on family ties and not religious brotherhood.2

And those who have believed afterwards and emigrated and struggled with you, they are of you; and those related by blood are prior to one another in the book of Allah; truly Allah is All-Knowing of everything. (8:75)

The verse indicates that the inheritors should be family relatives, and thus it replaced the former law. There is another verse that,

Any verse that We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better one or the like of it. Knowest thou not that Allah is truly All-Powerful over everything? (2:106)

This verse clearly confirms abrogation, and leaves no room for doubt about it. And perhaps an even more evident verse is,

And when We substitute a verse in place of another verse – and Allah knoweth best what He sendeth down – they say, ‘Thou art but a forger.’ Nay, but most of them know not * Say: the Holy Spirit hath delivered it from thy Lord in truth, that it may confirm those who believe, and as guidance and good tidings for the submitters [to Allah]. (16:101-2)

These noble verses clearly maintain that the verses of the Qur’an may abrogate and substitute one another, and are subject to transformation and change. In the first verse, ayah (literally ‘sign’) obviously refers to the verses of the Noble Qur’an (which are also called ayah). It says that the enemies claim that this change is from Muhammad, and not from God, and that he has alleged it [to God]. So the next verse responds to them, saying to tell them that these verses, both the abrogated and the abrogating, are descended by Gabriel – the Holy Spirit (Ruh al-Qudus) – so as to bring about confidence for the hearts of the believers, and serve as guidance and good tiding for the Muslims [those who submit].

Abrogation means that the period and duration of the abrogated law was limited. That is, the former law was not decreed permanently, but only until the advent of the abrogating (new) law. Not only there is no problem with that, but in fact there must be abrogation in God’s laws and canons. It may very well be that certain laws are not enacted permanently; nevertheless they involve temporary merits and benefits. But at the same time it may not be desirable to disclose their impermanence from the beginning. In that case, the law is first prescribed unconditionally, and then it is abrogated after the achievement of the desired benefits and results.

So the idea of abrogation is that the abrogating (nasikh) verse indicates that the abrogated (mansukh) verse was only applicable for a certain period of time, but not any more. It is not that the second law contradicts the first law, but that it provides more information about it (i.e. its duration). And one cannot expect all the laws to be the same (in terms of permanence). Two laws may apparently seem to contradict one another, but that cannot be a real (haqiqi) contradiction. What has happened is that the first law was decreed due to some consideration and expediency (maslahah), but was then replaced by another law. As the settings and conditions have changed, thus have the laws.

And the reason why some insist on denying abrogation in the Noble Qur’an is that they think that it involves a contradiction, while there should be no contradiction in the laws. Once one recognises that abrogation means that one verse discloses the period and duration of the other verse – i.e. for how long the first verse was applicable – then there would be no contradiction, and abrogation would totally make sense.

Islam as the abrogator of the other religions

STUDENT. What is the evidence that the Noble Qur’an abrogated the Torah and the Gospel?

‘ALLAMAH. There are certain verses in the Noble Qur’an that indicate that the Islam is a new religion, independent of the previous religions:

He hath laid down for you a religion which He enjoined Noah, and that which We have revealed to thee, and what We enjoined Abraham and Moses and Jesus: To establish the religion and divide not therein. Hard for the polytheists is that thou callest them to. Allah attracteth to it [or Himself] whom He wills, and guideth to it [or Himself] who returneth. (42:13)

In other words, this verse clearly says that ‘what We enjoined Noah, and what We revealed to thee, and what We enjoined Abraham, Moses, and Jesus’ – i.e. the religions of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus and what We [meaning Allah] revealed to the Prophet – ‘We laid down and ordained all of these as a religion for thee.’ This laying down of a religion, even if it is the same as the former religions, is an abrogation. It dismisses the previous law, and composes and imposes a new law and religion. So one could say that any religion abrogates the previous religions, because it is a new decree.

STUDENT. Why do the Jews deny abrogation?3

‘ALLAMAH. It is apparently because they are not willing to recognise any divine book or celestial law sent after the Torah, which is a divine book. They claim that the Torah ended everything, and so there is no divine law after the Torah.

In fact the Verse of Abrogation (naskh) actually disproves this very idea. No power can constrain and restrict Allah as to not change His law. Abrogation is a custom of His, and He causes forgetfulness, and He is Powerful over everything:

Any verse that We abrogate or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better or the like of it. Knowest thou not that Allah is truly All-Powerful over everything? * Knowest thou not that truly to Allah alone belongeth the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and you have not any guardian or supporter apart from Allah? (2:106-7)

But the Jews maintain that Allah cannot abrogate a decree after its descension. That is, abrogation is not a constituent of God’s power or an element of His knowledge, and so God’s hands are tied up with regard to such matters:

And the Jews said, ‘Allah’s hand is enchained.’ Their hands be enchained, accursed they are for what they said. Nay, but His two hands are outspread; He bestoweth as He will.... (5:64)

They believe that God decreed the laws during the six days when He first created the heavens and the earth, and that was it and over with, and there is no further change or transformation. And the idea behind this way of thinking is the same as God’s hand being enchained and tied down – and Allah is the refuge [from such blasphemy]. Rather, His hands are open.4 His two hands are open, and He makes any change that He wills in the world of creation. He issues new laws based on new expediencies and circumstances.

The scribes of revelation

STUDENT. How did the scribes of the divine revelation, the Glorious Qur’an, use to record the revealed verses? Was it that whenever the Messenger of Allah received a revelation, he would then send for the scribes (kuttab, sing. katib) to come and write it down? For example, one of the scribes of revelation was Imam ‘Ali. But certainly he was not with the Messenger of Allah at all times. He might have been sent for a battle or on some other mission at the time of revelation.

And what about ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b and Zayd ibn Thabit? And what is the source of their different recitations (qira’ah)?

‘ALLAMAH. I have not seen any narration that the Messenger of Allah ever sent for one of the Companions or scribes of revelation to come and write down the revealed verses! It is [only] reported that they used to write the revelations that the Messenger of Allah received.

The scribes were Imam ‘Ali, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Zayd ibn Thabit and some others.

Later on, Zayd ibn Thabit was put in charge of the first compilation of the Qur’an, which was done under Abu Bakr’s caliphate. He was also involved in the second compilation of the Qur’an that was done by ‘Uthman and at his time. It was Zayd ibn Thabit who compiled the Qur’an and put it together.

And the different recitations have been attributed to different narrations (riwayah). That is, these recitations are how the reciters have narrated the Qur’an from the Messenger of Allah. And so is the case with the subsequent recitations, like that of ‘Asim, which is the prevalent recitation of the Qur’an. ‘Asim has reported his recitation through one intermediary from Imam ‘Ali. Each of these reciters has recited the Qur’an in a particular manner, and thus they differ from one another in their recitations. For example, the recitation of Ubayy ibn Ka’b is different from that of ‘Asim.

The different recitations of the Qur’an are narrated from the Messenger of Allah

‘ALLAMAH. In the history of Qur’an, the subject of different recitations is quite an issue and story in itself. Overall, even though the reciters have got their recitations from the Messenger of Allah, these recitations should not be considered as direct narrations from him. It does not seem to have been so.

What may be inferred is that at the time of the Noble Messenger, there were many individuals – about seventy or eighty or more – who were carriers of the Qur’an. They used to recite the Qur’an, learn it and then spread it among the people. And if they had any questions or problems, they would ask the Noble Messenger and he would clarify it for them. That is the overall picture.

Therefore their recitations are not the selfsame recitations of the Messenger of Allah. Neither did they invent these recitations on their own. It was that the Muslims saw the carriers of the Qur’an recite the Qur’an the way they did, and that they have received it from the Noble Messenger. Hence it was deduced that the recitation of this reciter or that companion went back to the Noble Messenger.

According to the historians, the Noble Messenger used to recite the Qur’an in two ways or more. Therefore the discrepancy in recitations is because of the recitations of the Messenger of Allah himself.

Gabriel used to come to the Messenger of Allah once every year, and would recite to him all of the Qur’an that had been revealed thus far. Thereby Gabriel would renew the revelation. Then the Prophet would recite it to the scribes based on Gabriel’s most recent recitation, and they would spread it among the people as such. That is how the revelation each year came to be different from the ones before it. Thus, the different recitations are rooted in Gabriel’s recitations through the years.

STUDENT. For each year that Gabriel descended and recited the whole Qur’an for the Messenger of Allah, would he then recite the whole Qur’an only for Imam ‘Ali for one year, only for Ubayy the next year, only for Zayd ibn Thabit in another year, and so on? That is, was it recited only for one scribe each year? Because otherwise, if the Honourable Messenger of Allah used to recite Gabriel’s recitation each year for everyone, then the recitations of the scribes should not have differed from one another. In that case, all of the scribes should have recited the same way each year, and only one’s own recitations would differ from year to year. But we see that the recitations of the scribes are different from one another.

‘ALLAMAH. No doubt that the recitations that they have narrated are very different and diverse. In the last year of his life, it is reported that the Noble Messenger said, ‘My life is over [this year]. And the evidence for it is that Gabriel came to me and recited the Qur’an twice this year, from beginning to the end. This is a sign of my departure.’5 And clearly reciting it twice means in two ways.

For these discussions, Suyuti’s al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al- Qur’an (in 2 volumes) is quite a good book. It clarifies these matters to some extent. Suyuti was truly an adroit scholar. He demonstrates some mastery in quoting and analyzing the narrations and reports, and is very well-versed and quite an authority in these matters. He is a master of narration (naql).

STUDENT. But still this problem should be solved, which is: was it that Ubayy ibn Ka’b had his own way of recitation of the whole Qur’an, Zayd ibn Thabit had his own way, and Imam ‘Ali had his own way? If so, then that means that the Messenger of Allah recited the Qur’an for [only] one person each year. But if he recited the Qur’an for everyone, then there should also be discrepancy within the recitations of each reciter.

‘ALLAMAH. No, it may have been that Ubayy recited the Qur’an one way in some year and another way in the next year and so on – a different recitation every year. Some claim this to have been the cause of the different recitations.

Ubayy’s recitations not only differ from those of the other reciters, but his recitations also differ from one another. And so is the case with the others. For example, ‘Asim has two disciples, who both report the Qur’an from beginning to the end from him; yet their recitations differ from one another. Both are reporting ‘Asim’s recitation, but in two different ways. The same is true about Ubayy, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and the others.

‘The King of the Day of Judgment’ is more inclusive and pertinent than ‘The Owner of the Day of Judgment’

STUDENT. Can we liken the different recitations to the different views of the experts of nahw (syntax, grammar)? Experts of nahw such as Sibawayh, Kisa’i and others use different sets of rules, such that one reads an Arabic poem in one way and the other reads it in another way. Thus they differ in inflectional morphology (i’rab). So maybe the differences between the recitations of Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Zayd ibn Thabit and the others are similar to that. They were all Arabs, proficient in the language, and adept in the fields of syntax (nahw) and literature. So they recited the way they did based on their mother tongue and the rules that they knew. Therefore the different recitations would be due to their personal judgments and interpretations.

‘ALLAMAH. No, that is not the case. It seems that their difference is due to narration; that is, they ascribe their recitations to the Messenger of Allah. For example, verse 1:4 has been recited in two ways: ‘The Malik (King) of the Day of Judgment,’ and ‘The Mālik (Owner, Master) of the Day of Judgment,’ and both are narrated from the Messenger of Allah. If both narrations are mutawatir (substantially repeated, and hence credible), it means that the Messenger of Allah used to recite the verse both ways.6

The reciters of Malik are more than the reciters of Mālik. Four out of the seven reciters (al-qurra’ al-sab’ah) have recited Malik, and the rest have recited Mālik. And intuitively Malik makes more sense, because a ‘day’ (yawm) is not usually attributed to an ‘owner’ (mālik). Instead, it is more appropriate for a day to have a ‘king’ (malik), as one would say, ‘the king of the day,’ not ‘the owner of the day.’

The late Qadi, may Allah’s mercy be upon him, used to recite the verse with Malik. And the commentary (tafsir) al-Kashshaf mentions why Malik is more inclusive and pertinent than Mālik.7

STUDENT. Who are ‘the seven reciters’ (al-qurra’ al-sab’ah)? And what are the ‘repeated’ (mutawatir) and ‘uncommon’ (shadhdhah) recitations?

‘ALLAMAH. There are seven reciters, known as al-qurra’ al-sab’ah, whose recitations are repeatedly narrated (mutawatir) from the Messenger of Allah. These recitations are considered credible. One of them is the recitation of ‘Asim, who narrates from the Messenger of God through one intermediary: Imam ‘Ali. And the other six recitations are similarly reported from, say, Ubayy, Ibn Mas’ud, and others. Since there are few intermediaries, the line reaches the Messenger of Allah quite fast.

And the shadhdhah (single, uncommon) recitations are those that the masters of recitation formed for themselves using the mutawatir ones. There are many shadhdhah recitations, three of which are quite famous, and together with the seven mutawatir ones, they make up ten well-known (ma’ruf) recitations. Other than those three, there are other uncommon recitations, which are mixtures of various recitations, and are called non-famous uncommon recitations (shadhdhah ghayra ma’rufah). Some people consider some or all of the three shadhdhah recitations to be mutawatir. So for them, the number of mutawatir recitations is more than seven.8

Compilation of the Qur’an by ‘Uthman, and the death of Ibn Mas’ud

‘ALLAMAH. Over four hundred (or seventy) reciters of the Qur’an were killed in the battle of Yamamah, which occurred at the time (caliphate) of Abu Bakr (11-13/632-4). Thus there was this threat that the whole Qur’an may be lost if the other reciters also got killed in future battles (because the Qur’an was not compiled and sorted out yet). So Zayd ibn Thabit was appointed to collect and compose the Qur’an at that time, and thus the Qur’an was first compiled at the time of Abu Bakr.9

But by the time of ‘Uthman’s caliphate (23-35/644-56) there had arisen many discrepancies in the recitation of the Book. So Ibn Mas’ud wrote to ‘Uthman, ‘Hurry up and save the Qur’an, for it is about to be lost due to the extent of discrepancies. Its recitation has become confused.’10 ‘Uthman took the word of Ibn Mas’ud and acted upon it. He ordered that all the Qur’ans – with the various recitations – to be brought to Medina, and gathered in some place. So there was this huge pile of these Qur’ans, which were written on wooden tablets, deer parchments, cattle shoulder bones and paper. They were all gathered together and set on fire.

