A Comparative Study of the Concept of Wilāyah in Sufism and Shiʿism

Mohammad Taqi Sobhani1 Sayyid Alireza Mousavi2

Maʿārif Ahl al-Bayt (a) Biannual Journal Year 1, No. 2, Autumn and Winter 1404 SH

Abstract

The question of wilāyah is one of the pillars of the Sufi system of thought and one of the most important theological and doctrinal principles in the worldview of Imami Shiʿa, and both of these currents have built most of their teachings around the concept of wilāyah. At first glance, the use of the concepts of wilāyah and Imamate in Sufi writings, and the mention of the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) in Sufi works as the foremost instances of the awliyāʾ (saints, friends of God), has led some to suppose that the doctrine of wilāyah is identical in the Sufi school and the Shiʿi school; and this, in turn, has carried implications such as the two currents sharing the same sources, and even the identity of Sufism and Shiʿism. Using a descriptive-analytical method based on library research, the present article seeks to dig into the roots of the idea of wilāyah, to extract and compare its foundations and pillars in the view of the Sufis and the Shiʿa, and in this way to examine the degree of similarity and difference between the Shiʿi and Sufi conceptions of wilāyah. This study centers its comparison on the following headings: concepts, foundations, attributes, functions, instances, and the question of the Seal of the Saints (khātam al-awliyāʾ). It finally concludes that, despite certain connections and theoretical exchanges over the course of history, wilāyah as understood by the Sufis is distinct from and different to the prevailing Imami Shiʿi view on each of the six aforementioned axes.

Keywords: wilāyah, walī, Sufism, Shiʿism, the Perfect Human (insān kāmil), the Pole (quṭb), the spiritual guide (murshid), Imamate

Introduction

If the formal establishment of the Sufi school is taken to be the middle of the second century AH, with the appearance of Abu Hashim al-Kufi, then no work or writing on wilāyah and the stations of the walī can be found at the outset of this movement; indeed, even in the sayings and aphorisms of the shaykhs of the earliest centuries, signs of these concepts are scarcely to be found. This is not surprising, since many of Sufism’s notions and doctrines took shape in step with historical developments and against the backdrop of the particular social and cultural events of their time, and later underwent evolution and transformation. The question of wilāyah is likewise among the ideas that gradually took shape in the later centuries of Sufism, in response to this movement’s pressing need to acquire legitimacy and acceptance (Zarrinkub, 1385: p. 71; Radtke et al., 1379: p. 31; Sajjadi, 1392: p. 49).

The term wilāyah is a frequent and central word in the Qurʾanic lexicon and in the vocabulary of religious literature, and for this reason this term and its various interpretations have always been a focus of attention for different Islamic figures and currents. Sufism, too, within that same framework of religious discourse, has resorted to Qurʾanic and hadith expressions in explaining its ideas, and in its effort to attribute its teachings to the revealed texts it has made use of the term wilāyah more than any other current (Radtke et al., 1379: p. 15).

From the end of the third century, the Sufis took up the discussion of wilāyah. At first they built their anthropology and practical wayfaring around this concept, and gradually they linked it to theology, cosmology and epistemology, such that from the seventh century onward any discussion of Sufi views and ideas is incomplete and deficient without an examination of the concept of wilāyah. Thus it came about that today one may say the Sufis built most of their intellectual foundations and principles upon the concept of wilāyah, and this very fact made them appear, in the eyes of many, inclined toward Shiʿism and even a Shiʿi current; whereas historical studies show that at the dawn of the Sufi movement no trace of the concept and title of wilāyah as a theoretical and practical principle can be found. In assessing the relationship between the concept of wilāyah in Sufism and in Shiʿism, however, the mere sameness of terms and outward similarities should not mislead; rather, the matter depends on a precise and in-depth comparative study, which is what this essay sets out to do.

Although the multiplicity of approaches, the number of orders and the diversity of the Sufis’ statements have reduced the precision of scholars’ and Islamicists’ judgements about the nature of this doctrine and its comparison with other Islamic currents and schools, and have opened the door to confusion and fallacy in their research and writings, by focusing on the foundations of Sufi thinkers it is possible to arrive at a common definition of this question and to make that the criterion for examination and assessment.

Valuable writings by scholars have recently been devoted to the discussion of wilāyah in Sufism.3 What distinguishes this article from similar works is, first, that it moves beyond the superficial and oft-repeated discussions in comparative studies of wilāyah, and in a structured study it re-reads the foundations and theoretical principles of the idea of wilāyah and, with a highly concise reading of the Shiʿi view, compares Shiʿi and Sufi wilāyah. Second, in most studies the object of comparison has been one or several Sufi thinkers; although this article focuses on theoretical Sufism and the school of Ibn Arabi, by extending its sources to the works of other Shiʿi and Sunni Sufis it seeks to make the Sufi current as a whole the object of comparison, and it has finally reached results that may be considered relatively novel.

Distinctions between Sufi Wilāyah and Shiʿi Wilāyah

What follows addresses the most important respects in which wilāyah differs between Shiʿism and Sufism.

1. Conceptual Distinctions

Walī, on the pattern faʿīl, is a quasi-participial adjective (ṣifa mushabbaha) from the root w-l-y. A quasi-participial adjective indicates the stability and permanence of an attribute in the thing described. It is used in both an active and a passive sense, and sometimes, with regard to a single verb, it is employed in both the active and passive senses (Zabidi, 1414 AH, vol. 20: 315). Regarding the meaning of walī, what is better known and more widely accepted among lexicographers is the meaning of “guardianship” (sarparastī); although they have also mentioned the meanings of proximity, nearness and succession, the correct view is that very meaning of “guardianship” (Sadeqi-Fard, 1390: p. 76; Raghib al-Isfahani, 1412 AH: p. 885; Zamakhshari, 1399 AH: p. 68; Berenjkar and Gholami, 1391: p. 10). In the passive sense, walī means “accepting the guardianship of God”:

﴿أَلَا إِنَّ أَوْلِيَاءَ اللَّهِ لَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ﴾

“Behold! The awliyāʾ of Allah shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve” (Yunus 10:62). Awliyāʾ is the plural of walī, used here in the passive sense; that is, those who have accepted the wilāyah of God, and God is their guardian, master of their affairs and the one who has authority over them. In the active sense, walī means one who possesses the station of “guardianship”:

﴿اللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُخْرِجُهُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ﴾

“Allah is the Walī of those who have faith; He brings them out of darkness into light” (al-Baqarah 2:257). God is the guardian of those who have believed; He brings them out of darkness so that they may be in the light. The word walī has also been used in religious and hadith texts in different forms, each of which indicates particular meanings and instances (Ibn Manzur, 1408 AH, vol. 4: 401).

The Lexical and Technical Meaning of Wilāyah in Sufism

Most Sufi writers, scholars and shaykhs hold that walī lexically means “proximity and nearness without separation” (Nasafi, 1386, vol. 1: 316) and technically means “the servant’s annihilation (fanāʾ) in God”. The walī is one who has reached the utmost degree of nearness, love and proximity, such that there is no intermediary between him and God; he has become annihilated in the Essence of the Real and has attained the station of unity with the Real (Jami, 1370: p. 214). In other words, they have taken this utmost degree of unmediated nearness and proximity as an allusion to annihilation in God (fanāʾ fī Allāh) (Rumi, 1373: p. 986). Or one could say that this nearness is not of the kind of conventional proximity, nor even emotional proximity, but rather an ontological nearness. Qaysari says:

Know that wilāyah is taken from walī, and walī means nearness. Special wilāyah is annihilation in God, Glorified be He: annihilation in God’s Essence, Attributes and Acts. So the walī is one who is annihilated in God, whose existence has become the very existence of God and subsists through Him, and this person displays the Names and Attributes of God in his existence (Qaysari, 1381: p. 153).

Jami, quoting Juzani, writes: “The walī is one who is annihilated from his own state and subsists in the witnessing of the Real” (Jami, n.d.: p. 5). The author of Firdaws al-Murshidiyya writes: “The walī is one who is annihilated from his own existence in witnessing the Real, and the Real, Exalted be He, undertakes his affairs” (Mahmud Uthman, 1358: p. 76).

The Technical Meaning of Wilāyah in the Imami View

Since the expressions wilāyah and walī have been used in the Qurʾanic and even hadith texts to establish and explain the doctrine of Imamate and the immediate succession of the Commander of the Faithful ʿAli (a) and the Imams (a), Shiʿi scholars have discussed the meaning and signification of this word in detail. The well-known view of Shiʿi scholars and theologians, following the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), is that the comprehensive meaning of walī is “priority” (awlawiyya) and “having a greater right over a thing” (awlā bi al-shayʾ). One of these priorities is the Imam’s priority in guardianship and in disposing of affairs. Hence wilāyah in the Verse of Wilāyah, the Hadith of Ghadir and so on means “having a greater right of disposal” in various matters, such as guardianship over property, life and honor, in commanding and forbidding, and in governance (Kulayni, 1363, vol. 1: 187). It is reported that Ahmad b. ʿIsa asked Imam al-Sadiq (a) about the interpretation of the verse of “those in authority” (ulū al-amr), and he said:

The meaning of the verse is that only God, the Messenger and a group of the believers — namely the Commander of the Faithful ʿAli (a) and his descendants, that is, the Pure Imams (a) — have a greater right and priority over your commands and prohibitions, your lives and your property than you yourselves (Kulayni, 1363, vol. 1: 187; Hamid Husayn, 1366, vol. 14: 149; Amini, 2009, vol. 3: 419).