But Ibn Mas’ud refused to hand over his own Qur’an, even though he was the first one to write to ‘Uthman that ‘The condition of the Qur’an is adverse. Do something for the Qur’an! Do something to protect this Divine Book from loss!’ It was following his message that ‘Uthman ordered for all the Qur’ans to be brought from the different cities. So the real call and motivation had started from Ibn Mas’ud.

He was in one of the counties outside Medina at the time of the burning. When he came to Medina and was informed of the matter, he said, ‘All my concern was to preserve the Qur’an! But this – the burning of the Qur’an – is even worse and more grievous. I will not hand in my Qur’an and will not let them burn it!’ So he did not submit his Qur’an at that time, and neither did he until his death. In fact, it was because of this very matter that he eventually lost his life.

When he came to Medina, he had two or three meetings with ‘Uthman, whom he criticised, condemned and rebuked; and that made ‘Uthman upset with him. One day ‘Uthman was speaking on the pulpit (minbar), when Ibn Mas’ud started criticising his actions in front of the public. ‘Uthman was enraged, and ordered his guards and minions to drag Ibn Mas’ud out of the mosque on his face. So they dragged him out of the mosque on his face, whereby one of his ribs broke. Thus he became ill as a result of that and finally passed away.

When Ibn Mas’ud was sick, ‘Uthman sent him a gift, which he rejected. ‘Uthman also sent him money, but he also rejected that. He rejected them all, saying, ‘I have no need for it. You abstained from giving when I had a need, and you give now that I have no need?’ He also said, ‘I will not consent to and will not let you take away and burn my Qur’an.’

Based on the narrations from the Ahl al-Bayt (the Household of the Prophet, peace be upon them), Ibn Mas’ud’s Qur’an did not include Chapters 113 and 114 (mu’awwidhatayn).11 That is, Ibn Mas’ud believed that these two chapters were not part of the Qur’an. They were two ‘udhahs (protective charms against evil and calamities) that Gabriel brought down from the heavens in order to protect Hasan and Husayn when they were sick. The two ‘udhahs were meant to be hung on their necks and recited to them so that they may recover. And that is what they did and thus they recovered.

Anyway, ‘Uthman maintained that the Qur’ans should be burnt for the good of the Muslims. But Ibn Mas’ud claimed that there was no such good to be sought through such an insult to the Qur’an and by burning the Book of Allah.

And when one thinks about it, it should have been quite easy to deal with this issue. They could have had the Qur’ans buried in some pure land, or kept in a holy place, or thrown in water.

The above are based on the Shi’a narrations. But according to the Sunni narrations, they did not burn the Qur’ans, but they boiled them in a cauldron of water, so that the letters written on the bones, tablets, and papers faded away.12

The Qur’an of Imam ‘Ali

‘ALLAMAH. According to one of the history books, Imam ‘Ali did not come out of his house after the Noble Messenger passed away. Thus some of the prominent Companions went to him and inquired, ‘Why do you not come out? Why do you not come to the mosque? Why do you not join the congregation of the Muslims?’13

‘I have vowed to not wear [my] cloak (‘aba’)’ he replied, ‘unless I have finished the ordering of the Qur’an and prepared its commentary and exegesis! So I am locked in here because of my vow!’ His preparation of the Qur’an took six months, whereby he ordered and arranged the chapters based on their chronological descension. That is, he placed Chapter 96 (al-’Alaq; the first chapter that was revealed to the Messenger of Allah) at the beginning, and the last chapter – perhaps Chapter 5 (al-Ma’idah) – at the end. Therefore Chapter 2 (al-Baqarah), which was revealed in Medina for instance, would have been positioned toward the end.14

Apart from arranging the chapters and verses in the order they were revealed, a further feature and merit of Imam ‘Ali’s Qur’an was that it included the circumstances in which the verses and chapters were revealed (sha’n al-nuzul). Therefore the chapters and verses that had a specific occasion in which they had descended were distinguished from the chapters that were revealed before them and after them, and were positioned between the two.15

That is how Imam ‘Ali organised the Qur’an, and he even included some exegetic and hermeneutic points. He prepared and finished the Qur’an in six months, then loaded it on a camel and brought it to the entrance of the mosque. ‘This is your Qur’an, which I have compiled and brought!’ he told the Companions who were in the mosque.

But they did not say anything! Thus he took the camel back home, and that Qur’an was never seen again.

That is according to the Sunni narrations (‘ammah). But according to the Shi’a narrations (khassah), when Imam ‘Ali loaded the Qur’an on the camel and brought it to the mosque and said, ‘This is your Qur’an!’ they replied, ‘We have no need for your Qur’an.’ They did not even inquire about it, and the Imam did not insist on it either. He simply redirected the camel and went home saying, ‘You will not see this Qur’an ever again, until the Resurrection!’16

Why is the name of Imam ‘Ali not mentioned in the Qur’an

STUDENT. Why is the name of Imam ‘Ali not mentioned in the Qur’an?

‘ALLAMAH. Had his name been in the Qur’an, they (the enemies and usurpers of the caliphate) would have changed and erased it. That is his own answer.17

The Qur’an has not been distorted

‘ALLAMAH. The Qur’an that we have, which was compiled by Zayd ibn Thabit at the time of Abu Bakr, is certainly the complete Qur’an. It does not have a single letter more or less than the original Qur’an. And the claim that the Qur’an has been distorted is invalid.

And the reason for it is that the authenticity of the ahad (singly narrated) traditions that talk about the Qur’an’s distortion (tahrif ) hinges on the authenticity of the word of the Imam who has said that narration. And the authenticity of the Imam’s word hinges on the authenticity of the word of the Prophet, who has appointed the Imam as his infallible successor. And the authenticity of the Prophet’s word hinges on the authenticity of the Qur’an, which has introduced him as an infallible leader, prophet, and guardian (wali). Meanwhile, even if a single letter were extra or missing in the Glorious Qur’an, then the whole Qur’an would be discredited. And that would in turn discredit all the narrations.

All Muslims concur on the authenticity of the Glorious Qur’an. On many occasions our Imams drew on the verses of the Qur’an as evidence for their contentions. They have affirmed the Qur’an’s authenticity, and there is no doubt or uncertainty on this subject.

When seventy or four hundred reciters of the Qur’an were killed in the battle of Yamamah at the time of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar went to Abu Bakr and insisted that the Qur’an should be compiled. ‘Currently,’ ‘Umar maintained, ‘the Qur’an is in the chests of its reciters. Should another battle come up and more reciters get killed, the Qur’an would vanish from the earth altogether. So we must gather the reciters and make a mushaf ’ – that is, put the Qur’an in a volume as a book with covers.

Thus Zayd ibn Thabit was appointed to compile the Qur’an. Twenty-five reciters from the Muhajirin (‘Immigrants’, the Meccans) and twenty-five reciters from the Ansar (‘Supporters’, the Madinites) were chosen to accept any verse that was brought in as a verse of the Qur’an and was testified to by two just witnesses.18 That is how the Qur’an that we see today was compiled and made into a volume, at the time of Abu Bakr. And our Imams have unanimously ordered us to recite the Qur’an as it is and with the arrangement that it has. They recited it as it is and so did their companions.

In compiling the Qur’an, they recorded any verse that was brought in. And if a verse came in two or three times, it was recorded in two or three spots, save for Chapter 1. Chapter 1 (al-Fatihah) was revealed to the Honourable Prophet twice, but was written only once, and all Muslims concur on this. Apparently Chapter 112 (al-Tawhid) was also like that; that it was revealed twice but recorded only once.

At any rate, as already mentioned, the claim that the Qur’an has been distorted is not credible. Such a claim would rely on the authority of the narrations and reports, and that relies on the authority of the word of the Imams and the Prophet, and in turn on the authority of the Qur’an. Therefore the narrations that affirm the distortion of the Qur’an would be nullify the authority of the Qur’an, and thereby they would invalidate themselves. They are self- refuting, and thus they are unacceptable.

The displacement of the verse ‘Today I perfected your religion for you’

‘ALLAMAH. Of course the position of some of the verses might have been changed, but that is different from the distortion of the Qur’an (which means dropping a part of it, or adding something extraneous to it).

As it appears – while Allah knows its truth better – I believe that in the whole Qur’an, from beginning to the end, there are two verses that have surely been displaced. For the other verses, it is possible to say that their positions have not been changed, and that could be justified. But it is not justifiable whatsoever for these two cases. The first one is in Chapter 5 (al-Ma’idah), and the second one is in Chapter 33 (al-Ahzab). The first one is:

... Today those who disbelieve have despaired of [harming] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me! Today I perfected your religion for you, and completed My bounty upon you, and approved Islam as your religion.... (5:3)

There is much evidence, including the verse itself and the verses before and after it, that leave no doubt that the position of this verse has apparently been altered.

They (the compilers, under the supervision of the usurpers of caliphate) positioned this verse after the description of the unlawful edibles, right between the excepted clause and the exception. They did this, so that the subjects may be mixed up; so that the reader would presume that this day – the day when the infidels lost hope of eradicating and spoiling the religion of the Muslims, the day when the Muslims should fear Allah, the day when the religion of the Muslims became complete and God’s bounty was perfected for them, and the day when Allah approved Islam for the Muslims – was the day when things like carrion, blood, pork and their likes were prohibited.

But note that the subject of unlawful edibles has appeared in four places in the Noble Qur’an. And in all of them, the subject is discussed in the same way, style, and tone. And each of these four cases is followed by the exceptions, that those who are desperate and under exigency may use these unlawful items.

It is only in this case (5:3) that there is a separation between the excepted clause (which states the unlawful edibles) and the exception, and there is no clear connection between the middle part of the verse and the rest of the verse. The misplacement that has occurred here becomes very clear when one compares this verse against the other three verses. The four exceptions that have been stated after the unlawful edibles are:

(1) ...But whoever is desperate, while neither desiring nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Truly Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (2:173)

(2 & 3) ... But whoever is desperate, while neither desiring nor transgressing, then truly Thy Lord is All- Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (6:145 & 16:115)

(4) ...But whoever is desperate in starvation, while not inclining to sin, then truly Allah is All-Forgiving, All- Compassionate. (5:3)

These are the four exceptions, which as we see have the same tone and style. And the complete verses about the unlawful edibles are:

He hath only prohibited for you all carrion, blood, and pork, and that which hath been slaughtered with saying other than Allah’s name unto it. But whoever is desperate, while neither desiring nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Truly Allah is All-Forgiving, All- Compassionate. (2:173)

Say: I find not in that which is revealed to me, prohibited to eat for an eater except it be carrion, or running blood, or pork, for it is [or they are] verily impure, or an ungodly thing slaughtered with saying other than Allah’s name unto it. But whoever is desperate, while neither desiring nor transgressing, then truly Thy Lord is All-Forgiving, All- Compassionate. (6:145)

He hath only prohibited for you all carrion, blood, and pork, and that which hath been slaughtered with saying other than Allah’s name unto it. But whoever is desperate, while neither desiring nor transgressing, then truly Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (16:115)

Prohibited for you are all carrion, blood, and pork, and that which hath been slaughtered with saying other than Allah’s name unto it, and the strangled, and the beaten, and the fallen from a height, and the gored, and that eaten by beasts of prey, except for what you decapitate [before dying], and that which hath been slaughtered on the altars, and to partition by the divining arrows. Those are ungodly. Today those who disbelieve have despaired of [harming] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me! Today I perfected your religion for you, and completed My bounty upon you, and approved Islam as your religion. But whoever is desperate in starvation, while not inclining to sin, then truly Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (5:3)

When we consider these verses side by side, we see that in the first three cases, the exception comes immediately after the unlawful edibles. However, in this last verse (5:3), even though the exception is the same as in the other verses – and so it should supposedly come right after the excepted clause – the sentence, ‘Today those who disbelieve have despaired of [harming] your religion...’ has separated between the excepted clause and the exception.

This sentence is about guardianship (wilayah) and has such a grand meaning and a supreme content. It is very evident that they (the enemies and the usurpers of the caliphate) have placed it here so that the subjects get mixed up, and that the people would not notice its meaning and not follow its message. This verse (sentence) of Guardianship speaks about the completion of the religion and the perfection of God’s bounty, with which there is no deficiency in Islam anymore, and with which Allah is pleased with this religion. It has been placed here so that the reader may think that these are about customary matters such as interaction with the infidels, their food being lawful for the Muslim and the food of the Muslims being lawful for them, and so on (see 5:5).

And the second occasion where the position of the verse has obviously been changed is the Verse of Purification (tathir) in Chapter 33 (al-Ahzab).

The displacement of the Verse of Purification

...People of the House, Allah only willeth to remove all impurity from you, and purify you such [thorough] purification. (33:33)

‘ALLAMAH. This verse is also placed where it has no connection with what is before and after it. The verses before and after it are all about the wives of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family). But this verse is about the Prophet’s Household (Ahl al-Bayt; which is a different group of individuals), and it has been placed in the middle of the other verses so that it may be mistaken and disguised. The verses as a whole are:

O wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other women if you observe self-restraint; so be not soft in speech, lest it lure he in whose heart is a sickness, but speak commendable words * And stay in your houses, and appear not in the public like the previous era of ignorance, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and obey Allah and His Messenger. People of the House, Allah only willeth to remove all impurity from you, and purify you such [thorough] purification * And evoke the verses of Allah and the Wisdom that is recited in your houses. Truly Allah is All-Subtle, All- Aware. (33:32-4)

In the part about the Prophet’s wives, there is no mention of Ahl al-Bayt, and nothing is said about them. There is no connection between that part and the Verse of Purification, where Allah addresses Ahl al-Bayt, telling them that He has removed all impurity and ignobility from them, and has purified them.

In fact, the above verses (apart from the Verse of Purification) only consist of two verses that are about the ‘Wives of the Prophet’ (nisa’ al-nabi). The first verse is, ‘O wives of the prophet, you are not like any other woman if you observe self-restraint; so be not soft in speech, lest it lure he in whose heart is a sickness, but speak commendable words.’ (33:32)

And the second verse is (should be),

And stay in your houses, and appear not in the public like the previous era of ignorance, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and obey Allah and His Messenger, and evoke the verses of Allah and the Wisdom that is recited in your houses. Truly Allah is All-Subtle, All-Aware.

These verses (verses 32, 34, and the first half of 33) concern the wives of the Prophet, whom are given certain instructions. And all of the pronouns and verb conjugates correspond to them. They are all in second person plural feminine form, like ‘you are not’ (lastunna), ‘you self-restrain’ (ittaqaytunna), ‘you be soft’ (takhda’na), ‘you speak’ (qulna), ‘you stay’ (qarna), ‘your houses’ (buyutikunna), ‘you appear in the public’ (tabarrujna), ‘you establish’ (aqimna), ‘you pay’ (atina), ‘you obey’ (ati’na), and ‘you evoke’ (udhkurna).19 But the address changes in the middle of the second verse by the introduction of an incongruent sentence about the Household of the Prophet. In that part, the pronouns and the verb conjugates correspond to the second person plural masculine form, like ‘from you’ (‘ankum) and ‘purify you’ (yutahhirakum). It is just like an incompatible patch; it clearly shows that it has no connection with the verses before and after it. It is evident that this sentence does not belong here.

But it has been brought here so that it may be disguised, and that the minds of the general public may be directed to the wives of the Prophet and associate the honour of purification and removal of impurities with them. As a result of inserting this extra part in the middle, they had to turn the second verse into two verses: one verse ending with ‘purify you such [thorough] purification’ (33:33), and the other ending with ‘All-Subtle, All-Aware’ (33:34). Thus the verses addressing the ‘Wives of the Prophet’ have turned into three verses.20

The change of qiblah, and the Prophet’s qiblah in Mecca

STUDENT. Was Bayt al-Muqaddas (‘the Sanctified House’, Jerusalem) specifically decreed as qiblah (direction of prayer) in the beginning when the Muslims used to pray toward it, or was it chosen as qiblah following the other religions?

‘ALLAMAH. In Noble Mecca, we know that the Messenger of Allah used to pray in Masjid al-Haram in such a way that he would face both the Ka’bah and Jerusalem. That is, he used to stand in front of the Ka’bah in such an angle that Jerusalem would also be in the same direction. But it was not like that when he migrated to Medina (it was not possible to face Mecca and Jerusalem at the same time). There, the Messenger of Allah and the Muslims used to pray toward Jerusalem, and so the Jews started censuring and taunting them for not having a qiblah of their own. The Jews kept rebuking the Muslims for that, until finally the verses of qiblah were revealed (2:142-50). And indeed, to pray while facing the Ka’bah is a splendid pillar of Islam.

STUDENT. In terms of established historical evidence, do we have any certain proof for the distortion (tahrif ) of ‘the two Testaments’ (ahdayn)?

‘ALLAMAH. The Noble Qur’an explicitly states that the Jews and the Christians distorted the two Testaments (the Torah and the Gospel).21 However, the Qur’an solidly maintains that not all of the two Testaments are distorted, but they still include parts that are true. In many cases the Qur’an challenges and argues against the Jews and the Christians based on the very Torah and Gospel that they had at the time.22 And there is also historical evidence for their distortion, and there are also some accounts mentioned within the Torah and the Gospel that confirm their distortion.

Revelation of the Torah to Prophet Moses

STUDENT. Was the Torah (Tawrah) revealed to Prophet Moses (peace be upon our prophet and his family and upon him) during the selfsame forty nights that he had gone to talk to God at His rendezvous? What were the tablets on which the Torah was written made of? And where is Mount Tur?

And how was the Gospel (Injil) revealed? Did the Apostles (hawariyyun) of Jesus Christ write the Gospels during his time or later on? And were they all pious and righteous or not?

‘ALLAMAH. It is true that the Torah consisted of some tablets (alwah) that were sent down upon Moses in Mount Tur over a period of forty days; but it is not quite certain whether those were the same forty nights of supplication or not. So Prophet Moses took the tablets and headed back for his people, but he dropped them as he was angry (about his people worshipping the Calf). Therefore some of the tablets were broken. And the tablets were all made of emerald (zumurrud), which God had created and originated from sheer non-being (ex nihilo). In the (current) Torah there are certain historical accounts, stories, exempla, and episodes that cannot be attributed to a divine book; there are lots of strange and bizarre things. There have been fewer alterations in the Gospel compared to the many in the Torah.

There is no doubt that the Torah was revealed to Prophet Moses in Mount Tur (Mount Sinai), which is in the Sinai Desert in Egypt.23 If one sails in the Red Sea from Egypt toward Mecca, the Sinai Desert would be on the right. The Torah was revealed entirely in those forty days, and Prophet Moses collected the tablets and took them to his people. But since a lot of them did not obey, God raised Mount Tur and suspended it above their heads:

And [recall] when We made a covenant with you, and raised over you the Mount, [that] ‘Firmly adhere to that which We have given you, and give ear.’ They said, ‘We heard and we disobey,’ and [the adoration of] the calf was sunk in their hearts because of their disbelief. Say [unto them]: Evil is that which your belief orders you, if you are believers. (2:93)

This suspension of Mount Tur was both a threat and a punishment for them, so that they may prostrate and submit to the truth. Some of them prostrated and accepted the truth that they were told, while others said other things (like asking for an idol, or wanting to see God).

Initially, Prophet Moses’ successor was chosen to be his brother, Prophet Aaron. But Aaron passed away in Tayh (in the Sinai Peninsula), and so Elisha (al-Yasa’, Yusha’ ibn Nun) became Prophet Moses’ successor:

And make mention of Ishmael and Elisha (al-Yasa’) and Dhu al-Kifl. All are among the righteous. (38:48)

Revelation of the Gospel to Prophet Jesus

‘ALLAMAH. The story of how the Gospel was revealed is more ambiguous than that of the Torah. Was the Gospel revealed as a divine Scripture upon Prophet Jesus? Or is it his teachings? Or was it compiled in another way? It is not quite clear. At any rate, all of the Gospels were written after the ascent of Prophet Jesus (to the heavens). Some one hundred and twenty Gospels were written, four of which were accredited and officially recognised by the Church. They were the Gospels of Luke, John, Mark, and Matthew. The other one hundred and sixteen were rejected, and they are still rejected, meaning that they are not being used.

At some point in history, there appeared the Gospel of Barnabas, which made quite a turmoil. But it was finally rejected and discredited, as it matched the teachings of Islam and Qur’an for the most part, and included tidings about the Prophet Muhammad.24

The Apostles of Prophet Jesus, and monasticism

‘ALLAMAH. The Apostles were the specific disciples and the chosen companions of Prophet Jesus. God, Exalted is He, instructed them to embrace faith, and thus they became His supporters (ansar):

O you who believe, be supporters of Allah, as Jesus son of Mary said to the Apostles, ‘Who are my supporters unto Allah?’ The Apostles said, ‘We are supporters of Allah.’... (61:14)

The Apostles have been mentioned more than once in the Qur’an. In addition to the above verse, they are also mentioned in these verses:

And when Jesus sensed disbelief in them, he said, ‘Who are my supporters unto Allah?’ The Apostles said, ‘We are supporters of Allah. We believe in Allah, and thou [bear] witness that we are submitters * Our Lord, we believe in what Thou hast sent down, and we follow the Messenger; inscribe us therefore with those who bear witness.’ (3:52-3)

And [recall] when I inspired the Apostles that ‘Believe in Me and in My Messenger,’ they said, ‘We believe, and [bear] witness that we are submitters’ * [And recall] When the Apostles said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, is thy Lord able to send down upon us a table of meal from heaven?’ He said, ‘Observe your duty to Allah, if you are believers.’ (5:111-12)

It is said that all of the Apostles were righteous and virtuous people, except for one of them, who revealed the location of Prophet Jesus when the enemies were searching for him. But just as the enemies were about to capture Prophet Jesus, he ascended to the sky and left the people for good.

There were twelve Apostles, and except the one that turned out corrupt, they all maintained the custom of Prophet Jesus. Following his approach, they all decided to not get married, not establish any housing or dwelling for themselves, and not settle in any city.25 Instead, they constantly travelled from city to city and from town to town in order to propagate the religion of Prophet Jesus. Thus they adopted monasticism (ruhbaniyyah) and solitude, and even though the Exalted Allah had not initially decreed monasticism (for them), He was pleased with it:

Then We kept sending Our messengers after them [Noah and Abraham], and We sent following [them] Jesus son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed kindness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. And a monasticism they initiated – We did not prescribe it for them – only seeking Allah’s pleasure, but they observe it not as it deserved to be observed. So We gave those of them who believed their rewards, and a lot of them are evil-doers. (57:27)

The Christians did not observe the conditions and requirements of monasticism as they should have been observed, and failed to do justice to it. But at any rate, the Apostles succeeded in spreading the word and establishing a complete proclamation all around the world.

STUDENT. Is it true that the celibacy of Prophet Jesus is a sign of imperfection?

‘ALLAMAH. It is not a sign of imperfection, but it is a sign of his spirituality and transcendence, for he did not become involved in this world whatsoever. He did not get married and did not take up any lodging or abode in this world. He had a peculiar state of being.

But the Noble and Honourable Messenger (of Islam) had a comprehensive (jami’) character, as he fully took up and digested the various features and aspects of this life. And marriage in particular is a distinct custom of the Messenger of Allah.

And of His signs is that He created for you spouses of yourselves, that you may find repose with them, and He set between you care and mercy. Surely in that are signs for a people who contemplate. (30:21)

Prophet Joseph was a mukhlas

STUDENT. Based on some reported narrations, God took away the line of the prophets from Prophet Joseph’s progeny as a result of his abandoning a preferred action (tark al-awla). (After Joseph had become the king (of Egypt), his father along with his family left Canaan (Kan’an) for Egypt to see him. They entered the palace while he was sitting on the throne, and he did not stand up in respect for his father. Or (according to other narrations) he preceded his father when they wanted to mount a horse.)26

But then why did God place the line of prophethood in the descendants of his other brothers, even though they had committed a great crime, which was throwing their brother Joseph into the well and inflicting the pain of his separation upon their old father?

‘ALLAMAH. ‘The good deeds of the pious are evil deeds for the intimates.’27 Given his spiritual rank and divine intimate standing, Joseph’s abandonment of a preferred action (tark al-awla) might have been more crucial than the others’ throwing him down the well.

Not to mention that the Qur’an explicitly says that Prophet Joseph was a mukhlas (chosen, one who is made sincere by Allah),28 and the chosen never sin. Hence, based on that verse, one could reject all those narrations and count them apocryphal.

Platonism

STUDENT. Some people claim that Plato did not accept the religion of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon our prophet and his family and upon him) saying, ‘This religion is for people with weak intellects. I cannot adopt it for I have already reached the reality.’ Is this true or made-up?

‘ALLAMAH. That is not true, because Plato lived (about) five hundred years before Prophet Jesus. Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, who was the teacher and a chief minister of Alexander of Macedonia, whose era is documented in history (d. 323 BCE).

Plato was the founder of an illuminative school of theosophy (hikmat al-ishraq) and was the master of the stoics.29 Divine realities and gnosis were unveiled to him by means of austerity, spiritual combat, and inner purification. And Aristotle founded the Peripatetic school, which does not rely on esoteric (batini) means of knowledge whatsoever. He built his philosophy purely on rational demonstration (burhan).

Note that the book Theology of Aristotle (Uthulujiya), which is attributed by some to Aristotle, is in fact by Plotinus, who was a Neoplatonist. This book is concise and to the point, and is based on illuminative theosophy. But its attribution to Aristotle is a mistake.30

And hereby the conversations of this lowest with my teacher and master, Honourable ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, come to an end. Of course these were only my formal conversations that I had recorded in writing. Otherwise I have immensely benefited from meeting with the Honourable ‘Allamah here and there, whether the meetings were recorded or not, and have used his teachings in many of my writings. May Allah reward his superb efforts and resurrect him with Muhammad and his family, the best of people.

1. See Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur (Beirut, 197?), 6:185.

2. See ibid., 3:207.

3. [Translator’s note. This is widely agreed upon by Jewish scholars, and is the ninth principle among the thirteen principles attributed to Maimonides (1204). See M. Shapiro (1993) ‘Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?’ The Torah U-Madda Journal, vol. 4, pp. 187-242.]

4. [Translator’s note. As ‘Allamah has mentioned in al-Mizan (under the above verse), in Arabic, yad (hand) alludes to power, and ‘two hands’ is used to indicate maximum power. In many places in the Qur’an we see Allah speaks of His ‘two hands’, meaning utmost power.]

5. See Ibn Babawayh al-Qummi (Shaykh al-Saduq), al-Amali (Qum, 1417/1996): 692; Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Istanbul, 1981), 6:101.