In this narration, the verse إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ (“Your walī is only Allah…”) (al-Maʾida 5:55) is cited as evidence for the station of obligatory obedience (farḍ al-ṭāʿa); that is, the essence and nature of wilāyah is presented as the station of the divine obligation of obedience. Shiʿi scholars have also mentioned this same meaning. ʿAllama al-Hilli writes in his commentary on Tajrid al-Iʿtiqad:

The word walī [in the verse] conveys priority in disposal, and the proof of this is the transmission and usage of the lexicographers. As they say: the ruler has priority of disposal over one who has no guardian. And as is said: the walī of blood, the walī of the deceased; and like the saying of the Messenger of Allah (s): “Any woman who marries without the permission of her walī, her marriage is void” (Hilli, 1413 AH: p. 394).

Karajaki (Karajaki, 1421 AH: p. 115), Tabrisi (Tabrisi, 1415 AH, vol. 3: 363), Ibn Shahrashub (Ibn Shahrashub, 1390, vol. 2: 210), Abu al-Majd al-Halabi (Halabi, 1414 AH: p. 51), al-Hafiz Ibn Bitriq (Ibn Bitriq, 1417 AH: p. 235), Sayyid Muhammad Bahr al-ʿUlum (Bahr al-ʿUlum, 1403 AH, vol. 3: 216), Kashif al-Ghitaʾ (Kashif al-Ghitaʾ, n.d., vol. 1: 9), Shaykh al-Ansari (Ansari, 1415 AH, vol. 3: 548), Shaykh ʿAli al-Bahrani (Bahrani, 1405 AH: p. 229), ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi (Tabatabaʾi, 1378, vol. 6: 14) and Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi (Makarem Shirazi, 1412 AH, vol. 4: 47) likewise take the meanings of Imamate, obligatory obedience, the right of disposal and guardianship as established for the word walī, and consider the intended meaning of wilāyah in the Verse of Wilāyah to be precisely this. On this basis, when it is said that the Infallibles (a) possess the station of wilāyah and that whoever does not accept their wilāyah has fallen into disbelief and misguidance, what is meant is that whoever does not consider the Commander of the Faithful ʿAli (a) to be awlā (having the greater right) and does not choose him for guardianship and obedience has disbelieved4 (Ibn Abi Shayba, 2008, vol. 7: 503). On the other hand, the more a person follows the walī, the greater the kinship and closeness he gains to him, as God said:

﴿إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَٰذَا النَّبِيُّ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۗ وَاللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ﴾

“Indeed, the nearest of people to Abraham are those who followed him, and this Prophet and those who have believed; and Allah is the Walī of the believers” (Al ʿImran 3:68).

In the Shiʿi view, the use of the word walī determines the nature and kind of relationship between creatures and the walī, rather than referring to the kind of relationship between “the human being and God”; for this reason, other terms such as ulū al-amr (“those in authority”) and al-imām have been used more. In the Sufi view, by contrast, what is primarily intended and fundamental is the relationship of the walī with God, which is one of identity and annihilation. They then consider the necessary consequence of this annihilation in God, for the servants, to be complete and absolute obedience to the walī. In reality, what the Sufis have taken from walī is a misuse of its lexical meaning to establish their esotericist beliefs (annihilation in God); whereas in Shiʿism this term addresses the relationship between God and the people, and refers to the powers of disposal entrusted to this divine representative.

In critique of the Sufi conceptualization of the word walī, it must be said that the Sufis take walī to mean nearness, and in explaining it conceptually and technically they arrive at the concept of the annihilation and union of two things, such that there is no difference or duality between them and they become a single thing (Kashani, 1370: p. 751); whereas the two concepts of nearness and annihilation are mutually contradictory, and using the word “nearness” makes no sense under the assumption of complete union. If we refer to the usages of the root w-l-y, we shall see that this meaning in no way conveys the joining of two things; it is always used where there are two parties and some kind of plurality is taken into account, such that nearness and proximity are understood from their relation to one another.

In the concept of “annihilation”, there are fundamentally not two parties; rather, it speaks of the dissolution and destruction of one party and the remaining of the other, or else that there was never any duality from the outset and the cross-eyed wayfarer imagined a duality between Creator and creature — this is the meaning of annihilation that Ibn Arabi accepts (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 4: 45 and 417; idem, 1370: p. 136). Therefore, the meaning that the Sufis have put forward for the term walī differs from the view of the lexicographers and compilers of dictionaries, and is not compatible with the rules of the Arabic language or with the revealed texts; for it would follow that walī in the active sense must be taken as mufnī, that is, the one who annihilates, and walī in the passive sense as fānī, that is, the annihilated — a meaning stated in no lexicon, and an interpretation of the verses according to this meaning would not be compatible with their context and true meanings either.5

2. Foundational Distinctions

The discussion of wilāyah in Sufism rests on the postulates and mystical presuppositions in the fields of theology, anthropology, epistemology and ontology; without establishing and affirming these foundations, the theory of wilāyah cannot even be put forward. Leaving aside what relation the Sufi discussion of wilāyah and anthropology bears to reality and to what extent it is acceptable, it is an incorrect and simplistic method to detach some of the major doctrinal questions of Sufism from their context and try to interpret them within another paradigm with a completely different model and structure. In what follows, the various foundations of the discussion of generic wilāyah (wilāyat-e nawʿiyya) in Sufism are clarified, and it is shown on what presuppositions and principles the Sufi view rests.

The Foundations of Wilāyah in the Sufi View

The concept of the “perfect walī” or “Perfect Human” in the Sufis’ system of thought can be put forward and examined from four perspectives — ontology or theology, epistemology, cosmology and anthropology — and this doctrine took shape on the basis of these theoretical pillars (Ashtiyani, 1370: p. 866).

From the perspective of Sufi theology, the question of generic wilāyah takes on meaning in deep connection with the theory of the “personal unity of existence” (waḥdat-e shakhṣī-ye wujūd) and the doctrine of “annihilation in God”. This view rests on the principle that true existence is the absolute, unconditioned-as-division (lā bi-sharṭ maqsamī) Essence of the Real, Exalted be He — an Essence that is pure and free of every determination, name, attribute and trace. Since this Essence lacks any name or description, it can neither be known nor become an object of knowledge. What, then, do knowledge of God and cognition of the Real mean? This absolute reality appears in the mirror of determinations, and only through these manifestations and theophanies can knowledge of God be attained. In other words, the Sufis posit two levels for God: the level of the Essence, in which “there is no name for it and no description”, and the level of determinations, in which the divine Names, Attributes and Acts become manifest. Human knowledge of God is only possible at the second level, where the Real appears in the first theophany (the first determination), the second theophany (the second determination) and in the worlds of creation.

At the summit of these levels of theophany in the first determination lies a reality that the Sufis call the “Muhammadan Reality” (ḥaqīqa muḥammadiyya) — a station in which knowledge of God is manifested in the most perfect way, and this is the very position of the “Pole” (quṭb) or “Perfect Human”. The Pole here is the complete and total locus of manifestation of the divine Attributes and Names; one who has attained a level of existence and has come to comprise all perfections and divine Names. Thus the Perfect Human is the full-length mirror of divine beauty and majesty, and true knowledge of God is in reality knowledge of this chosen being. Hence the Sufis, in expressing the secret of the unity of existence, speak of the Perfect Human becoming one with the Real, and sometimes refer to the Pole of the age with expressions such as “Allah” or “the Real” (Gonabadi, 1384: p. 15; Gonabadi, 1408 AH, vol. 2: 283).

From the epistemological perspective, a human being who is not a person of intuitive (shuhūdī) knowledge and remains under the dominance of the intellectual and rational faculties is fundamentally not called human; rather, in Ibn Arabi’s words, he is “the animal human” as opposed to “the authentic human” (Jami, 1370: p. 179). Only the Perfect Human has attained complete and perfect knowledge of the Real, and he is the niche from which all things receive their sciences and knowledge (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 2: 446). The acquisition of any kind of knowledge by other human beings, including knowledge of God, depends on existential connection with the master (pīr), and on knowledge of and annihilation in the master (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 4: 132; Jili, 1997: p. 31).

From the anthropological perspective, the human being is merely one manifestation of the divine manifestation, which, because it partakes of the divine spirit, is the complete copy of the Real, has been created in the form of God, and can become the locus of manifestation of the Name Allah and attain lordship and divinity (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 2: 515). Logicians and philosophers hold that rational speech (nuṭq) is the constitutive differentia of the human being, and that human quiddity does not subsist without rationality (Tusi, 1375: p. 30); but the Sufis hold that the definition and differentia of the human being is precisely this “divine form” (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 3: 151). Hence he should be called the “God-like human” (ibid., vol. 2: 643), for he possesses necessity of existence (Ibn Arabi, 1370: p. 50). The Perfect Human is the fifth of the Five Divine Presences and comprises all realities, levels and worlds, both of the Real and of creation (Jami, 1370: p. 30):

کل تویی و جملگان اجزای تو ** برگشا که هست پاشان پای تو از تو عالم روح‌زاری می‌شود ** پشت صد لشکر سواری می‌شود

You are the whole, and all are your parts; open [your eyes], for their feet are your feet. Through you the world becomes a field of spirits; one horseman becomes the backbone of a hundred armies. (Rumi, 1373: p. 642)

From the ontological perspective, the Perfect Human is also put forward at two different levels, which must not be confused with one another. At the macro level, the human being is a species, not an individual, and is also called the Muhammadan Reality.6 The human species is, in terms of creation, the most perfect locus of manifestation of existence and was created in the form of God. He is the quintessence and spirit of the whole of existence and is called the “microcosm”, as opposed to the world of creation, which is called the “macro-human”. This Perfect Human is that same universal divine reality flowing through all the worlds, which in each station has acquired a particular name and determination. At the second level, the Perfect Human is put forward as a specific individual with particular characteristics7 (Ibn Arabi, 1370: p. 46): an individual who has managed to complete the Four Journeys and become the instance of the Muhammadan Reality in his own time. He is the “Perfect Human”, and the majority of people are “animal humans”. To explain further: in the Sufi view, there is only one existence and existent in the world, and that is God (“there is none in the house but Him”) (Shah Niʿmatullah Wali, 1380: p. 135). The Real, Exalted be He, in the station of His Essence has no determination or individuation; but He does not remain in this station — rather, He appears and becomes present in descending levels, one of which belongs to the presence of the Perfect Human, the most perfect rank of the Real’s manifestation. In other words, the multiplicities of the world are in themselves non-existent (Jami, 1370: p. 181), a seamless unity prevails, and whatever distinctions are seen are all theophanies of one of the Names and Attributes of the Real (Amuli, 1376, vol. 2: 109; Amuli, 1393, vol. 1: 32 and 562).