6. See Tirmidhi, Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut, 1983), 4:257.

7. Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf ‘an Haqa’iq al-Tanzil wa ‘Uyun al- Aqawil (Beirut, 199?), 1:9. [Translator’s note. Note that ‘Allamah also recited the verse with Malik (King) and so did the author in the later part of his life. See S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani, Nur-i Malakut-i Qur’an (2nd ed., Mashhad, 1421/2000), 4:474.]

8. [Translator’s note. For a comprehensive discussion on the different recitations and their credibility see S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani, Nur-i Malakut-i Qur’an, 4:415-65.]

9. See Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:210; Suyuti, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al- Qur’an (Beirut, 2001), 1:208 and 245-6.

10. [Translator’s note. This and the following quotations from Ibn Mas’ud should be taken as paraphrases rather than literal, word-for-word quotations.]

11. [Translator’s note. ‘The correct inflectional form of the term is mu’awwidhatayn – as a subject [i.e. that which gives refuge] – and the common form of mu’awwadhatayn – as an object – is a mistake.’ Baha’ al-Din Muhammad ibn Husayn al-’Amili (Shaykh al-Baha’i), Miftah al-Falah (Beirut, 1324/1906): 252.]

12. [Translator’s note. All of the above, even the ones mentioned as Shi’a narrations, have been narrated by prominent Sunni authorities: Ibn al-Athir, al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (Beirut, 1965), 3:112; Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharh Nahj al-Balaghah (Cairo, 1959-), 3:40-5; Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad (Beirut, 1978), 5:130; Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari (3rd ed., Beirut, 198?), 9:18; Suyuti, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al- Qur’an, 1:208ff. For Shi’a sources see Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj (Najaf, 1386/1966), 1:222-3; Ya’qubi, Tarikh (Leiden, 1969), 2:196-7.]

13. [Translator’s note. The quotations in this story should be taken as paraphrases rather than literal, word-for-word quotations.]

14. See Suyuti, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, 1:209 and 248; Ibn al- Nadim, al-Fihrist (Beirut, 1988): 30; Hakim al-Haskani, Shawahid al-Tanzil (Tehran, 1990), 1:36ff.

15. For the order in which the chapters of Qur’an were revealed see Shaykh al-Tabarsi, Majma’ al-Bayan (Beirut, 1995), 10:211; exegesis of Chapter 76 (al-Dahr); Suyuti, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, 1:57ff.; Ibn al-Nadim, al-Fihrist: 28-30.

16. See Ya’qubi, Tarikh, 2:152ff.; Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj, 1:105, 107 and 281; Kulayni, al-Kafi (al-Usul) (Tehran, 1388/1968), 2:633; Kitab of Sulaym ibn Qays, no. 4, part 2.

17. See Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj, 1:379

18. See note 226 above.

19. [Translator’s note. In Arabic, unlike English, the second person plural feminine verb conjugates and possessive pronouns are distinct from the other persons. All of the mentioned terms are distinct from the pronouns and conjugate forms of second person plural masculine form, which appear in the Verse of Purification.]

20. According to Ayatollah Sayyid Sharaf al-Din ‘Amili, the Verse of Purification is a separate sentence (istitradiyyah) that has appeared between the two verses before and after it (al-Kalimah al-Gharra’ fi Tafdil al-Zahra’, published in one volume with al-Fusul al-Muhimmah fi Ta’lif al-Ummah (5th ed., Najaf, 1964): 213-14). He writes:
Independent or separate (istitradiyyah) sentences that appear within one’s speech are common in the words of eloquent speakers. This usage involves the interruption of a series of connected orderly sentences that follow one another. Some examples from the Noble Qur’an are:

‘…Indeed this is a guile of you women; surely your guile is great. * Joseph, turn away from this; and thou [woman] ask forgiveness for thy sin….’ (12:28-9)

‘…Truly when the kings enter a city they disorder it and make its honourable inhabitants disgraced; and that is what they do. * Indeed I will send them a present, and see what the emissaries bring back.’ (27:34- 5)

‘No! I swear by the positions of the stars. * And that verily is a tremendous oath, [only] if you knew. * It is surely a noble Qur’an.’ (56:75-7)

Likewise, the Verse of Purification has appeared as a separate independent statement in the middle of the verses addressing the Prophet’s wives. The separate addition here shows that Allah’s address to the Prophet’s wives – including His commands, prohibitions, and guidelines – is only mentioned in service of His high regard and attention for the Ahl al- Bayt. That is, when addressing the wives of the Prophet, the separate addition indicates that the Ahl al-Bayt are clear from any blame, censure, and ignominy, and in this they are different from everyone, including the Prophet’s wives. Or it may be to prevent the hypocrites from making use of the [shortcomings of] the Prophet’s wives to object and argue against the Ahl al-Bayt. This precious point demonstrates the eloquence, perfection, and miracle of the Noble Qur’an, and it hinges on having this separate addition in these verses.

21. See 2:75-6, 159, 174; 3:70-1, 78, 98-9, 187; 4:44, 46, 5:13-15, 41; 19:30-7; 62:5.

22. See 3:65-6, 84, 93, 113-14, 199; 4:66, 68, 77, 82-5; 5:43-7, 60, 66, 68, 72; 6:91; 7:157; 9:111; 48:29; 57:27; 61:6.

23. See 19:52; 28:29, 44-6.

24. [Translator’s note. For a detailed discussion on the compilation and history of the Torah and the Gospels, as well as the Gospel of Barnabas see S.M.H. Husayni Tihrani, Nur-i Malakut-i Qur’an, 4:254- 93.]

25. [Translator’s note. According to the Gospels, Peter had a mother- in-law whom Jesus met; See Matthew 8:14, Luke 4:38, and Mark 1:30.]

26. [Translator’s note. See Fayd al-Kashani, Tafsir al-Safi (Tehran, 1416/1996), 3:47-8. Also note that according to most scholars and exegetes, what is meant by Joseph’s mother in the above account (and in 12:100) is his aunt. See Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, 12:319.]

27. [Translator’s note. Apparently this is not an established hadith, though it has also been reported as a prophetic hadith (al-Turayhi, Majma’ al-Bahrayn [Qum, 1988], 1:235). Nevertheless it is an accepted doctrine among most Muslim scholars.]

28. ‘She verily desired him, and he would have desired her had he not seen the proof of his Lord. Thus it was, that We may turn away from him evil and indecency. Truly he was of Our chosen servants.’ (12:24)

29. [Translator’s note. Plato was not himself a stoic, as the school of stoicism was founded later on by Zeno (d. 262 BCE). ‘Allamah seems to be aware of that, and his point here is apparently about the major influence of Plato’s thoughts on this school.]

30. [Translator’s note. The book is identified as Porphyry’s paraphrase and abridgement of books 4-6 of Plotinus’ Enneads; but it became known as the Theology of Aristotle. See F. Klein-Franke, ‘Al-Kindi’ in History of Islamic Philosophy, ed. S.H. Nasr & O. Leaman (London, 2001): 171.]

8. Epilogue

And hereby this memorial to ‘Allamah Tabataba’i and his discourses is concluded on 13 Rabi’ al-Thani 1402 (8 February 1982). To Allah is all praise and to Him is all gratitude. It is by Allah’s grace that I passed the best days of my life, the past two months and three days, in constant thought and remembrance of my superb teacher and master. And I have been supplicating and asking mercy for the luminous spirit of that honourable deceased in the Sanctified Threshold of Allah’s Eighth Proof. I want to put down this pen, but it is begging me, ‘Just a little more! Just a few more words!’

‘Allamah’s endurance of allegations and difficulties in the way of Allah

Let me finish this work by quoting what ‘Allamah told me one day when he had come to my house for lunch. After lunch he said,

One day in the noble city of Najaf, I was sitting in a state of attention and trance (khalsah) after the morning prayer, when I saw Hadrat ‘Ali ibn Ja’far, peace be upon him and his father. He approached me and came so close that it was as if I could feel his breath on my face. Thereupon he said, ‘The concept of unity of being (wahdat al-wujud) is amongst the certain principles of us Ahl al-Bayt.’1

Then ‘Allamah continued, ‘So nice are these words of Sa’di:

The path of reason is but turns and twists;
In the world of gnosis, it’s only God that exists.
Well-understood by the people of the truth;
But deductive minds always resist:

‘So what is the sky, and the earth that’s so wide?
And men and animals, and all in the midst?’
Whatever they are, if He is a Being,
It’s wrong to say that they too subsist.

The wave of the ocean is huge in thy eye,
The luminous sun penetrates the mist;
People of appearance do not understand,
The world of the gnostics, what does it consist:

The seven oceans are only a drop.
The sun is naught, but a mote in His fist.
Should the King of all raise His flag,
The world will fade, and nothing will persist.’

And added, ‘So nice are these words of ‘Abd al-Karim Jili in al-Insan al-Kamil (The Perfect Man):2

Every being, you shall know, without confusion,
Is an illusion, in illusion, in illusion.

And no one is alert but the people of truth,
Who are with God, in old age and in youth.

At different levels, they are indeed;
The higher the perfection, the more is the heed.

Their exalted positions are known to all;
For them, and not others, greatness shall befall.

Indulged in His Essence, and Attributes of God;
Honoured by their Lord, as a noble squad.

At times they enjoy the beauty of their Lord;
At times they immerse, in His majesty and His sword.

The Divine Essence flows in their veins;
The joy of Essence is the final goal to attain.’

‘Allamah’s brilliant ode on loving Allah

As a memorable closing it is appropriate to mention an ode by our honourable teacher and master, and hope for the prayers of his spirit. ‘Allamah composed this ode about taking the heart away from all other than God, and loving and showing affection for the Beauty and Majesty of Allah. In terms of similes, metaphors, and poetic devices, it is at the utmost degree of elegance and eloquence. It is unbelievable that this ode – with all its poetic subtleties – is by someone whose mother tongue was (Azeri) Turkish, such that his accent was noticeable when he used to speak, and for whom Arabic and Persian were second languages. At the same time he was a man of asceticism, worship, and night vigils; and a perfect example of piety and world-renunciation.

I say as I’ve said again and again:
A religion of love, is that which I retain;

One’s insobriety defines his prayer;
Those who’re mindful are out of this affair.

The masters of the heart care not for food,
Or rest, or sleep, or a joyous mood.

The entrapped lover has only a share
Of a heart full of pain, and eyes full of tear.

The town of passion has a wall in between
One’s desires, and the love of unseen.

So many Farhads, in mountains they died;
So many Hallajs, on gallows were tied.3

Except the heart, the love, and their fusion,
What’s in the world, other than illusion?

But the free spirits of the divine choir,
In this carrion, showed no desire.

The liberated souls of lovers of God,
Removed the chains of whim and facade.

They freed themselves of this body of mud;
They coloured the roses, red with their blood.

The spring is a time of prizes and gain,
The flowers obtain showers of rain;

A green garment, on meadow and plain;
The blossoms fill up the garden’s domain.

The flowers reflect on the nearby stream,
Their forms and patterns, are all like a dream.

The flowers blend in, with the lily,
The blossoms are dancing graciously.

The buds are opened with the morning breeze;
The nightingale sings its chants with ease.

The cypress plays and the jasmine leads;
The tunes of the harp, and the song of the reeds.

The beautiful face, its brow, and its line,
As you remember, have a drink of wine.

Thus you will find the problems have shrunk,
The mysteries are revealed, when one goes drunk.

The world is nothing but illusion in a night
That shut the eyes of the kings to the light.

Do not give in to the future’s concern,
It’s a dream like the past, and that you should learn.

Be not deceived by the world! Beware!
A field of flowers, with thorns everywhere.

Goblets of wine, is all that you need,
If they want to catch you, pay them no heed.

O Allah, effuse Thy continued peace and blessing upon the first determination of Lordly diffusions and the last one who descended from Thee toward humankind; about whom Thou hast said, ‘And We have not sent thee save as a mercy for everyone’ (21:107); as long as the heavens and the earths stand, by the rank of Muhammad and his pure and noble progeny, Thy peace and mercy be upon them all.

Written in the sanctified city of Imam Rida, Mashhad, and by his grace, peace be upon him, 13 Rabi’ al-Thani 1402 (8 February 1982).

By the transient hands of the powerless, humble, poor, nondescript Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tihrani.

1. In his conversations, ‘Allamah often invoked the verse, ‘And that the final end is truly unto thy Lord’ (53:42). And at times of difficulty and hardship he used to say, ‘And Allah it is Whose help is to be sought’ (12:18).
If he ever came to know that someone had maligned him, made false allegations about him, or said exaggerated and extreme accusations against him in order to thrash his mystical approach and philosophical style, he would never retaliate whatsoever. He would not seek to respond or counteract in any way. And obviously such allegations were made quite often in the dogmatic seminaries (hawzahs) that were devoid of the Qur’an, exegesis (tafsir), narrations, ethics, mysticism, philosophy, and the intellectual sciences. They were rather a bunch of people sitting around a table of darkness, busy with fighting over the petty commodities of this world and rivalling over worldly fame and recognition.

But ‘Allamah migrated from Tabriz and settled in the precinct of Hadrat Ma’sumah (Imam Rida’s sister, may God’s mercy be upon them) in order to put an end to such views and attitudes, and in order to enlighten the young students about the divine mysteries, realities, and spiritualities of Islam. Of course some people did not approve of his way and approach, so they tried to put out his light by deceitful and demagogic ascriptions. They employed the special cunnings and tricks with which they had lived all their lives in order to render the sacred hawzah clear of philosophy and mysticism. Whenever the news of these actions and ruses reached him, ‘Allamah used to say, ‘But the evil plot befalleth only on its people [who make it]’ (35:43). Their actions were exactly demonstrative of this verse of the Qur’an: ‘They want to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah perfects His light, though the disbelievers are averse’ (61:8).
‘Allamah used to receive a lot of unsigned letters full of swearing, nonsense, false allegations, cursing, and vain, made-up and pointless words. They were so many that I came to think – and also heard from others – that he did not read the unsigned letters anymore. So one day I told him, ‘It has been said that the matter has gone so far that when you open the envelopes, you first look at the place of signature, and put the unsigned letters aside right away without reading them!’ He smiled gracefully, ‘I read all of the letters. Regrettably I also read the unsigned ones!’

2. Abd al-Karim Jili, al-Insan al-Kamil (Misr, 1981), 2:42.

3. [Translator’s note. Farhad is a legendary lover in Nizami’s Khusraw wa Shirin; a stonecutter who rolled himself down the mountain in suicide when he heard the false news of the death of his beloved, Shirin. Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (d. 309/922) is a famous Sufi who was hanged because of claiming, ‘I am the Truth’ (ana al-Haqq).]

Notes on Prominent Figures Cited in the Book

Prominent figures mentioned in the book have been listed in alphabetical order, according to the name by which they are best known. Where years are given according to the Islamic lunar calendar, ‘BH’ refers to the number of years before the hijrah. Corresponding years in the Gregorian calendar have been given after the stroke.

ABŪ BAKR IBN ABĪ QUḤĀFAH (c. 50 BH - 13 AH /573-634) The Prophet’s father-in-law, an early convert to Islam, and the first caliph after the Prophet’s death; known as ‘al-Ṣiddīq’ (most truthful). He is buried in Medina.

ABŪ ḤANĪFAH, NU‘MĀN IBN THĀBIT (80- 150/699-767 ) One of the Imams of the four major Sunni schools of law. He was among the Followers (tābi’īn), and attended the lectures of Imam Ṣādiq for two years. His school is considered more radical in legal injunctions than the other three schools.

ABŪ JAHL (d. 2/624) ‘Amr ibn Hishām, known as Abu al-Ḥakam before Islam, but the Muslims titled him Abū Jahl (‘Father of Ignorance’) for his utmost enmity and cruelty against them. He was killed in the Battle of Badr.

‘ALÏ IBN ABĪ ṬĀLIB (c. 23 BH - 40 AH /600-61) The cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, the first Imam of the Shi’a, and the fourth caliph, who was born in the Ka’bah. The Shi’a use the title Amīr al-Mu’minīn (Commander of the Faithful) exclusively for him. Nahj al-Balāghah is a collection of his sermons, letters, and sayings. He is buried in Najaf.

‘ALÏ IBN AL-ḤUSAYN AL-SAJJĀD (38- 95/659-713) The fourth Imam of the Shi’a; the only adult male survivor of the battle on ‘Ashūrā’; known for the extent of his worship and prayer. Al-Ṣaḥīfah al-Sajjādiyyah is a collection of his supplications, and Risālat al-Ḥuqūq is an epistle of his description of one’s duties in various regards. He is buried in Medina.

‘ALĪ IBN JA‘FAR (130-220/748-835) The youngest son of the sixth Imam, a reliable transmitter of narrations, and a learned and pious saint to the Shi’a. He saw at least four of the Imams, starting from his father. He is buried in ‘Arīḍ near Medina.

‘ALÏ IBN MŪSĀ AL-RIḌĀ (148-203/765-818) The eighth Imam of the Shi’a. He was summoned by al-Ma’mūn (Abbasid caliph) from Medina to Marw by force to be announced as the caliph’s successor, but al-Ma’mūn himself poisoned him. He is buried in Mashhad.

‘ĀMILĪ, BAHĀ‘ AL-DĪN MUḤAMMAD (953-1031/1547-1621) Known as Shaykh Bahā’ī, and a master of a wide range of disciplines, he was an influential scholar in establishing Shī’ism as the official religion under the Safavid rule in Persia. He has poems in both Arabic and Persian, and among his many works are Miftāḥ al-Falāḥ, Kashkūl, and Jāmi’-i ‘Abbāsī. He is buried in Mashhad.

AMĪNĪ, ‘ABD AL-ḤUSAYN (1320- 90/1902- 70) A scholar who bore much hardship in order to compose al-Ghadīr fī al-Kitāb wa al-Sunnah (11 vols.) based on narrations reported by Sunni authorities. The book addresses many points of disagreements between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. He is buried in Najaf.

ĀMULĪ, MUḤAMMAD TAQĪ (1304 -91/ 1887- 1971) A student of Mr Qāḍī in ethics and of Ayatollah Nā’īnī in law; and a Source of Emulation (marja’) in Tehran. He wrote commentaries on Sabzivārī’s Manẓūmah and Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ishārāt wa al-Tanbīhāt.

ANṢĀRĪ, SHAYKH MURTAḌĀ (1214 - 81/1799-1864) A prominent Shi’a scholar, who was unanimously chosen as the Source of Emulation after the death of Ṣāḥib al-Jawāhir. He was a student of Mullā Aḥmad Narāqī and Sayyid ‘Ālī Shūshtarī in ethics.

ĀQĀ BUZURG ṬIHRĀNĪ, MUḤAMMAD MUḤSIN (1293-1389/1875-1970) The author of two major books of reference: al-Dharī’ah ilā Taṣānīf al-Shī’ah, which is an encyclopedia of Shi’a books (26 vols.), and Ṭabaqāt A’lām al-Shī’ah, which is an encyclopedia of Shi’a scholars (20 vols.). He is buried in Najaf.

ĀSHTIYĀNĪ, MAHDĪ (1306-72/1889-1953) An expert of a variety of traditional and modern sciences, most notably philosophy. He widely travelled abroad, and has glosses on Sabzivārī’s Manẓūmah. He is buried in Qum.

‘ĀṢIM IBN ABĪ AL-NAJŪD (d. 127/745) One of the Followers (tābi’īn) and the narrator of the most authentic recitation of the Qur’an.

BĀDKŪBAH‘Ī, SAYYID ḤUSAYN (1293-1358/ 1876-1939) Prominent philosopher in Najaf and the teacher of MuÎammad Taqī Àmulī, ‘Allāmah, and his brother. He is buried in Najaf.

BAHMANYĀR, ABŪ AL-ḤASAN (d. 458/1067) A convert to Islam, a Peripatetic philosopher, and Ibn Sīnā’s student.

BAḤR AL-’ULŪM, SAYYID MAHDĪ (1155-1212/ 1742-97) The most prominent Shi’a scholar of his time, highly spiritual and extremely learned. He was the head of the ḥawzah of Najaf, where he passed away. He is famous for having met Imam Mahdī several times.

BALĀGHĪ NAJAFĪ, JAWĀD (1282-1352/1865 - 1933) An eloquent scholar who dedicated his life to defending Islam and Shī’ism against the doubts and questions raised by other sects and religions. Among his books are al-Tawḥīd wa al-Tathlīth (Unity and the Trinity), al-Raḥlah al-Madrasiyyah wa al-Madrasah al-Sayyārah fī Nahj al-Hudā on the Old and New Testaments (3 vols.), and al-Radd ‘alā al-Wahhābiyyah (Refuting Wahhābism). He is buried in Najaf.

BĀYAZĪD BASṬĀMĪ (188-261/804-74) A great Sufi master, known as the Sultan of the Mystics, credited with founding the school of intoxication (sukr) in Sufism. He is buried in Basṭām.

BIHĀRĪ, MUḤAMMAD (d. 1325/1907) An intimate student of Mullā Ḥusayn-Qulī Hamadānī in mysticism. He is the author of Tadhkirat al- Muttaqīn (in Persian), a collection of the speeches and letters concerning spiritual wayfaring. He is buried in Bihār near Hamadān.

BURŪJIRDÏ, ‘ALÏ MUḤAMMAD (1312-95/ 1895-1975) A full-fledged jurist who was transformed when he became a student of the late Qāḍī, whereby he adopted silence and refused to become a Source of Emulation. He lived in simplicity and piety, and is buried in Burūjird.

BURŪJIRDÏ, SAYYID ḤUSAYN (1292-1383 /1875-1963) He studied in Iṣfahān and Najaf and was unanimously accepted as the Source of Emulation by the Shi’a. He was a significant figure in expanding the ḥawzah of Qum. A collection of Shi’a narrations was composed under his supervision, titled Jāmi’ Aḥādīth al-Shī’ah (26 vols.). He is buried in Qum.

CORBIN, HENRY (1903-78) A French thinker who introduced Shī’ism and later Islamic philosophy to the West. He had many interviews with ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī over several years.

DHI‘LAB AL-YAMĀNĪ (c. 1st/7th century) One of Imam ‘Alī’s companions; known for his courage and eloquence.

DHŪ AL-QARNAYN A righteous king of yore, whose story has been mentioned in the Quran (18:83-98).

FĀRĀBĪ, ABŪ NAṢR (257-339/871-950) Muslim Peripatetic philosopher and logician, known as the Second Teacher (second to Aristotle). He was also a political philosopher, following Plato’s Republic. He is buried in Damascus.

FĀṬIMAH BINT ASAD Imam ‘Alī’s mother and the Prophet’s guardian for several years. She was an early Muslim, migrated to Medina, and died there before the Prophet.

FĀṬIMAH AL-MA’ṢŪMAH (173-201/ 790-816) The daughter of the seventh Imam of the Shi’a, Mūsā Kāẓim. The city and the ḥawzah of Qum are centred around her mausoleum.

FĀṬIMAH AL-ZAHRĀ‘ (c. 8 BH-11 AH /615-32) The Prophet’s daughter, Imam ‘Alī’s wife, and one of the fourteen Infallibles (ma’ṣūmīn) in Shī’ism. She is buried in Medina.

FAYḌ AL-KĀSHĀNĪ, MUḤAMMAD IBN MURTAḌĀ (1007- 91/1598-1680) Known as Mullā Muḥsin; a Shi’a scholar who had mastered law, philosophy, and mysticism. He was Mullā Ṣadrā’s son-in-law and his student in philosophy. He has many works in various fields like tafsīr, ḥadīth, and ethics; his works include Ṣāfī, Aṣfī, Wāfī, and Maḥajjat al- Bayḍā’, not to mention his Persian poetry. He is buried in Kashan.

GHARAWĪ IṢFAHĀNĪ, MUḤAMMAD ḤUSAYN (1296-1361/1878-1942) Also known as Kumpānī; Shi’a scholar and philosopher. He was ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s teacher of philosophy in Najaf, where he is buried.

GULPĀYIGĀNĪ, SAYYID MUḤAMMAD RIḌĀ (1316-1414 /1898-1993) Shi’a scholar and Source of Emulation, who sponsored the building of many schools, mosques, and hospitals. He perfomed the funeral prayer of ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī. He is buried in Qum.

ḤABBŪBĪ, SAYYID MUḤAMMAD SA‘ĪD (1266-1333/1850-1915) One of the top students of Mullā Ḥusayn-Qulī Hamadānī in mysticism; also an adept poet and scholar. He called for holy war against the British army as it invaded Iraq. He is buried in Najaf.

ḤĀFIẒ SHĪRĀZĪ, KHWĀJAH SHAMS AL-DĪN MUḤAMMAD (726-92/1317- 92) A first-class Persian poet and Sufi critic. His Dīvān is also used in performing divinations and fortune-telling. He is buried in Shīrāz.

HAMADĀNĪ DARJAZĪNĪ, ĀKHŪND MULLĀ ḤUSAYN-QULĪ (1239-1311/1824-94) Shi’a scholar and a matchless spiritual master, who trained many individuals such as Mīrzā Jawād Āqā Malikī Tabrīzī, Sayyid Aḥmad Karbalā’ī and Shaykh Muḥammad Bihārī. He studied philosophy under Ḥājj Mullā Hādī Sabzivārī, and was a student of Sayyid ‘Alī Shushtarī in ethics. He is buried in Karbalā’.

ḤASAN IBN ‘ALĪ (3-50/625-70) The Prophet’s grandson and the second Imam of the Shi’a, known as Mujtabā. He was forced into accepting Mu’āwiyah’s caliphate after the assassination of his father, Imām ‘Alī. He is buried in Medina.

HISHĀM IBN AL-ḤAKAM (d. c. 179/795 or 199/814) An intimate companion of the Sixth and Seventh Imams. He is known for his mastery in polemics and debates in defending Shī’ism.

ḤUJJAT KŪH-KAMARĪ, SAYYID MUḤAMMAD (1310-72/1893-1953) Shi’a scholar and ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s teacher of rijāl (science of narrators) in Najaf. He founded the famous Ḥujjatiyyah School in Qum, and was an influential figure in establishing and supporting the ḥawzah there, where he is buried.

ḤURR AL-‘ĀMILĪ (1033-1104/1624-93) Shi’a jurist and traditionalist. Among his notable works are Wasā’il al-Shī’ah, Ithbāt al-Hudāh, and Jawāhir al-Saniyyah fī Aḥādīth al-Qudsiyyah. He is buried in Mashhad.

ḤUSAYN IBN ‘ALĪ (4-61/626-80) The grandson of the Prophet and third Imam of the Shi’a. He rose against the Umayyad rule and was killed in Karbalā’, where he is buried. The day of his death is known as ‘Āshūrā’ (the tenth of Muḥarram), and the Shi’a mourn and lament its anniversary every year.

BN ‘ABBĀS, ‘ABDULLĀH (c.3 BH - 68 AH/618-87) The cousin and companion of the Prophet and Imam ‘Alī. He is known as the ‘exegete’ (mufassir) of the Qur’an. He died and is buried in Ṭā’if.

IBN AL-‘ARABĪ, MUḤYI AL-DĪN (560-638/1165-1240) The most prominent Sufi thinker, known as the Greatest Master (Shaykh al-Akbar). He opened up new frontiers to ‘irfān and Sufism by elaborating on topics such as unity of being, the perfect man, and the imaginal world. He has often been charged with heresy by various groups. Among his many works are Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam and Futūḥāt al-Makkiyyah. He is buried in Damascus.