Each of the Names and Attributes of God is manifested in some concrete being and locus. The most perfect presence and locus of manifestation of the Real is the Perfect Human, who stands at the apex of the pyramid (Ibn Arabi, 1397: p. 3) and is the general locus of manifestation of the Name “the All-Comprehensive Allah” and “the comprehensive being” (kawn jāmiʿ), and the particular locus of manifestation of the Name “the Hidden” (al-Bāṭin) (Ibn Arabi, 1375: p. 146). In this view, all the inner and hidden matters of existence are called wilāyah, which is a manifestation of God’s Name the Hidden, and the Perfect Human and the walī of each age guide and lead it (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 2: p. 468).

The Foundations of Wilāyah in the View of the Thaqalayn

In the texts of the Thaqalayn [the Qurʾan and the Ahl al-Bayt], no trace of the foundations of theoretical Sufism is seen in the principles and foundations mentioned above. Hence, before the emergence of figures such as Sayyid Haydar Amuli, through whom the expressions and terminology of theoretical Sufism entered the epistemic system and doctrinal structure of Shiʿism, Shiʿi scholars, theologians and Imami traditionists offered different understandings of and approaches to these discussions. Although there is no opportunity here to treat the Shiʿi foundations in this area in detail, by referring to prominent hadith sources such as Kitab al-Hujja of al-Kafi and Basaʾir al-Darajat by Muhammad b. Hasan al-Saffar, as well as the works of jurists and theologians such as Kashf al-Murad and Minhaj al-Karama by ʿAllama al-Hilli, one can clearly perceive the fundamental differences between the foundations of Shiʿism and Sufism in this area.

In the religious and narrational texts of the Ahl al-Bayt (a), the two terms “Imamate” and “wilāyah” are used to refer to the concept of guardianship, authority, and priority in disposal and management (Hilli, 1379: p. 117). Yet in Sufi works the concept of “Imamate” has received less attention, and their discussions have revolved mainly around “wilāyah“, which differs fundamentally in concept from the view of the Thaqalayn.

Imamate is the loftiest station and position conceivable for a human being, and is granted by God to a few of the chosen (al-Baqarah 2:124). According to the mass-transmitted (mutawātir) narrations of the twelve successors — reported by both Shiʿa and Sunnis — from immediately after the Messenger of Allah (s) until the Day of Resurrection there will be only twelve walīs and Imams in the world, and we are now in the time of the last of them, namely the Hujja b. al-Hasan (aj) (Majlisi, 1403 AH, vol. 23: 290; Bukhari, n.d., vol. 8: 127). Contrary to the Sufi notion, which considers wilāyah an acquired mystical station that can be attained, in the Qurʾanic and narrational view Imamate is a social office and an appointed station, and only God is able to designate it; and the people learn of the next Imam through the explicit designation (naṣṣ) of the previous Imam (Kulayni, 1365, vol. 2: 37). Unlike the Sufis, who separate the various capacities of the walī and regard him merely as a spiritual educator and mystical guide, in the epistemic system of the Thaqalayn the Imam is not only the spiritual leader and inner guide, but is also responsible for the leadership and guardianship of all the religious and worldly affairs of society, and obedience to him is deemed absolutely obligatory (Tusi, 1985: p. 2). From the perspective of divine wisdom, there is harmony between the order of legislation and the order of creation; that is, one who has been appointed in the realm of legislation as the Imam whose obedience is obligatory also has, in the order of creation, a position commensurate with this station. On this basis, the Imam is the center and axis of existence and the channel through which divine grace and mercy descend upon the worlds. Every kind of journey and ascent toward perfection is possible only in the light of seeking intercession through, and holding fast to, the Imam.8 Numerous revealed texts emphasize this truth. For example, in a narration from Imam al-Sadiq (a) it is stated: “Were the earth to remain for a single day without an Imam from among us, it would sink with its inhabitants” (Tabari, 1408 AH: p. 436). Likewise the Commander of the Faithful ʿAli (a), in interpreting the verse وَابْتَغُوا إِلَيْهِ الْوَسِيلَةَ (“and seek the means [al-wasīla] to Him”) (al-Maʾida 5:35), said: “I am His means” (Ibn Shahrashub, 1390, vol. 3: 75).

In ontological discussions, the foundational difference between the Sufi view and that of the Thaqalayn is that the Sufis believe a human being can, through perfecting the soul and existential elevation, attain the realm of lordship and the stations of Oneness (wāḥidiyya) and Unity (aḥadiyya), and through awareness of the immutable entities (aʿyān thābita) necessarily come to possess the station of wilāyah. In the outlook of the Thaqalayn, however, the right of wilāyah and guardianship belongs exclusively to the Most Holy Divine Essence, and it is He who, in accordance with His wisdom and benefit, grants and bestows this station upon certain chosen servants — without the existence of the walī having any admixture with, or homogeneity with, the Essence of the Real, Exalted be He (Tabatabaʾi, 1378, vol. 6: 13).

From the epistemological perspective, in every age one individual who is the most knowledgeable, wisest and most intelligent person of his time holds the office of Imamate and bears the duty of guidance, teaching and training, as well as political rule. All knowledge and understanding of religion is possible only through his introduction and teaching. Expressions such as “Whoever affirms His unity accepts [it] from you” and “Through us God is worshipped, and through us God is known” indicate this lofty position (Saffar, 1404, vol. 1: 61). The Imam — who is the most intelligent of people — relying on human beings’ inner and innate faculties and stirring up their intellects, has instilled reflection and rational thought within them: “…that they may fulfil the covenant of His nature… and stir up for them the buried treasures of intellect” (Sayyid al-Radi, 1374: Sermon 1, p. 43), and he asks them to tread the path of guidance on the basis of evidence, demonstration and insight. As the Noble Qurʾan says:

﴿قُلْ هَٰذِهِ سَبِيلِي أَدْعُو إِلَى اللَّهِ ۚ عَلَىٰ بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا وَمَنِ اتَّبَعَنِي﴾

“Say: This is my way; I call to Allah with insight — I and whoever follows me” (Yusuf 12:108).

By contrast, according to the predominant Sufi view, the awliyāʾ move the disciple forward on the path of wayfaring not through argument and rational persuasion, but by inculcating ideas and exercising control over the disciple’s mind and soul. They regard the intellect as “the greatest veil” and strive to extinguish the lamp of reason in the disciple’s soul and put imagination and passionate love in its place. Hence they address their followers as “disciples” (murīd) and demand of them that, like “a corpse before the washer of the dead”, they be merely receptive and utterly submissive before the shaykh.

Unlike the Sufis, who consider a “Name of God” to be the determination of the Essence by one of His attributes within the system of divine Names, and regard the awliyāʾ as loci of manifestation of the all-comprehensive Name “Allah”, possessing all the essential and active attributes of the Real, the Thaqalayn draw a distinction between the cosmic (kawnī) Names and the Real (ḥaqqī) Names of God, and present the Imams solely as God’s cosmic Names; meaning that they are the greatest signs and divine tokens among the creatures. God Almighty says in Surat al-Aʿraf: وَلِلَّهِ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ فَادْعُوهُ بِهَا (“And to Allah belong the most beautiful Names, so call upon Him by them”) (al-Aʿraf 7:180). Imam al-Sadiq (a), concerning these Names, says: “By God, we are the most beautiful Names; God does not accept any deed from His servants except through knowing us” (Kulayni, 1365, vol. 1: 144).

3. Descriptive Distinctions

The attributes and capacities that the Sufi doctrinal system defines for the walī are entirely different from — indeed contradictory to — the attributes and capacities of the walī in the view of the Thaqalayn.

The Attributes of the Walī in Sufism

The central signifier in the Sufi concept of wilāyah is the discussion of annihilation in God and the real and essential union of the wayfarer with the Reality and Essence of the Real; hence knowledge of the walī in the Sufi view is impossible without regard to their theological foundations. On the basis of the theory of the unity of existence, the Sufis accept the identity of Creator and creature, and with various expressions they explicitly state that the identity of the Perfect Human is one with God (Ibn Arabi, 1370, vol. 1: 141): “Whoever knows himself with this knowledge has known his Lord, for He created him in His form; indeed, He is the very essence of his identity and reality” (ibid., p. 125). In the Sufi view, the more a person delves and advances into the inward, the more he acquires the attributes and capacities of the Real, Exalted be He, until he reaches annihilation in the Acts, then in the Attributes, and finally annihilation in the Essence of God (ibid., p. 92). At this stage the walī acquires divine attributes and capacities, and whatever the Real has done or is able to do is enumerated for the walī as well (Shabistari, 1382: p. 50). Citing the narration “Servitude is a substance whose essence is lordship”, the Sufis believe that the servitude of the Perfect Human has been completed (Qaysari, 1375: pp. 338–339) and that he has reached the stage of lordship, divinity and infinitude (Baqli Shirazi, 2008, vol. 3: 172). He has left his own identity and selfhood, has become annihilated in God’s Essence and Attributes, and pointing to the Perfect Human is pointing to Allah (Qaysari, 1375: pp. 338–339). Some of the attributes and characteristics of the walī are: lordship (Ibn Arabi, 1367, vol. 1: 406), comprising the originated and the eternal (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 1: 56), necessity of existence (ibid., vol. 4: 147), being the locus of manifestation of all the divine Names and Attributes (Ibn Arabi, 1397: p. 3), being the cause of the coming-into-being and continuance of the world (Ibn Arabi, 1370, vol. 1: 38), and so on. Hence the martyr Motahhari writes: “In this school, the Perfect Human ultimately becomes the very essence of God; indeed, the true Perfect Human is God Himself” (Motahhari, n.d.: p. 168). Sultan Muhammad Gonabadi says: “The possessor of universal, absolute wilāyah may be called Allah, in this view and in this respect, that he is annihilated” (Gonabadi, 1384: p. 15).

The Attributes of the Walī in Shiʿism

In the Shiʿi school, the account of the walī is not based on theology, and the attributes of the awliyāʾ are not regarded as a subtle trace or effusion of the divine attributes. In the view of the Thaqalayn, the boundary between Creator and creature never fades or disappears, and the relationship between the Creator and creatures is one of distinctness (baynūna) and non-homogeneity (Kulayni, 1365, vol. 1: 82). Fundamentally, the concept of creation means creation “not from anything” (lā min shayʾ)9; that is, creation had no matter or form within the divine Essence.

The Noble Qurʾan calls the human being a servant (ʿabd) of God (al-Zumar 39:53) and regards the purpose of his creation as precisely this servitude and worship (al-Dhariyat 51:56), defining every kind of rise and fall, ascent and descent of his within this very framework. To whatever extent a person’s degree of wayfaring and spirituality increases and rises, servitude and worship grow and deepen in him — not that he acquires divine and lordly attributes; such capacities apply only to God, and extending them to creatures is regarded as exaggeration (ghuluww). The Noble Qurʾan, when mentioning the divine messengers and alluding to their lofty stations, uses the words “servant” and “Our servants” (Sad 38:45), and at the highest degrees, stages and stations, the Messenger of Allah (s) is introduced with the address “servant”: ثُمَّ دَنَا فَتَدَلَّىٰ … فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَىٰ (“Then he drew near and came closer… So He revealed to His servant what He revealed”) (al-Najm 53:8–10); سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَىٰ بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلًا مِنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ (“Glory be to Him who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose surroundings We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs; indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing”) (al-Israʾ 17:1).

In the narrational heritage, the Imam is likened to the Kaʿba (Khazzaz, 1401 AH: p. 199), which expresses the polarity (Sayyid al-Radi, 1374: Sermon 3, p. 48) and centrality of the Imam in all affairs among the people. But the centrality expressed in Shiʿi foundations never means the union of Creator and creature or the walī becoming one with God; this polarity of the Imam among creation revolves solely within the circle of humanity. Hence the decisive standard of the Infallibles (a) concerned their being called god-like and claims of this kind about themselves, and they strongly forbade their followers from such beliefs (Majlisi, 1403 AH, vol. 25: 347). Hasan b. Jahm reports that al-Maʾmun said to Imam al-Rida (a): “I have heard that a group exaggerates about you and goes beyond the limit regarding you.” Imam al-Rida (a), with a continuous chain through his noble forefathers from the Messenger of Allah (s), reported that he said: “Whoever claims divinity for the prophets, or makes this claim for the Imams, or claims prophethood for them, or claims Imamate for other than the Imams (a), we are free of him in this world and the Hereafter” (Shaykh al-Saduq, n.d., vol. 2: 201).

Therefore, wilāyah in the Shiʿi view expresses the divine nature of this station and the human nature of the one who holds it, and concepts such as union, oneness, annihilation and the like have no place in it.

4. Functional Distinctions

By studying Sufi works, one can extract the functions they ascribe to the walī. When this is examined alongside the Shiʿi functions of wilāyah, we discover another aspect of the distinctions present in this question.

The Position and Function of the Walī in Sufism

In the school of Ibn Arabi, the whole of creation and all beings are formed on the basis of the system of divine Names and Attributes, such that without attention to the nature and structure of the Names and Attributes in theoretical mysticism, any analysis and explanation would be unintelligible (Lahiji, 1381: p. 77). Each being is a locus of manifestation of divine Names and Attributes such as the All-Merciful, the Compassionate, the Manifest, the Hidden, the Self-Subsisting, the Disposer and so on. According to the system of divine Names and Attributes, prophethood is the locus of manifestation of the Name “the Manifest” (al-Ẓāhir) and wilāyah the locus of manifestation of the Name “the Hidden” (al-Bāṭin). Whatever pertains to outward matters and the outward Names of the Real reaches creation through the Prophet, and whatever pertains to inward matters, including unmediated connection with God, is carried out through the walī (Ibn Arabi, 1375, vol. 1: 64). Hence Ibn Arabi holds that the prophets and messengers also possessed the station of wilāyah, and through this very station received inward realities (Ibn Arabi, 1367, vol. 1: 9). The function defined for the person of the walī after the Messenger of Allah (s) lies predominantly in inward and mystical matters; whereas in Shiʿism, all the characteristics and capacities of the Noble Prophet of Islam (s), outward and inward alike (except prophethood), pass to the walī (Kasnazani, 1426 AH, vol. 8: 198).

Historically, the discussion of Sufi wilāyah matured and developed within the intellectual discourse of the Sunnis, and they distinguished between the various capacities that passed from the Messenger of Allah (s) to his successors, separating religious and scholarly authority from the governance of society. Hence the Sufis distinguish between the stations and offices of “polarity” (quṭbiyya), “Imamate”, “deputyship”, “outward caliphate”, “inward caliphate”, “emirate and government”, “wilāyah“, “inheritance”, “the Ahl al-Bayt of the Messenger (a)”, “the family of the Messenger (a)”, “the Imams”, “deputyship” and “executorship” (waṣāya), and enumerate different instances for each of them (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 3: 136 and 137; Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 4: 75 and vol. 2: 1 and 272). For example, Ibn Arabi points out that “Imamate” and “polarity” are sometimes combined in one person, as happened in the case of the two shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ʿUmar]: “Sometimes the Pole of the age is himself the Imam, like Abu Bakr and others in his time” (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 3: 173). So the successor of the Messenger of Allah (s) is not necessarily the caliph and Imam of the people in outward affairs; as Ibn Arabi explicitly states, some of the successors of the Messenger of Allah (s), such as Bayazid Bistami and Harun al-Rashid al-Sabti and most of the other Poles, do not have outward caliphate (ibid., vol. 2: 6).

Some other Sufis believe that after the Messenger of God (s) the two realms of the outward and the inward were separated from each other: caliphs such as Abu Bakr and ʿUmar had the duty of occupying themselves with the domain of the outward aspects of the world and ruling over bodies, while Hazrat ʿAli (a) was to be active in the domain of the inward and of meaning and pursue rule over the souls of the world’s inhabitants (Kasnazani, 1426 AH, vol. 3: 432). The Sufis now believe that they too are successors of Hazrat ʿAli (a) in inward matters and must give the people instructions concerning the reform of souls and purification. Hasan Salih ʿAlishah, one of the Poles of the Gonabadi order, writes:

The scholars give Muslims instructions on the outward manners and rulings of religion, and we give our followers instructions on purity of heart and reform of the inward on the path of the soul, the dominion of faith, and God; and we say that the instructions and laws of the outward aspect of Islam must be taken from them, and they must take instructions for reforming the inward from us (Salih ʿAlishah, 1380: p. 51).

This Sufi outlook took shape because of the prior presence of Sunnism among their Poles and the desire to combine the two creeds of Shiʿa and Sunni — which some have called “Twelver Sunnism”; for it granted legitimacy to the rule of the two shaykhs while also regarding Hazrat ʿAli (a) as the immediate executor (waṣī) of the Messenger of God (s) — but solely within the domain of the inward and of meaning.

Mulla Sultan writes:

Know that the prophets and executors, those noble ones, have two capacities: by one they warn creation, and by the other they guide creation toward the Hereafter, toward God… But in the prophets the capacity of warning predominates and the capacity of guidance is overpowered and hidden, and in the executors (awliyāʾ)… the capacity of guidance predominates and the capacity of warning is overpowered. For this reason the Commander of the Faithful (a) sat at home for twenty-five years, closed the door of the outward call upon himself and occupied himself with the inward call, and left the outward call to those who had no right to it whatsoever; for warning can come from anyone (Gonabadi, 1384: p. 25).

He states explicitly elsewhere:

When the time of that noble one’s [the Prophet’s] passing drew near, he entrusted the inherited sciences and special divine endowments to the chief of the Sufis, the exalted ʿAli, and commanded that noble one to the call of wilāyah, and did not seal the general call of prophethood upon him; for the purpose of this call was to gather the generality of creation at the watering-place of the law of the best of mankind and bring them under the rule of Islam, and this can be accomplished by others, even if they are false; as is well known of the caliphs, that they called many to Islam and brought them under the rulings of prophethood (Gonabadi, 1379: p. 128).