IBN AL-FĀRIḌ, ‘UMAR (576- 632/1181-1235) Born, lived, and buried in Egypt; one of the most eminent Arab poet-mystics. His elegant poems are often used in teaching Sufism.

IBN MAS‘ŪD, ‘ABDULLĀH (d. c. 32/653) The sixth person who embraced Islam and a recorder and reciter of the Qur’an. His objections to the third caliph lead to his death. He is buried in Medina.

IBN MISKAWAYH, AḤMAD IBN MUḤAMMAD (320- 421/932-1030) Prominent Muslim philosopher and physician; esteemed by the Buyid rulers; and author of many works in mathematics, natural sciences and metaphysics. He is famous for his work on ethics, Ṭahārat al-A’rāq. He is buried in Iṣfahān.

IBN RUSHD (AVERROES), MUḤAMMAD IBN AḤMAD (520-95/1126-98) Muslim Peripatetic philosopher, who had the biggest impact in medieval Europe as the commentator and transmitter of Aristotle’s thoughts. He is buried in Cordoba.

IBN SĪNĀ (AVICENNA), ABŪ ‘AL ḤUSAYN (363-428/974-1037) Prominent Muslim philosopher; known as Shaykh al-Ra’īs; mastered all sciences of his time by the age of eighteen; lived a turbulent life as a vizier and physician of the court; most notable for his Shifā’ and Ishārat wa al-Tanbīhāt in philosophy, and Qānūn in medicine. He is buried in Hamadān.

IBN ṬĀWŪS, SAYYID ‘ALĪ (589-664/ 1193-1266) Shi’a scholar and mystic, famous for having met with Imam Mahdī several times. He has many works such as Iqbāl al-A’māl, al-Malhūf, Falāḥ al-Sā’il and al-Yaqīn. He is buried in Ḥillah.

IBN TURKAH, ṢĀ‘IN AL-DĪN (771-835 /1368-1432 ) Muslim philosopher, who blended Peripatetic philosophy with the teachings of the schools of illumination and Ibn al-’Arabī in Shi’a esotericism. He is most famous for his Tamhīd al-Qawā’id, a commentary on his grandfather’s Qawā’id al-Tawḥīd. He is buried in Herat.

IBN UMM MAKTŪM, ‘ABDULLĀH (c. 1st/7th century) A blind, poor, but sincere companion of the Prophet, and a caller of prayer (mu’adhdhin). The Prophet left him in charge in Medina on several battles.

IBRĀHĪM IBN MUḤAMMAD (8-10/630-631) The Prophet’s son from Māriyah Qibṭiyyah (Mary the Copt). His early death was a great sorrow for the Prophet. He is buried in Medina.

IṢFAHĀNĪ, SAYYID ABŪ AL-ḤASAN (1284-1365/1867-1946) Shi’a scholar, the only major Source of Emulation (marja’) after Ayatollah N’āīnī’s death, and ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s teacher in fiqh and uṣūl in Najaf. He is buried in Najaf.

IZUTSU, TOSHIHIKO (1914-93) Japanese scholar of Islamic studies and the first translator of the Holy Qur’an from Arabic to Japanese. He met ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī during his career at the Imperial Iranian Academy of Philosophy in Tehran. He has many publications such as Sufism and Taoism: A Comparative Study of Key Philosophical Concepts, Toward a Philosophy of Zen Buddhism, and the English translation of The Metaphysics of Sabzavari (in collaboration with Mehdi Mohaghegh).

JĀBIR IBN ‘ABDULLĀH AL-ANṢĀRĪ (c. 16 BH - 78 AH/607-97) A companion of the Prophet, who lived long enough to see up to the fifth Imam. He was an intimate follower of the Household of the Prophet.

JA‘FAR IBN MUḤAMMAD AL-ṢĀDIQ (80-148 / 699-765) The sixth Imam of the Shi’a, and a descendant of Abū Bakr from the mother’s side. He witnessed the fall of the Umayyad rule and the rise of the Abbasids to power. The socio-political conditions of his time gave him the opportunity to educate many students in a range of Islamic sciences. He is buried in Medina.

JAHĀNGĪR KHĀN QASHQĀ’Ī (1243-1328/1827-1910) An expert of philosophy and theology in Iṣfahān, and a teacher of Ayatollahs Burūjirdī, Nā’īnī, and Gulpāyigānī.

JĀMĪ, NŪR AL-DĪN ‘ABD AL-RAḤMĀN (817-98/1414-92) A prominent Sufi of the Naqshbandi order, an excellent Persian poet, and a commentator of Ibn al-’Arabī. Among his many works are Nafaḥāt al-Uns, Lawā’iḥ, and Asha’at al-Lama’āt (a commentary on ‘Irāqī’s Lama’āt). He is buried in Herat.

JĀMĪ (AL-NĀMAQĪ), ABŪ NAṢR AḤMAD (440-536/1048-1141) Known as Shaykh al-Islam and Zhandah Pīl; a great Sufi master and Persian poet. He has many books, mainly in Persian, such as Uns al-Tā’ibīn, Sirāj al-Sā’irīn, and Miftāḥ al-Najāh. He is buried in Turbat-i Jām.

JAMĪL IBN DARRĀJ (2nd/8th century) A close companion of the Sixth and Seventh Imams, who has been highly praised by both Imams. The Shi’a view him among the most reliable transmitter of narrations.

JĪLĪ, ‘ABD AL-KARĪM (767-826/1365-1423 ) A Sufi master and an exponent of Ibn al-’Arabī. Among his works are al-Insān al-Kāmil and al-Kahf wa al-Raqīm.

KARBALĀ‘Ī ṬIHRĀNĪ, SAYYID AḤMAD (d. 1332/1914) A student of Mullā Ḥusayn-Qulī Hamadānī and the spiritual guide and master of Sayyid ‘Alī Qāḍī. He is buried in Najaf.

KASHMĪRĪ, AḤMAD A close student of the late Qāḍī. He became infected with tuberculosis, and thus Mr Qāḍī ordered him to return to Kashmīr, where he died.

KASHMĪRĪ, SAYYID ḤASAN A student of the late Qāḍī who resumed Sayyid Aḥmad Karbalā’ī’s discourses with Muḥammad Ḥusayn Gharawī Iṣfahānī and finally convinced him that the philosophers’ gradation of being should be forsaken for the gnostics’ unity of being.

KASHMĪRĪ, SAYYID MURTAḌĀ (1268-1323/1852-1905) Shi’a scholar in a variety of fields, highly spiritual, and the teacher of Āqā Buzurg Ṭihrānī. He is buried in Karbalā’.

KISĀ‘Ī, ‘ALĪ IBN ḤAMZAH (d. 189/805) Arabic linguist and one of the seven authorities in recitation of the Qur’ān. He is the founder of the Kūfī School of naḥw, and author of many works on the Qur’ān and naḥw (Arabic syntax). He is buried in Rayy.

KHIḌR An ancient prophet who is believed to be living until the end of the world. He has particularly become a symbol of esoteric knowledge and guidance in Sufism.

KHŪNSĀRĪ, SAYYID ABŪ AL-QĀSIM (d. 1380/1960) ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s teacher of mathematics in Najaf.

KHŪNSĀRĪ, SAYYID MUḤAMMAD TAQĪ (1305-71/1888-1952) Shi’a scholar and Source of Emulation. He was an influential figure in establishing and supporting the ḥawzah of Qum, where he taught.

MA‘ARRĪ, ABŪ AL-‘ALĀ’ AḤMAD IBN ‘ABDULLĀH (363-449/973-1057) An expert of the Arabic literature and highly intellectual. He taught many students, and was a prolific writer despite being blind since childhood. He was opposed to slaughtering animals and thus did not eat meat for forty-five years. He was also against marriage and composed a line to be written on his gravestone: ‘This is my father’s crime against me, but I committed not this crime against anyone.’

MAHDĪ, AL-ḤUJJAT IBN AL-ḤASAN (b. 255 / 869) The twelfth and last Imam of the Shi’a; named after the Prophet; his sobriquets include Ḥujjat, Mahdī and Imam al-Zamān (Leader of the Time). He became Imam at age five when his father passed away, and was accessible through four regents until 329/941. Since then he has been in the Greater Occultation (al-ghaybat al-kubrā). According to Shī’ism, he will appear some day and establish justice all over the world.

MAJLISĪ, MUḤAMMAD BĀQIR (1037-1111/ 1628-1700) Shi’a scholar and the head of all religious affairs in Persia at his time. Best known for Biḥār al-Anwār (110 vols.); but he has many other works, such as Ḥilyat al-Muttaqīn and Ḥaqq al-Yaqīn in Persian. He was born and buried in Iṣfahān.

MALIKĪ TABRĪZĪ, MĪRZĀ JAWĀD ĀQĀ (d. 1343/1925) A student of Mullā Ḥusayn-Qulī Hamadānī, teacher of Ayatollah Khomeini in ethics, and the author of several books including al-Murāqibāt, Risālah-yi Liqā’ Allāh, and Asrār al-Ṣalāh. He is buried in Qum.

MĀMAQĀNĪ, ‘ABDULLĀH (1290-1351/1873-1932) A great Shi’a scholar of knowledge and piety. He is author of many works, most notably Tanqīḥ al-Maqāl fī Aḥwāl al-Rijāl, which is the most comprehensive work on Shi’a rijāl (science of narrators).

MA‘MŪN, ‘ABDULLĀH IBN HĀRŪN (170-218/786-833) The seventh Abbasid caliph who inherited the vast empire of his father after killing his older brother, Amīn. He was a highly intellectual and learned caliph, and endorsed scientific discussions and activities.

MARANDĪ, ‘ALĪ AKBAR (1314-1414/1897-94) A student of the late Qāḍī and Ayatollahs Nā’īnī, Gharawī Iṣfahānī, and Bādkūbah’ī. He was an active supporter of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

MASQAṬĪ (RAḌAWĪ IṢFAHĀNĪ), SAYYID ḤASAN (1297-1350/1880-1931) A student of the late Qāḍī. He used to be dressed in iḥrām (two pieces of unstitched cloth) toward the end of his life, and died while in prostration. He is buried in Hyderabad.

MA‘ṢŪM ‘ALĪ SHĀH, MUḤAMMAD (1270-1344/ 1853-1926) A Shi’a Ni’matullāhī Sufi and the author of Ṭarā’iq al-Ḥaqā’iq (3 vols.), which is an encyclopaedia of Sufi figures.

MĪLĀNĪ, SAYYID MUḤAMMAD HĀDĪ (1313- 95/1895-1975) Shi’a scholar and Source of Emulation, for whom ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī had a special regard. After studying and teaching in Najaf and Karbalā’, he settled in Mashhad, where he used to meet with ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī during the summer. He is buried in Mashhad.

MUFÏD, MUḤAMMAD IBN MUḤAMMAD (336-413/ 948-1022) Prominent Shi’a jurist and theologian; an expert in debates, and the teacher of Sayyid Murtaḍā and Shaykh Ṭūsī. Among his many works are al-Irshād (2 vols.), al-Amālī, and al-Jamal. He is buried in Kāẓimayn.

MUGHNIYYAH, MUḤAMMAD JAWĀD (1322-1400/1904-79) A pious scholar and defender of Islam, and the Shi’a judge of Beirut for a while. Among his many works are Fī Ẓilāl Nahj al-Balāghah (4 vols.) and Tafsīr al-Kāshif (7 vols.). He is buried in Najaf.

MUḤAMMAD IBN ‘ALĪ AL-BĀQIR (57-114/676-733) The fifth Imam of the Shi’a, and the son of Imam Ḥasan’s daughter. The declining Umayyad rule gave him the opportunity to revive and spread the Islamic sciences and set the grounds for his son, Ja’far. He is buried in Medina.

MUḤAMMAD IBN ‘ALÏ AL-TAQĪ AL-JAWĀD (195-220/811-835) The ninth Imam of the Shi’a, who became Imam at age seven, yet he was the leading figure of his time in Islamic sciences. Ma’mūn (Abbasid caliph) gave him his daughter in marriage, through whom the Imam was later poisoned by the instigation of a later Abbasid caliph, Mu’taṣim. He is buried in Kāẓimayn.

MURTAḌĀ MŪSAWĪ, SAYYID (SHARĪF) ‘ALĪ IBN AL-ḤUSAYN (355-436/966 -1044) Prominent Shi’a scholar in intellectual and transmitted sciences; also known as ‘Alam al-Hudā (‘Emblem of Guidance’); and the younger brother of Sayyid (Sharīf) al-Raḍī, the compiler of Nahj al-Balāghah. He has many works, including Amālī, al-Intiṣār, and Tanzīh al-Anbiyā’. He is buried in Karbalā’.

MŪSĀ IBN JA‘FAR AL-KĀẒIM (128-183/745-99) The seventh Imam of the Shi’a. He was imprisoned by the Abbasid ruler, Hārūn, for several years until his death. He is buried in Kāẓimayn.

MUṬAHHARĪ, MURTAḌĀ (1338-99/1920-1979) A student of ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī and Ayatollah Khomeini; teacher of Islamic philosophy and theology at the ḥawzah of Qum and the University of Tehran; and a prolific writer on a variety of issues. He was assassinated shortly after the Islamic Revolution, in which he was an active figure. He is buried in Qum.

NĀ‘ĪNĪ, MUḤAMMAD ḤUSAYN (1276-1355/1860-1936) Shi’a scholar and Source of Emulation (marja’), and ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī’s teacher in fiqh and uṣūl in Najaf, where he is buried.

NAKHJAWĀNĪ, IMĀM-QULĪ Shi’a mystic, and the teacher of Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥasan Shīrāzī and Mr Qāḍī’s father in ethics.