The Position and Function of the Walī in Shiʿism

In the view of the Twelver Shiʿa, all the capacities of the Messenger of Allah (s) — whether inward matters and spiritual wilāyah, or political and social Imamate and government, or legislative wilāyah and the explanation of religion, its rulings and the manners of the sacred law — pass in full to the Commander of the Faithful (a) and then to his eleven descendants; the successor of the Messenger of Allah (s) possesses the station of caliphate, Imamate and rule over society, and it is not the case that the caliph or Imam is someone other than the walī. The only station the successor of the Messenger of Allah (s) does not hold is the capacity of prophethood itself and the descent of revelation, which is explicitly mentioned in the Hadith of Status (ḥadīth al-manzila) (Tabrisi, 1421 AH, vol. 1: 134). To put it another way, Imamate and wilāyah are two capacities and roles of the Imam which, while conceptually and perhaps essentially distinct, are coextensive in reality; such that, according to Imami theological and narrational literature, every Imam of the community is the mawlā of the community and every mawlā of the community is the Imam of the community — just as no non-Imam is the mawlā of the community and no non-mawlā is the Imam of the community. Passages from Ziyarat al-Jamiʿa al-Kabira depict part of the position and functions of the infallible walī:

I bear witness that you are the rightly guiding Imams, the rightly guided, the infallible, the honored, the brought-near, the God-fearing, the truthful, the chosen, obedient to God, upholding His command, acting upon His will, who have attained His generosity. He chose you for His knowledge, approved of you for His unseen, selected you for His secret… and He was pleased with you as caliphs in His earth, proofs over His creation, helpers of His religion, guardians of His secret, treasurers of His knowledge, repositories of His wisdom, interpreters of His revelation, pillars of His unity, witnesses over His creation, banners for His servants, lighthouses in His lands, and guides to His path (Shaykh al-Saduq, n.d., vol. 2: 273).

5. Distinctions in Instances

Another of the distinctions and differences in the idea of wilāyah between Sufism and Shiʿism concerns its instances and cases, which is what the word “generic” (nawʿiyya) in the term “generic wilāyah” refers to.

The Instances of the Walī in Sufism

The Sufis believe that the station of wilāyah has a common essence and root which every human being has the aptitude and capacity to attain, and this happens when they reach the station of annihilation in God or the removal of duality and twoness with the Real. Those who have actualized this potential and tasted the station of wilāyah become united with the other awliyāʾ. In other words, all perfect humans and awliyāʾ are, in terms of origin and root, a single reality, which is called the “Muhammadan Reality” (Fanari, 2010: pp. 338–339); but according to different requirements and times, it acquires multiple manifestations and theophanies in the forms of prophets and infallible awliyāʾ (Qaysari, 1375 SH: 128). On this basis, there is no limit on the number of awliyāʾ, their lineage, their characteristics or even their creed. Any human being can, through purification, striving and ascetic discipline, become a possessor of the station of wilāyah. This understanding is technically called “generic and acquired wilāyah“. The word “generic” refers to the fact that the human species can reach this station, and the word “acquired” refers to the possibility of acquiring it (Kashani, n.d.: p. 44), as opposed to its being a gift and grace (Motahhari, n.d.: p. 199). Ibn Arabi states explicitly in Fusus al-Hikam that wilāyah is never cut off: “Wilāyah is never cut off” (Ibn Arabi, 1370, vol. 1: 62), and in discussing the difference between prophethood and wilāyah in chapter 303 of al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya he says:

Prophethood is a special designation with which God distinguishes “whomever He wills of His servants”, and that door has been closed and sealed with the Messenger of God, Muhammad (s); and wilāyah is acquired until the Day of Resurrection (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 3: 14).

In this connection Ibn Arabi says: “Al-Walī is an enduring Name of God, Exalted be He; and so it belongs to His servants by way of taking on its character (takhalluq), realization (taḥaqquq) and attachment (taʿalluq)” (Ibn Arabi, 1370, vol. 1: 136). As Qaysari also states, what is meant by realization and attachment is the very station of “annihilation in God and subsistence through God”, by attaining which a human being, like God, becomes possessor of the station of wilāyah and the title walī (Qaysari, 1375: p. 838).

Rumi has said in verse:

پس به هر دوری ولی‌ای قائم است ** تا قیامت آزمایش دائم است پس امام حی قائم آن ولی است ** خواه از نسل عمر خواه از علی است مهدی و هادی وی است ای راه‌جو ** هم نهان و هم نشسته پیش رو

So in every age a walī stands; the trial continues until the Resurrection. So the living, standing (qāʾim) Imam is that walī — whether from the line of ʿUmar or from ʿAli. He is the Mahdi and the Guide, O seeker of the path; both hidden and seated before you. (Rumi, 1373: p. 192)

In stating the instances of the Poles after the Messenger of Allah (s), Ibn Arabi refers to persons such as the Abbasid al-Mutawakkil, writing:

The Poles, by convention, are those to whom this name applies absolutely, without qualification. There is only ever one of them in any age, and he is also the Succor (al-ghawth); he is among those brought near, and he is the master of the community in his time. Among them are some who hold outward rule and possess the outward caliphate, just as they possess the inward caliphate by virtue of their station — such as Abu Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthman, ʿAli, al-Hasan, Muʿawiya b. Yazid, ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAziz and al-Mutawakkil; and among them are some who have the inward caliphate alone and no outward rule — such as Ahmad b. Harun al-Rashid al-Sabti and Abu Yazid al-Bistami; and most of the Poles have no outward rule (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 2: 6).

The Instances of the Walī in Shiʿism

Opposite the Sufi theory of generic and acquired wilāyah stands the Shiʿi theory of “personal and bestowed wilāyah“. The Twelver Shiʿa, from the time of the Messenger of God (s) until the Day of Resurrection, consider only twelve Imams and walīs to be the instances of the highest and most perfect human beings, and they know that in the age of occultation too the Imam is living, present and aware: the Hujja b. al-Hasan (aj) (Tusi, 1411 AH: p. 152). These individuals are chosen by God and explicitly designated by the Messenger of Allah (s), and the people had no role in their attaining the station of wilāyah and Imamate. In other words, attaining the station of wilāyah was not the fruit of their effort, striving and wayfaring in the world; rather, it was a divine grace, and God bestowed this station upon them, and the people are obliged to accept them in this position and station. Not only can no one share with them in the station of wilāyah; no one can even come near to the station and position of these individuals (Shaykh al-Saduq, 1395, vol. 1: 281).

According to the narration of Imam al-Hasan (a), the Messenger of God (s) said: “Twelve Imams will possess this matter (the caliphate) after me, nine of them from the loins of al-Husayn, and God has granted them my knowledge and understanding” (Khazzaz, 1401 AH: p. 166). In other words, in the Shiʿi school, the station of wilāyah and Imamate is a garment that, after the Messenger of God (s) and until the Day of Resurrection, rests only on twelve persons — no fewer and no more — and the important point about this number is its instances; that is, the mere number twelve is not the criterion, but rather these twelve are determined in the Commander of the Faithful, Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn (a) and nine of the descendants of this infallible Imam. Hence the instances of the walī in Shiʿism are defined exclusively as “twelve specified and known individuals”.

6. Distinctions concerning the Seal of Wilāyah

The discussion of the “seal of wilāyah” and “Mahdism” in Sufism differs from the Shiʿi view in two respects. First, Mahdism in Sufism is generic (Modarresi Chahardehi, 1393 SH: p. 305); that is, whoever attains the station of wilāyah and polarity will be the Mahdi of the age (Gonabadi, 1379 SH: p. 150). Mulla ʿAli Gonabadi writes in his book Salihiyya:

[The mystics] acknowledge in various modes the Mahdi and his appearance in the world of the soul; and the generic Mahdi and his appearance in the world of contingency; and the generic Mahdi and his appearance through sovereignty and victory over enemies (Gonabadi, 1346 AH: p. 127).

Fakhr al-Din ʿIraqi, on the basis of the idea of generic wilāyah and Mahdism, calls his master and shaykh, Bahaʾ al-Din Zakariyya Multani, the Seal of the Saints and the Imam of the Age, a station which in his view is the same as the Succor of the faith, the Pole, the spiritual guide, [the guide of] the bewildered, the boon companion of the All-Merciful and the master of truth:

چند اشارات خود، صریح کنیم ** غوث دین، قطب چرخ ایمان کو؟ مطلع نور ذوالجلال کجاست؟ ** مشرق قدس فیض سبحان کو؟ خاتم اولیا، امام زمان ** مرشد صد هزار حیران کو؟ صاحب حق، بهای عالم قدس ** زکریا، ندیم رحمان کو؟ چه عجب گر بگوش جان همه ** آید از سر غیب این کلمه کین دم آن سرور شما با ماست ** زانکه امروز دست او بالاست

How long these hints of mine? Let us speak plainly: where is the Succor of the faith, the Pole of the sphere of faith? Where is the rising-place of the light of the Lord of Majesty? Where is the dawning-point of the holiness of the grace of the Glorified? The Seal of the Saints, the Imam of the Age — where is the guide of a hundred thousand bewildered souls? The master of truth, the Bahaʾ of the world of holiness — where is Zakariyya, the boon companion of the All-Merciful? What wonder if to the ear of every soul this word should come from the realm of the unseen: that at this moment that master is with us, for today his hand is uppermost. (ʿIraqi, 1375: p. 116)

In verses about Vahid al-Awliyaʾ, one of the later Poles of the Dhahabi order, the title “Hujjat al-Qaʾim” — a title exclusive to Hazrat Mahdi (aj) — is also attributed to him, and it is said that earth and time bear witness to this title of Vahid al-Awliyaʾ:

هم در این اثنا چون سروش ** آمد از بام عمارت در خروش گوش بر بانگش چو بنهادم عیان ** دیدم این ذکرش بود رطب اللسان حجت القائم وحید الاولیا پیش خود گفتم خیال من چنین ** در سماخ من فکنده این طنین باز بانگی کرد آن حیوان، رسا ** حجت القائم وحید الاولیا بهر دفع نفس رنگی ریختم ** همسر خود را ز خواب انگیختم گفتم او را گوش کن لیکن نیمه شب ** موذنی گوید اذانی بس عجب بین چه می‌گوید کنون این راز سو ** و آنچه بشنیدی تو با من باز گو ما در این بودیم کامد در خروش ** آن خروس و زن به بانگش داد گوش گفت گوید این منادی خدا ** حجت القائم وحید الاولیا یک تن از اطفال من از خواب جست ** چشم خود بگشود و در بستر نشست چون که باز آمد خروس اندر خروش ** گفت آن کودک ز سر تا پای گوش گفت همره با خروس خوش‌نوا ** حجت القائم وحید الاولیا

In the midst of this, like an angel’s call, there came a clamor from the roof of the building; When I clearly lent my ear to its cry, I saw that its refrain upon the tongue was this: Hujjat al-Qaʾim Vahid al-Awliyaʾ. I said to myself: it is my fancy that has cast such a ringing into my ear. Again that creature cried out clearly: Hujjat al-Qaʾim Vahid al-Awliyaʾ. To dispel the [doubts of the] self I devised a plan: I woke my wife from sleep, And told her: listen — but it is midnight, and a muezzin is calling a most strange call; See what this secret is that it now says, and tell me again what you hear. We were thus engaged when it came crying out again; that rooster — and my wife lent her ear to its cry. She said: this caller of God is saying: Hujjat al-Qaʾim Vahid al-Awliyaʾ. One of my children leapt up from sleep, opened his eyes and sat up in bed; When the rooster came again crying out, that child, all ears from head to foot, Said along with the sweet-voiced rooster: Hujjat al-Qaʾim Vahid al-Awliyaʾ. (Vahid al-Awliyaʾ Tabrizi, 1373: p. 44)

Hence the Shiʿi Sufis believe that those who encounter the Pole of the age have, as it were, encountered Hazrat Hujja b. al-Hasan (aj): “The divine awliyāʾ and the knowers of God have no need of outwardly being honored with the presence of the Imam of the Age — may our souls be his ransom; rather, their souls have companionship and union with the greatest walī, may God hasten his relief” (Tehrani, n.d.: p. 65). Sultan Muhammad Gonabadi writes in his book Majmaʿ al-Saʿadat: “On the point that whoever knows his Imam has no need to await the reappearance of Hazrat Qaʾim (aj)” (Gonabadi, 1384: p. 150).

Second, in Sufism there is a difference between the seal of wilāyah and Mahdism, and the majority of Sufis believe that the Seal of the Saints is a person other than the Mahdi: “Most of Ibn Arabi’s statements are explicit that Jesus (a) possesses the station of absolute wilāyah” (Jahangiri, 1375: p. 474). Ibn Arabi states explicitly that the Seal of wilāyah is not the awaited Mahdi (aj), since the awaited Mahdi (aj) is from the Prophet’s (s) family and physical lineage, whereas the Seal of the Saints is from his non-physical, spiritual lineage:

He [the Prophet] merited that his special wilāyah should have a seal whose name matches his name (s) and who possesses his character; and he is not the named, well-known, awaited Mahdi, for that one is from his lineage and family, whereas the Seal is not from his physical lineage but from the lineage of his traits (Ibn Arabi, n.d., vol. 2: 50).

Dawud al-Qaysari states explicitly that the Seal of the Saints is not the Mahdi but Hazrat ʿIsa (a), who will appear from among the non-Arabs, whereas the Mahdi (aj) is from the descendants of the Prophet (s) and will appear from among the Arabs:

It should not be imagined that what is meant by the Seal of the Saints is the Mahdi. For the Shaykh has stated explicitly that he is Jesus, and he will appear from among the non-Arabs, while the Mahdi is from the descendants of the Prophet (s) and will appear from among the Arabs (Qaysari, 1375: p. 438).

The station of the seal of wilāyah enjoys such a position among the Sufis, while in the Shiʿi view the Imams until the Day of Resurrection are confined to these twelve persons, and the last walī and their seal is Hazrat Hujja b. al-Hasan al-ʿAskari (aj); no one but him has the merit and standing to possess this position and station. In this regard, there are many narrations from the Pure Imams (a) in the Imami hadith sources; in the Four Books of Shiʿi hadith, chapters are devoted to this very subject. For example, al-Kulayni in al-Kafi devotes a chapter to “What has come concerning the twelve and the explicit designation of them”. Imami scholars have also written independent works on this subject and compiled the aforementioned hadiths. The book Kifayat al-Athar fi al-Nass ʿala al-Aʾimma al-Ithnay ʿAshar by Khazzaz al-Razi (d. fourth century) and Muntakhab al-Athar fi al-Imam al-Thani ʿAshar by Ayatollah Safi Golpayegani (may God have mercy on him) are among these works. The content mentioned also appears many times in other hadiths of the Ahl al-Bayt (a). For example, one can refer to passages from the Hadith of Ghadir concerning him:

Behold, the Seal of the Imams is from us: the Qaʾim, the Mahdi. Behold, he is the one who will prevail over religion. Behold, he is the avenger against the oppressors. Behold, he is the conqueror of fortresses and their destroyer. Behold, he is the vanquisher of every tribe of the people of polytheism and their guide. Behold, he is the one who takes vengeance for every blood of the friends of God. Behold, he is the helper of the religion of God. Behold, he draws from a deep ocean. Behold, he marks every person of merit by his merit and every person of ignorance by his ignorance (Tabrisi, 1421 AH, vol. 1: 55).

The specific identity of the Imam as the son of Imam al-ʿAskari (a) is also among the subjects referred to many times in the hadiths (Shaykh al-Saduq, 1395, vol. 2: 648). For example, it is reported that ʿAli b. Abi Hamza said: I was with Abu Basir, and a servant of Imam al-Baqir (a) was also with us, and he said: I heard that noble one saying: “Twelve of us are spoken to by the angels; the seventh after me is my son the Qaʾim.” Then Abu Basir stood up and said: “I bear witness that I heard Imam al-Baqir (a) say this very thing forty years ago” (Tusi, 1411 AH, vol. 1: 96).

Therefore, contrary to the belief of the Sufis, in the Shiʿi view wilāyah and Imamate are sealed by the Imam of the Age, and no one after him will possess such a station and position; hence the notion of Mahdism being acquired and generic is utterly rejected and foreign to Shiʿi foundations.

Similarities between Sufi Wilāyah and Shiʿi Wilāyah

Some researchers believe that the terms walī and wilāyah in the discourse of Sufism and Shiʿism are almost a case of homonymy (ishtirāk lafẓī); that is, although these two currents use similar vocabulary, the concepts and definitions of wilāyah offered in these two systems of thought differ fundamentally. These differences are so extensive that the commonality between them seems to remain merely at the level of word and language. Given the fundamental distinctions in the concept of the walī in Sufism and Shiʿism, this view seems defensible: the similarities in the doctrine of wilāyah between these two schools are mainly confined to certain secondary matters and peripheral aspects. For example, the stations the Sufis attribute to the awliyāʾ correspond in some cases with the Shiʿi view — stations such as infallibility, knowledge, the power to perform miracles, and creational (takwīnī) and legislative (tashrīʿī) wilāyah. The Sufis, too, present the Perfect Human as the vicegerent of God and the locus of manifestation of the divine Names the All-Knowing and the All-Powerful, and believe that the scope of his knowledge is unlimited, that no veil has any meaning for him (Shah Niʿmatullah Wali, 1392, vol. 2: 952), that whatever God knows and is able to do, he too is able to do, and that he is infallible in all his acts (Qaysari, 1375: p. 134; Nasafi, 1379: p. 232; Qaysari, 1375: p. 227; Ibn Turka, 1355: p. 245). Nevertheless, it may be inferred that the Sufis borrowed the form and basic concept of wilāyah from Shiʿi teachings, but by introducing foundations and elements such as the acquired nature of wilāyah, annihilation in God and the belief in oneness and union, they altered this concept so as to make it compatible with their own intellectual foundations. These alterations have ultimately caused wilāyah in Shiʿi thought to be subjected to interpretations and distortions on the part of the Sufis.