NARĀQĪ, MULLĀ MAHDĪ (1128-1209/1716-95) Shi’a scholar and prolific writer in law, mathematics, philosophy, theology, and ethics. He is a grandfather of the author, and his Jāmi’ al-Sa’ādāt (3 vols.) in ethics is particularly notable. He is buried in Najaf.

QĀḌĪ, SAYYID ‘ALĪ (1282-1366/1866-1947) Shi’a scholar in many fields, but especially notable as a Shi’a mystical (Sufi) master. He trained many students including ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī and his brother, and Sayyid Hāshim Ḥaddād. He resided in Najaf, where he is buried now.

QĀḌĪ, SAYYID ḤUSAYN Shi’a scholar, a student of Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥasan Shīrāzī, and the father of Sayyid ‘Alī Qāḍī.

QASSĀM, ‘ALĪ A student of the late Qāḍī, with whom ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī studied Arabic literature.

QAZWĪNĪ, SAYYID QURAYSH Shi’a mystic, and the teacher of Imam Qulī Nakhjawānī in ethics.

QŪCHĀNĪ (HĀTIF), ‘ABBĀS (d. 1411/1991) A student and appointed successor of the late Qāḍī in Najaf, with whom the author studied ethics during his years of study there.

RAḌĪ, SAYYID (SHARĪF) MUḤAMMAD IBN AL-ḤUSAYN (359-406/970-1015) Shi’a scholar, the compiler of Nahj al-Balāghah, and himself a master of Arabic literature. He was the older brother of Sayyid al-Murtaḍā. He is buried in Karbalā’.

RŪMĪ , MAWLĀNĀ JALĀL AL-DĪN MUḤAMMAD BALKHĪ (604 -72/1205-73) A first-class Sufi and a productive Persian poet. He is best known for his Mathnawī and Divān-i Kabīr (Shams), which have been translated into many languages and are widely known in the West. He is buried in Konya (Qūniyah).

SABZIVĀRĪ, (ḤĀJĪ) MULLĀ HĀDĪ (1212-89 /1797-1872) The most prominent philosopher after Mullā Ṣadrā and a follower of his school. He is also notable for his asceticism and also for his elegant poetry. He has glosses on many works of Mullā Ṣadrā and on Rūmī’s Mathnawī, though he is most famous for his Ghurar al-Farā’id, known as the Manẓūmah. He is buried in Sabzivār.

SA‘D IBN ‘UBĀDAH (d. 11/632 or 15/636 ) The head of Khazraj (one of the two major tribes in Medina), and an active supporter of Islam after the Prophet’s migration. He was known for his generosity, for feeding others, and for sheltering the refugees. He refused to pay allegiance to the first two caliphs after the Prophet’s death. Thus, he was obliged to leave Medina for Syria, where he was mysteriously killed.

SA‘DĪ SHĪRĀZĪ, MUṢLIḤ AL-DĪN (c. 606-90/1209-91) The fluent master of Persian poetry who widely travelled and is best known for his Gulistān and Būstān. He is buried in Shīrāz.

ṢADR, SAYYID MŪSĀ (1347-/1929- ) Shi’a scholar, a student of ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī in Qum, fellow student of the author, and an active Muslim leader in Lebanon. He has been missing since he was taken captive in his trip to Libya in 1398/1978.

SALMĀN AL FĀRSĪ (d. 35/656) A Persian sage who left his homeland in search of the Noble Prophet. He was captured and sold as a slave, but after much hardship met the Prophet, and became a close companion of the Prophet and later Imam ‘Alī. He was honoured by the ḥadīth, ‘Salmān is one of us Members of the Household [Ahl al-Bayt].’ He is buried in Madā’in.

SHARABYĀNĪ, MUḤAMMAD (1248-1322/1832-1904) Shi’a scholar and Source of Emulation, and a student of Shaykh Anṣārī. Died 17 Ramadan 1322 AH. He is buried in Najaf.

SHĪRĀZĪ, MĪRZĀ SAYYID MUḤAMMAD ḤASAN (1230-1312/1815-95) Shi’a scholar and Source of Emulation; teacher of Sayyid Ḥusayn Qāḍī; famous for ruling the trade and usage of tobacco unlawful for the Iranians, as a move against the government’s handing over the entire industry to a foreign company.

SHĪRĀZĪ, ṢADR AL-DĪN MUḤAMMAD (979-1050/ 571-1641) Known as Ṣadr al-Muta’allihīn and Mullā Ṣadrā; a reviver of Islamic philosophy and the founder of transcendent theosophy (al-ḥikmat al-muta’āliyah). He is known for doctrines such as the principality, gradation and unity of being, transubstantial motion, and the unity of the knower and the known. Among his works are al-Asfār al-Arba’ah (4 vols.), al-Ḥikmat al- ‘Arshiyyah, al-Mabda’ wa al-Ma’ād, Kitāb al-Mashā’ir, as well as many glosses and Qur’anic commentaries. He is buried in Basra.

SHŪSHTARĪ, SAYYID ‘ALĪ (1222-81/1807-65) Shi’a scholar and the spiritual master of Mullā Ḥusayn-Qulī Hamadānī. He was also teacher of ethics for his fiqh teacher, Shaykh Murtaḍā Anṣārī, and continued the Shaykh’s fiqh course after his death. He is buried in Najaf.

SĪBAWAYH, ‘AMR IBN ‘UTHMĀN (d. 180/796) Known as the Leader of the Grammarians, he founded the Baṣrī School of naḥw, and is the author of the well-known al-Kitāb in naḥw (Arabic syntax). He is buried in Shīrāz.

SUHRAWARDĪ, ABŪ AL-FUTŪḤ SHIHĀB AL-DĪN YAḤYĀ (549-87 /1154- 91) Known as Shaykh al-Ishrāq and Maqtūl. He founded the School of Illumination in philosophy and systematically introduced the concept of the imaginal world. He was executed at the order of Saladin in Aleppo.

SUYŪṬĪ, JALĀL AL-DĪN (849-911/1445-1505) Shāfi’ī scholar, linguist and exegete of the Qur’an, who knew over a hundred thousand traditions by heart, with their lines of transmission. Among his many works are al-Durr al-Manthūr (6 vols.), al-Jāmi’ al-Ṣaghīr (2 vols.) and al-Itqān fī ‘Ulūm al-Qur’ān (2 vols.). He is buried in Cairo.

ṬABĀṬABĀ‘Ī ILĀHĪ, SAYYID MUḤAMMAD ḤASAN (1325- 88/1907-68) The younger brother of ‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī, who received his education in Najaf, and taught at the ḥawzah of Tabrīz until his death. He is buried in Qum.

ṬŪSĪ, KHWĀJAH NAṢĪR AL-DÏN MUḤAMMAD (597-672/ 1201-74) Prominent Muslim philosopher, theologian, astronomer and mathematician; the vizier of Ïlkhānid ruler Hulāgū, and the founder of the Marāghah Observatory. He played an important role in the fall of the Abbasid dynasty, preventing the loss of the libraries and scholars in the Mongol attack, and the spread of Shī’ism in Iran. He composed many works, notably Tajrīd al-’Aqā’id, Akhlāq-i Nāṣirī and Awṣāf al-Ashrāf. He is buried in Kāẓimayn.

UBAYY IBN KA‘B (d. 22/643) A Jewish convert to Islam and one of the most learned Companions of the Prophet. He was one of the scribes and reciters of the Qur’an. He is buried in Medina.

‘UMAR IBN AL-KHAṬṬĀB (c. 40 BH - 23 AH /581-644) The second caliph, and the first person to become known as Amīr al-Mu’minīn. The Islamic territory greatly expanded during his caliphate as a result of several Muslim conquests. He is buried in Medina.

USĀMAH IBN ZAYD (c. 7 BH - 54 AH/615-74) The son of the Prophet’s adoptee. The Prophet appointed him as the head of an army to fight the Romans right before his death in 11 AH. However many individuals refused to follow him on the account of the Prophet’s severe illness.

‘UTHMĀN IBN ‘AFFĀN (c . 47 BH - 35 AH /574 -656) The third caliph, whose caliphate set the grounds for the Umayyad dynasty. He was married to two of the Prophet’s daughters (one at a time). He was buried in Medina.

WALĪD IBN MUGHĪRAH (d. 1 AH/623) A man of high social status and a wealthy merchant in Mecca at the advent of Islam. He was Abū Jahl’s uncle, and a great enemy of the Prophet until his death.

ZAYD IBN THĀBIT (c. 11 BH-45 AH/610-65) An early Muslim, a knowledgeable companion of the Prophet, and one of the scribes of revelation. The Qur’an was compiled under his direction during the caliphates of Abū Bakr and ‘Uthmān.

Glossary of Key Transliterated Terms

ab father

‘abā’ cloak

abad eternal end

Abadī Eternal

abjad science of letters and numbers

‘adad number

‘adam non-being

adhān call for prayer

‘adl justice

af ‘āl actions

afqah more knowledgeable in Islamic law

afrād individuals

Āḥād singly reported narrations

aḥdayn the two Testaments

aḥkām juridical rulings

Ahl al-Bayt Household of the Prophet, the 14 Infallibles

aḥqāf sandy deserts

al-akbar greater

akhbārī traditionalist

Ākhir al-zamān end of the universe

akhlāq ethics

a’lam more knowledgeable

‘Ālam realm, world

‘Ālam al-amr Realm of Command, immaterial world

‘Ālam al-khalq Realm of Creation, corporeal world

‘Ālam al-mithāl imaginal world, intermediate realm

‘alaqah blood-clot

al-’Alīm All-Knower

Āl-i Yāsīn the family of Yāsīn (ahl al-bayt)

‘allāmah most learned (title)

‘Allāmah Ṭabāṭabā’ī

alwāḥ Tablets

‘āmmah Sunni Muslims

amthāl wa ṣuwar ideas and forms

ānā’ al-layl wa aṭrāf al-nahār day and night

anāniyyah ‘I-ness’, egocentricity

anṣār supporters

aqānīm elements, principles

‘Āqil knower

‘aql intellect, reason, beings that are immaterial in essence and action

al-’aql al-awwal First Intellect

‘ara
accident

al-’ara
al-mufāriq separable accident

‘arḍī horizontal, lateral

arwāḥ spirits

aṣālah principality, primacy

asbāb causes, instruments

Asfār the shortened name of Mullā Ṣadrā’s book

ashrāṭ al-sā’ah signs of the Resurrection

‘Āshūrā’ 10th of Muḥarram, martyrdom of Imam Ḥusayn

al-aṣl al-qadīm primordial Origin

asmā’ names

al-asmā’ al-ḥusnā beautiful names

athar effect, trace

awliyā’ saints, friends of God

awra’ more self-restraint

Āyah sign, verse

al-a’yān al-thābitah Permanent Archetypes

Āyat al-Kursī Throne Verse

‘ayn entity, essence

al-’ayn al-thābit Permanent Archetype

‘ayn al-yaqīn vision of certitude

‘ayniyyah union, sameness

azal eternal beginning

Azalī Beginningless

badī’ rhetoric, eloquence

baḥt pure, sheer

balāghah eloquence

baqā’ subsistence

barzakh intermediate world between this world and Resurrection or between the realms of intellect and matter

basāṭah simplicity

basīṭ simple, not compound

basīṭ al-ḥaqīqah kull al-ashyā’ a simple reality is all things

bāṭin inward, esoteric, hidden

bayḍā whiteness

bay’ah allegiance

bayān eloquence, rhetoric

bi-abī anta wa ummī may my father and mother be sacrificed for thee

bi al-fi’l in-act, actualised

Biḥār al-Anwār Majlisī’s book

Bilqīs Queen of Sheba

burhān demonstration, deductive proof

Dajjāl a being prophesised to emerge at the end of the world

amīr pronoun

dār al-bawār abode of loss

da’wah call, message

dhāt essence

dhikr invocation, remembrance

Dhikurt a tribe in Iraq

du’ā’ supplication, prayer

dunyā this transient world

Fahlawiyyūn ancient sages of Persia

fākihah fruit

fanā’ annihilation

farsakh approx. 5.375 km

faṣāḥah eloquence

faṣl differentia

fi’l action

fiqh Islamic law, jurisprudence

fiṭrah nature

al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyyah Ibn al-‘Arabī’s book

al-Ghāfir Forgiver

ghayr other

ghayriyyah otherness

ghayūr jealous, protective

ghīrah jealousy, protectiveness

ḥadīth tradition, narration

ḥādith originated, created

ḥads intuition, guess

ḥajj pilgrimage of Mecca

al-Ḥakīm All-Wise

ḥākim al-shar’ religious ruler

ḥalū’ intolerant

al-ḥamdu li-llāh all praise be to Allah

ḥanīfan musliman an upright submitter

ḥaqīqah reality

al-ḥaqīqah al-mushakkikah graded reality

ḥaqīqī real

al-Ḥaqq the Truth, the Real

ḥaram shrine, sanctuary

al-ḥarkat al-jawhariyyah transubstantial motion

ḥasbunā kitāb Allāh the book of Allah is sufficient for us

ḥāshiyah gloss, annotation

ḥawāmīm chapters 40-46 of the Qur’ān

ḥawāriyyūn Apostles (of Jesus)