Conclusion

Comparing any of the secondary and superstructural teachings and doctrines in different schools without regard to their foundations and principles of worldview is methodologically unsound, does not lead to a satisfactory result, and entangles one in countless fallacies and disputes. In the subject of this study, in order to compare the doctrine of wilāyah in Sufism and Shiʿism, this doctrine was studied on the basis of the Sufi foundations of cosmology and theology, and it was established that the doctrine of wilāyah in Sufism is regarded as part of the system of mystical ontology, such that mystical wilāyah acquires a coherent meaning only within this very structure and theoretical framework; and hence the idea of Sufi wilāyah, within the paradigm of the theory of the unity of existence and of the existent and the foundations of mystical ontology, acquires a meaning and basis entirely different from the Shiʿi view. In this study, in surveying the distinctions of wilāyah in Sufism and Shiʿism, the authors pointed to six main axes: the distinctions seen in the basic concept and meaning of wilāyah, and the distinctions in the foundations and principles, attributes, functions and instances of Sufi wilāyah as against Shiʿi wilāyah; and finally they addressed the distinction regarding the seal of wilāyah, or Mahdism. By examining and reflecting on these matters, one can clearly grasp the gap and difference between the theory of wilāyah in Sufism and what the Shiʿa believe. This difference is so deep that the discussion of wilāyah in Sufism and Shiʿism may be described as merely homonymous. But are the distinctions of the idea of wilāyah in Sufism and Shiʿism limited to these six cases alone, or can further points be uncovered through detailed examination and scrutiny of the foundations of each of these two currents? Or the question of how and why the Sufis have borrowed characteristics such as infallibility and ladunnī (God-given) knowledge for their Poles and have seated dervishes, under the title of the Perfect Human, in the place of the Imams (a)? These are questions that must be answered in other studies.

Bibliography

  • The Noble Qurʾan.
  • Nahj al-Balagha.
  1. Ibn Abi Shayba, ʿAbd Allah b. Muhammad (1429 AH), Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba fi al-Ahadith wa al-Athar, ed. Saʿid Muhammad al-Lahham, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr li al-Tibaʿa wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawziʿ.
  2. Ibn Babawayh, Muhammad b. ʿAli (Shaykh al-Saduq) (1416 AH), al-Tawhid, Qom: Jamaʿat al-Mudarrisin fi al-Hawza al-ʿIlmiyya bi-Qum, Muʾassasat al-Nashr al-Islami.
  3. ——— (1395), Kamal al-Din wa Tamam al-Niʿma, ed. ʿAli Akbar Ghaffari, Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
  4. ——— (1404 AH), Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, Qom: Jamiʿe-ye Modarresin-e Howze-ye ʿElmiyye-ye Qom, Daftar-e Entesharat-e Eslami.
  5. ——— (n.d.), ʿUyun Akhbar al-Rida (a), Tehran: Jahan.
  6. Ibn Bitriq, Yahya b. Hasan and Mahmudi, Malik (1417 AH), Khasaʾis al-Wahy al-Mubin, Qom: Dar al-Qurʾan al-Karim.
  7. Ibn Turka, Saʾin al-Din ʿAli b. Muhammad (1355), Tamhid al-Qawaʿid, ed. Sayyid Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani, Tehran: Anjoman-e Hekmat va Falsafe-ye Iran.
  8. Ibn Shahrashub, Muhammad b. ʿAli (1390), Manaqib Al Abi Talib (a), ed. ʿAli Ashraf, Qom: al-Maktaba al-Haydariyya.
  9. Ibn ʿUthman, Mahmud (1385), Firdaws al-Murshidiyya, ed. Iraj Afshar, Tehran: Offset.
  10. Ibn Arabi, Muhyi al-Din (1367), Rasaʾil Ibn al-ʿArabi, Beirut: Dar Ihyaʾ al-Turath al-ʿArabi.
  11. ——— (1421 AH), Majmuʿat Rasaʾil Ibn ʿArabi, Beirut: Dar al-Mahajja al-Baydaʾ.
  12. ——— (n.d.), al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, Beirut: Dar Ihyaʾ al-Turath al-ʿArabi.
  13. ——— (1397), Naqsh al-Fusus, ed. Najib Mayel Heravi, Tehran: Mowla.
  14. ———, Movahhed, Samad and Movahhed, Mohammad-Ali (1386), Fusus al-Hikam, Tehran: Karnameh.
  15. ——— (1370), Fusus al-Hikam, ed. and commentary Abu al-ʿAlaʾ ʿAfifi, Tehran: al-Zahraʾ.
  16. Ibn Manzur, Muhammad b. Mukarram (1408 AH), Lisan al-ʿArab, ed. ʿAli Shiri, Beirut: Dar Ihyaʾ al-Turath al-ʿArabi.
  17. Asiri Lahiji, Muhammad b. Yahya; Mahmudi Bakhtiyari, ʿAliqoli (1381), Mafatih al-Iʿjaz fi Sharh-e Golshan-e Raz, Tehran: Nashr-e ʿElm.
  18. Ansari, Murtada b. Muhammad Amin (1415 AH), Kitab al-Makasib, Qom: al-Muʾtamar al-ʿAlami bi-Munasabat al-Dhikra al-Miʾawiyya al-Thaniya li-Milad al-Shaykh al-Aʿzam al-Ansari, al-Amana al-ʿAmma.
  19. Amini, ʿAbd al-Husayn (2009), al-Ghadir, Qom: Muʾassasat Daʾirat al-Maʿarif al-Fiqh al-Islami.
  20. Ashtiyani, Sayyid Jalal al-Din (1370), Sharh-e Moqaddame-ye Qaysari bar Fusus al-Hikam, Tehran: Amir Kabir.
  21. Bahr al-ʿUlum, Muhammad b. Muhammad Taqi (1362), Bulghat al-Faqih, commentary Muhammad Taqi Al Bahr al-ʿUlum, Tehran: Maktabat al-Sadiq (a).
  22. Bahrani, ʿAli b. ʿAbd Allah and Husayni, ʿAbd al-Zahraʾ (1405 AH), Manar al-Huda fi al-Nass ʿala Imamat al-Aʾimma al-Ithnay ʿAshar (a), Beirut: Dar al-Muntazar.
  23. Baqli Shirazi, Ruzbihan b. Abi Nasr (2008), ʿArayis al-Bayan fi Haqaʾiq al-Qurʾan, ed. Ahmad Farid al-Mazidi, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
  24. Jami, ʿAbd al-Rahman b. Ahmad (1370), Naqd al-Nusus fi Sharh Naqsh al-Fusus, introduction Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani, ed. William C. Chittick, Tehran: Vezarat-e Farhang va Amuzesh-e ʿAli.
  25. Jami, ʿAbd al-Rahman (n.d.), Nafahat al-Uns, Calcutta: n.p.
  26. Javadi Amoli, ʿAbd Allah (1376), Rahiq-e Makhtum: Sharh-e Hekmat-e Mutaʿaliyeh, Qom: Markaz-e Nashr-e Esraʾ.
  27. ——— (1393), Tahrir-e Tamhid al-Qawaʿid (ʿAyn-e Nazzakh), ed. Hamid Parsania, Qom: Esraʾ.
  28. Jahangiri, Mohsen (1375), Muhyi al-Din b. ʿArabi, Chehre-ye Barjaste-ye ʿErfan-e Eslami, Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
  29. Jili, ʿAbd al-Karim b. Ibrahim (1418 AH), al-Insan al-Kamil fi Maʿrifat al-Awakhir wa al-Awaʾil, ed. Salah Muhammad ʿUwayda, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
  30. Halabi, ʿAli b. Hasan (1414 AH), Isharat al-Sabq ila Maʿrifat al-Haqq, Qom: Jamaʿat al-Mudarrisin fi al-Hawza al-ʿIlmiyya bi-Qum.
  31. Hilli, Hasan b. Yusuf and Tusi, Nasir al-Din Muhammad (1413 AH), Kashf al-Murad fi Sharh Tajrid al-Iʿtiqad, ed. Hasan Hasanzadeh Amoli, Qom: Jamaʿat al-Mudarrisin fi al-Hawza al-ʿIlmiyya bi-Qum.
  32. Khazzaz al-Razi, ʿAli b. Muhammad (1401 AH), Kifayat al-Athar fi al-Nass ʿala al-Aʾimma al-Ithnay ʿAshar, Qom: Bidar.
  33. Radtke, Bernd (1379), Do Athar az Hakim Termezi: Mafhum-e Velayat dar Dowran-e Aghazin-e ʿErfan-e Eslami, Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz.
  34. Raghib al-Isfahani, Husayn b. Muhammad (1412 AH), al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qurʾan, Damascus: Dar al-ʿIlm, al-Dar al-Shamiyya.
  35. Zabidi, Muhammad b. Muhammad and Firuzabadi, Muhammad b. Yaʿqub (1414 AH), Taj al-ʿArus min Jawahir al-Qamus, ed. ʿAli Shiri, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr.
  36. Zarrinkub, ʿAbd al-Husayn (1385), Tasavvof-e Irani dar Manzar-e Tarikhi-ye An, Tehran: Sokhan.
  37. Zamakhshari, Mahmud b. ʿUmar (1399 AH), Asas al-Balagha, Beirut: Dar Sadir.
  38. Sajjadi, Ziyaʾ al-Din (1392), Moqaddame-i bar Mabani-ye ʿErfan va Tasavvof, Tehran: SAMT.
  39. Shah Niʿmatullah Wali, Nur al-Din (1392), Majmaʿ al-Rasaʾil-e Shah Niʿmatullah Wali, Tehran: Nashr-e ʿElm.
  40. ——— (1380), Divan-e Kamel-e Hazrat-e Shah Niʿmatullah Wali, Kerman: Khaneqah-e Niʿmatullahi Publications.
  41. Shabistari, Mahmud b. ʿAbd al-Karim (1382), Golshan-e Raz, ed. Mohammad Hamasian, Kerman: Khadamat-e Farhangi-ye Kerman.
  42. Sadeqi-Fard, Gholamreza (1390), Aye-ye Velayat, Tehran: Maham-e Tus.
  43. Salih ʿAlishah, Mohammad Hasan (1380), Yadname-ye Saleh, Tehran: Nashr-e Haqiqat.
  44. Saffar, Muhammad b. Hasan (1404 AH), Basaʾir al-Darajat fi Fadaʾil Al Muhammad (a), Qom: Maktabat Ayat Allah al-ʿUzma al-Marʿashi al-Najafi.
  45. Tabatabaʾi, Sayyid Muhammad Husayn (1378), Tafsir al-Mizan, Qom: Jamiʿe-ye Modarresin-e Howze-ye ʿElmiyye-ye Qom.
  46. Tabrisi, Ahmad b. ʿAli (1421 AH), al-Ihtijaj, ed. Muhammad Baqir al-Musawi al-Khirsan, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Aʿlami li al-Matbuʿat.
  47. Tabrisi, Fadl b. Hasan (1415 AH), Majmaʿ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qurʾan, ed. al-Sayyid Muhsin al-Amin al-ʿAmili, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Aʿlami li al-Matbuʿat.
  48. Tabari, Muhammad b. Jarir (1408 AH), Dalaʾil al-Imama, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Aʿlami li al-Matbuʿat.
  49. Tusi, Muhammad b. Hasan (1425 AH), al-Ghayba, introduction Muhammad Muhsin Aqa Buzurg Tehrani, ed. ʿAli Ahmad Nasih and ʿIbad Allah Tehrani, Qom: Muʾassasat al-Maʿarif al-Islamiyya.
  50. Tusi, Nasir al-Din Muhammad b. Muhammad (1375), Asas al-Iqtibas, Tehran: Markaz.
  51. ——— (1985), Talkhis al-Muhassal, Beirut: Dar al-Adwaʾ.
  52. ʿIraqi, Fakhr al-Din Ibrahim and Nafisi, Saʿid (1375), Kolliyat-e ʿEraqi, Tehran: Sanaʾi.
  53. Gholami, Asghar and Berenjkar, Reza (1391), “Tabyin-e Maʿna-ye Vali dar Partow-e Ayat-e Velayat” [Explaining the Meaning of Walī in Light of the Verses of Wilāyah], Andishe-ye Novin-e Dini, year 8, no. 30.
  54. Fanari, Shams al-Din Muhammad (2010), Misbah al-Uns bayn al-Maʿqul wa al-Mashhud, ed. ʿAsim Ibrahim al-Kayyali, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
  55. Firuzabadi, Muhammad b. Yaʿqub (1415 AH), al-Qamus al-Muhit, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya.
  56. Qaysari, Dawud b. Mahmud (1375), Sharh Fusus al-Hikam, ed. Sayyid Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani, Tehran: Sherkat-e Entesharat-e ʿElmi va Farhangi.
  57. ——— (1381), Rasaʾil-e Qaysari, ed. Jalal al-Din Ashtiyani, Tehran: Moʾassese-ye Pazhuheshi-ye Hekmat va Falsafe-ye Iran.
  58. Kashani, ʿAbd al-Razzaq (n.d.), Sharh Manazil al-Saʾirin, Qom: Bidar.
  59. ——— (1370), Sharh Fusus al-Hikam, Qom: Bidar.
  60. Kashif al-Ghitaʾ, Jaʿfar b. Khidr (n.d.), Kashf al-Ghitaʾ ʿan Mubhamat al-Shariʿa al-Gharraʾ, Isfahan: Mahdavi.
  61. Karajaki, Muhammad b. ʿAli (1421 AH), al-Taʿajjub min Aghlat al-ʿAmma fi Masʾalat al-Imama, ed. Faris Hassun Karim, Qom: Dar al-Ghadir.
  62. Kasnazani, Muhammad (1426 AH), Mawsuʿat al-Kasnazan fima Istalaha ʿalayhi Ahl al-Tasawwuf wa al-ʿIrfan, Damascus: Dar al-Mahabba.
  63. Kanturi, Hamid Husayn (1366), ʿAbaqat al-Anwar fi Imamat al-Aʾimma al-Athar, Isfahan: Ketabkhane-ye Amir al-Moʾmenin (a).
  64. Kulayni, Muhammad b. Yaʿqub (1363), al-Kafi, Tehran: Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyya.
  65. Gonabadi, Sultan Muhammad (1379), Saʿadat-name, Tehran: Nashr-e Haqiqat.
  66. ——— (1384), Majmaʿ al-Saʿadat, Tehran: Nashr-e Haqiqat.
  67. ——— (1384), Velayat-name, Tehran: Nashr-e Haqiqat.
  68. ——— (1408 AH), Bayan al-Saʿada fi Maqamat al-ʿIbada, Beirut: Muʾassasat al-Aʿlami li al-Matbuʿat.
  69. Gonabadi, Mulla ʿAli (1346), Salihiyya, Tehran: University of Tehran Press.
  70. Majlisi, Muhammad Baqir (1403 AH), Bihar al-Anwar al-Jamiʿa li-Durar Akhbar al-Aʾimma al-Athar, Beirut: Dar Ihyaʾ al-Turath al-ʿArabi.
  71. Modarresi Chahardehi, Nur al-Din (1393), Selselehā-ye Sufiyye-ye Iran, Tehran: Sherkat-e Entesharat-e ʿElmi va Farhangi.
  72. Motahhari, Morteza (n.d.), Ensan-e Kamel, Tehran: Sadra.
  73. Makarem Shirazi, Naser (1379), al-Amthal fi Tafsir Kitab Allah al-Munzal, Qom: Madrasat al-Imam ʿAli b. Abi Talib (a).
  74. Rumi (Mowlavi), Jalal al-Din Muhammad (1373), Mathnawi-ye Maʿnawi, Tehran: Vezarat-e Farhang va Ershad-e Eslami.
  75. Nasafi, ʿAziz al-Din b. Muhammad (1386), Ensan-e Kamel, introduction Henry Corbin, ed. Marijan Molé, Tehran: Tahuri.
  76. ———, Mahdavi Damghani, Ahmad (1386), Kashf al-Haqaʾiq, Tehran: Sherkat-e Entesharat-e ʿElmi va Farhangi.
  77. ——— (1379), Bayan al-Tanzil, ed. ʿAli Asghar Mirbaqeri-Fard, Tehran: Anjoman-e Athar va Mafakher-e Farhangi.
  78. Nuʿmani, Muhammad b. Ibrahim (1397), al-Ghayba, ed. ʿAli Akbar Ghaffari, Tehran: Maktabat al-Saduq.
  79. Vahid al-Awliyaʾ, Mirza Ahmad (1373), Majmuʿe-ye Anhar-e Jariye, Shiraz: Ketabforushi-ye Ahmadi-ye Shiraz.