ḥayāt life

hay’ah traditional astronomy

hayūlā prime matter

al-ḥijāb al-aqrab the closest screen

ḥikmah philosophy, wisdom

al-ḥikmat al-’amaliyyah practical wisdom

ḥikmat al-ishrāq School of Illumination

al-ḥikmat al-naẓariyyah theoretical wisdom

ḥiss sensation, sense

ḥudūth origination, createdness

al-ḥudūth al-zamānī temporal createdness

huwa he

Huwa Hū He is He

huwiyyah identity

ibn son

idhn permission

idhn al-dukhūl permission of entrance

iḥḍār summoning

iḥtiyāṭ religious precaution

i’jāz miracle

ijmā’ consensus of scholars

ijtihād independent (juristic) judgment

ilāh deity, god

‘illat al-fā’ilī efficient cause

‘illat al-ghāyī final cause

‘ilm knowledge, science

al-’ilm al-fi’lī objectified knowledge

al-’ilm al-ḥuḍūrī presential and immediate knowledge

‘ilm al-yaqīn knowledge of certitude

ilqā’ throw, cast

il-Yāsīn Elias, or the family of Yāsīn (Ahl al-Bayt)

imām leader

imān faith, belief

imkān al-ashraf possibility of the higher realms

‘ināyah grace, mercy

inniyyah being, existence

insān human being

insāniyyah humanity

intizā’ derive, abstract

i’rāb inflectional morphology

irādī voluntary

‘irfān mysticism, gnosticism, Sufism

irhāṣ a supernatural act before its usual time

‘ishq love

ism name

‘iṣmah infallibility, innocence

al-Ism al-A’ẓam God’s Greatest Name

istikhdām to use as an instrument

al-istithnā’ al-mufarragh an exception that only states the exception, but not what is excepted

al-istithnā’ al-munqaṭi’ an independent sentence in the form of an exception

istiṭrādiyyah a separate sentence in the middle of another

i’tibār nominality, conceptuality

i’tibārī notional, conceptual, mental, unreal

i’tibāriyyāt mental abstractions

iṭlāq unconditionality

‘izzat al-nafs one’s sense of dignity and nobility

jabarūt invincibility, realm of immaterial intellects

jadal dialectics

jāhiliyyah Age of Ignorance, pre-Islam Arabia

jāmi’ a being that is existentially superior to the other beings of its kind

jān spirit (Persian)

jannat al-dhāt Garden of Essence

jannat al-liqā’ Garden of Vision

jannat al-na’īm Garden of Great Bounty

jāthimīn flat down on the floor

jawhar substance, a quiddity that would not need a carrier to exist

jazū’ fretful, impatient

jins genus

jism body

jismāniyyat al-ḥudūth, rūḥāniyyat al-baqā’ bodily in origination and spiritual in subsistence

juz’iyyah particular, specific

kabā’ir major sins

al-kabīr big, great

kamāl perfection, excellence

kamā qāla qā’iluhum as one of them has said

karāmah charismatic power, miracle

katharāt pluralities, multiplicities

kathrah plurality, multiplicity

kātib scribe, writer

khalīfah successor, heir

al-Khāliq Creator

khalsah trance

kharābāt the ‘ruins’, realm of liberated souls and people of spirituality and divine gnosis

khārij advanced studies, beyond the regular curriculum

khāriq al-’ādah supernatural event, miracle

khāṣṣah Shi’a Muslims

khaṭābah rhetorics, sermon

khayāl imaginative faculty

al-khayru fī mā waqa’a the good is in that which happened

khulūd eternity

khums one fifth, a religious due

kufr infidelity, disbelief, ingratitude

kullī universal, general (masculine)

al-kullī al-ṭabī’ī a general concept that can have multiple instances – whether mental or external

kulliyyah universal, general (feminine)

kun be (imperative)

kursī Throne, traditional table-heater

kuttāb scribes, writers

al-laff wa al-nashr al-murattab elaboration of previously mentioned topics in the same order

lāhūt divinity, realm of manifestation of God’s Names

lā huwa illā Hū there is no he but Him

lā ilāha illā Hū there is no deity but He

lawḥ Tablet

liqā’ vision, meeting

ma’ānī semantics

māddah matter

mafhūm concept, notion

Mahādī al-Khamsah the Five Mahdīs

maḥḍ sheer, absolute

māhiyyah quiddity, ‘whatness’

maḥmūl predicate

māhuwī essential, based on quiddity

ma’iyyah togetherness, concomitance

majāz something metaphorical and unreal

malak al-mawt Angel of Death

malakūt divine realms (in general), imaginal world and the realm of angels (in particular)

ma’lūl effect, caused

ma’lūm known

ma’nā meaning, spirit

manqūl transmitted sciences, narrations

mansūkh abrogated

manū’ selfishly restrictive

manzil station

maqām station

ma’qūl intellectual sciences

mar’ā pasture, plants

marfū’ a narration with unmentioned line of transmitters, unconnected to the Imam

ma’rifah gnosis, knowledge

marja’ reference, source of emulation in Islamic legal rulings

ma’rūf well-known, prominent

maṣlaḥah expediency, welfare

mathānī repeated

mawḍū’ subject

mawjūd existent, being

mawlawiyyah mastership

maẓhar epiphany, manifestation

mi’īn ‘hundreds’ chapters

minbar pulpit

minnah obligation, a favour involving humiliation

miṣdāq (external) instance

mithāl imaginal world, realm of forms

mubāhalah mutual cursing

mu
ghah crushed tissue

mufaṣṣal differentiated, ‘extended’ chapters

mughālaṭah sophistry

muḥākimāt reviews, assessments

muḥarrik mover, cause of motion

muḥāsabah self-reckoning

muḥkam solid, clear

al-Muḥyī Vivifier

muhr clay prayer stone

mujarrad immaterial, disentangled

mu’jizah miracle

mujmal undifferentiated, concise, non-detailed

mujtahid a jurist who can extract and interpret shariah rulings

mukāshafāt unveilings, clairvoyances

mukhlaṣ chosen, one who is purified and made sincere by Allah

mumkin al-wujūd contingent being

muqarrabīn intimate servants of Allah

muqaṭṭa’ah disjointed letters

mursal a narration with incomplete line of transmitters

murāqabah self-vigilance, watchfulness

musabbiḥāt glorification chapters

muṣḥaf written pages bound together

mushāhadāt spiritual visions

mushā’irah a game of poetry

mustafīḍah narrations reported by more than three transmitters, but not mutawatir

mutaḥarrik moving object

mutashābih analogous, ambiguous

mutawātir repeatedly reported narrations, such that their credibility is certain

muṭlaq absolute, unconditional

muttaqīn self-restrained individuals

muttaṣil connected

al-nafas al-raḥmāniyyah the Merciful’s Breath

nafs soul, self, ego

al-nafs al-ammārah evil commanding soul

al-nafs al-nāṭiqah rational soul, intellect

al-nafs al-qudsiyyah sacred soul, the highest stage of intuition

Nahj al-Balāghah a collection of sermons, letters, and short sayings by Imam ‘Alī

naḥw syntax, grammar

Najrān a city in Yemen

naql narrations, transmitted sciences

naqṣ imperfection, deficiency

na’īm great bounty

nāsikh abrogating

naskh abrogation

naw’ species, kind

Naẓm al-Sulūk Ibn al-Fāri
’s poem

ni’mah bounty, boon, blessing

nisā’ al-nabī the wives of the Prophet

nūr light

nuzūl descension, descent

qab
al-rūḥ death, spirits being captured

qāḍī al-quḍāt supreme judge

qadīm primordial

al-Qādir Powerful

qahhāriyyah dominance

qalam Pen

qalb heart

qarā’in external evidence

qasr imposed, forced and non-natural movement

qaws arc

qaws al-nuzūl Arc of Descent

qaws al-ṣu’ūd Arc of Ascent

qiblah direction of prayer, toward the Ka’bah in Mecca

Qibṭī Pharaoh’s tribe

Qirā’ah recitation

qiṣār ‘short’ chapters

qiyāmah resurrection

qul say (imperative)

qurb proximity, nearness

al-qurrā’ al-sab’ah the seven well-known reciters

rak’ah unit of prayer

al-Rāziq Sustainer

riḍā satisfaction

rijāl science of narrators

riwāyah narration, tradition

ri’y plants, pasture

rubūbiyyah lordship

rūḥ spirit

al-Rūḥ al-Amīn Trustworthy Spirit

al-rūḥ al-nāṭiqah rational spirit, intellect

Rūḥ al-Qudus Holy Spirit

ruhbāniyyah monasticism

rukn a corner of the Ka’bah

ruwaybi
ah ignoble and insignificant individuals

sab’an shidādā seven firm heavens

sabbaḥa glorified

sabbiḥ glorify (imperative)

al-ṣaghīr small

saḥābah Companions of the Prophet

ṣāḥib al-amr Director of God’s Command (Imam Mahdī)

Ṣaḥīfah page(s) of writing, book of supplications

Ṣaḥīḥ collection of authenticated narrations

sahm al-Imām Imam’s Share, half of the khums

sakīnah composure, calmness

sālik wayfarer

samūm poisonous or hot deadly winds

sardāb cellar

sawād blackness

sayr ilā al-khalq bi al-ḥaqq journey toward the creation by the Truth

sayr wa sulūk spiritual journey and wayfaring

sayyid a descendant of the Prophet

Shād-Ābād a village near Tabrīz

shādhdhah single and un- common recitations

shādhdhah ghayra ma’rūfah non-famous single recitations

shafā’ah intercession

shakhṣ person

shakhṣiyyah personal (feminine), personality

shākilah formation, nature

sha’n al-nuzūl circumstances in which a verse was revealed

shar’ religion

sharḥ commentary

sharr evil, bad

Shī’ah Shi’a Muslims

Shifā’ Ibn Sīnā’s book

Shimirt a tribe in Iraq

shi’r poem, poetry

shirk polytheism, idolatry

Sibṭī Children of Israel

ṣiddīqīn the truthful

ṣifah attribute, quality

ṣifāt attributes, qualities

ṣirāfah absoluteness

al-ṣirāṭ al-mustaqīm the straight path

ṣirf absolute, sheer

sunnah tradition, custom

sūrah chapter of the Qur’an

ṣūrah form

al-ṣūrat al-naw’iyyah special form

ṣu’ūd ascent

al-suwar al-’atā’iq ancient chapters

ta’abbud obedience, submission

ta’ayyun determination, entification

al-ta’ayyun al-ismiyyah nominal determination

ṭab’ nature

tabdīl transformation

ṭabī’ah nature

ṭabī’ī natural

tābi’īn Followers, those who saw the Companions of the Prophet

ta
arru’ petition, supplication

tafsīr exegesis, commentary

tafwīḍ entrustment

taghāyur otherness

taḥaqquq realisation, substantiation

taḥlīl analysis

taḥrīf distortion

al-Tā’iyyah al-Kubrā Ibn al-Fāri
’s poem

tajallī manifestation, epiphany

tajarrud immateriality, transcendence

tajassum al-a’māl embodiment of actions

tajrīd abstraction

takāthur rivalry in amassment

takrār recurrence

ṭalabah student of religion

tamthīl symbolism, similitude

tamyīz contradistinction

taqiyyah concealing one’s beliefs

taqwā self-restraint, God-fear

ṭarf look, glance, eye

tark al-awlā abandonment of a preferred action

tarkīb wa mushtaq combination and derivation

tasalsul infinite regression

taṣarruf take control, change

tashakhkhuṣ personality, individuality

tashayyu’ Shi’ism

tashkīk gradation

taslīm submission

Taṭhīr Purification

tawakkul God-reliance

tawḥīd unity, monotheism

ṭayy al-ar
instantaneous self-transportation

thanā yathī bend, fold

ṭīnah nature

ṭiwāl ‘lengthy’ chapters

ṭūlī vertical, longitudinal

Ṭūr Mount Sinai

‘ubūdiyyah servitude

al-’ubūdiyyat al-maḥḍah sheer servitude

‘ūdhah protective charm

u’iddat prepared

ukhuwwah brotherhood

ūlū al-arḥām relatives

ummah nation, community

‘uqūl intellects, beings that are immaterial in essence and action

‘urafā’ mystics, gnostics, Sufis

ustād teacher, master

ustād-i ‘āmm general master

uṣūl fundamentals, principles of jurisprudence

uṣūl al-dīn fundamental beliefs

Uthūlūjiyā Aristotle’s Theology

waḥdah unity, oneness

al-waḥdah al-shakhṣiyyah personal unity

waḥdahu lā sharīka lah He is One and there is no partner for Him

wāḥid one, singly reported narrations

al-wāḥidu lā yaṣduru minhu illā al-wāḥid from One, there emerges only one

wahm illusion

waḥy revelation

wajh face

wājib al-wujūd Necessary Being

wajjahtu wajhiya li-llāh I have turned my face to Allah

walī guardian, saint

wālid father

wāqi’iyyah reality, actuality

wāridāt intuitions of the heart

al-wasīṭ intermediate

wayl woe

wijdān conscience, heart

wilāyah guardianship

wujūd being, existence

al-wujūd al-munbasiṭ expansive being, Universal Soul

al-wujūd al-shakhṣī personal being

yaghnaw resided, dwelt

yā Huwa yā man lā huwa illā Hū O He! O Who there is no he but Him

Ya’jūj and Ma’jūj Gog and Magog

Yamāmah a land in the Arabian Peninsula

yakūn become

yaqīn certitude

yartadda ilayka ṭarfuk your look returns to you

yusabbiḥu glorifies

yawm day

ẓāhir apparent, outward

zakāh alms, a religious due

ziyārah pilgrimage

Author(s):

Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Husayni Tehrani [3]

Translator(s):

Tawus Raja [5]

Publisher(s):

ICAS Press [4]

Category:

Scholars [6]

Source URL: https://www.al-islam.org/shining-sun-memory-allamah-tabatabai-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-tehrani

Links
[1] https://www.al-islam.org/user/login?destination=node/45105%23comment-form
[2] https://www.al-islam.org/user/register?destination=node/45105%23comment-form
[3] https://www.al-islam.org/person/sayyid-muhammad-husayn-husayni-tehrani
[4] https://www.al-islam.org/organization/icas-press
[5] https://www.al-islam.org/person/tawus-raja
[6] https://www.al-islam.org/library/scholars