Footnotes

  1. Head of the Imamate Association of the Hawzah and Head of the Maʿārif Ahl al-Bayt (a) Research Institute; sobhani.mt@gmail.com
  2. Head of the Academic Department for the Critique of Sufism, Khatam al-Nabiyyin (s) Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Teachings, Qom, Iran; alireza137003@yahoo.com. Date received: 24/03/1404 SH; date accepted: 05/09/1404 SH.
  3. For example, “An Analytical Perspective on the Concept of Wilāyah in Sufism and Islamic Mysticism” by Mohammad Esmaeil Abdollahi and Hamed Naji, Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Ulum-e Ensani-ye Naqsh-e Jahan, new series, year 1, autumn 1393 SH, no. 3; and likewise “The Walī and Wilāyah in Mysticism” by Fatemeh Moinoddini, Nathr-pazhuhi-ye Adab-e Farsi (Adab va Zaban), year 1385, no. 19 (consecutive no. 16), are only some of the detailed writings on this subject. Some researchers have also undertaken a comparative study of wilāyah in Sufism and Shiʿism; for example, “Wilāyah from the Perspective of Mysticism and Shiʿism: Similarities and Differences” by Abbas Mohammadian, Pazhuhesh-ha-ye Adabi, vol. 8, nos. 31–32, 1390 SH; “Comparing Wilāyah in Shiʿi Mysticism with Islamic Mysticism in Persian Literature” by Zahra Zadeh, at the First National Conference on Persian Literature and Interdisciplinary Studies, 1389 SH; and “A Comparative Study of the Doctrine of Wilāyah in Shiʿism and Sufism (with Emphasis on Usul al-Kafi, Nahj al-Balagha and the Mathnawi-ye Maʿnawi)” by Hasan Heydari and Alireza Fouladi, vol. 11, no. 42, Esfand 1394 SH, are among the works related to the research area of this article.
  4. Hence, at the beginning of the Hadith of Ghadir, the Noble Messenger (s) first used the word awlā to obtain the people’s acknowledgment of this position of his, saying: “Do you not know that I have a greater right over the believers than they have over themselves?” They said: “Indeed.” He said: “Do you not know that I have a greater right over every believer than he has over himself?” They said: “Indeed.”
  5. With this Sufi definition, the set of verses indicating that God is walī lose any clear meaning. For example, the verses:

    ﴿اللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا يُخْرِجُهُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِ إِلَى النُّورِ﴾

    “Allah is the Walī of those who have faith; He brings them out of darkness into light…” (al-Baqarah 2:257);

    ﴿فَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْوَلِيُّ وَهُوَ يُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ﴾

    “Allah — He is the Walī, and He gives life to the dead…” (al-Shura 42:9);

    ﴿وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِأَعْدَائِكُمْ ۚ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَلِيًّا وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ نَصِيرًا﴾

    “Allah knows best your enemies, and Allah suffices as a walī, and Allah suffices as a helper” (al-Nisaʾ 4:45).

  6. By the Muhammadan Reality is meant, in one respect, the very Essence of Unity (aḥadiyya) in the first determination, and in another respect, the station of being the locus of manifestation of the all-comprehensive Name Allah in the second determination.
  7. Ibn Arabi believes: “The Perfect Human is the most perfect locus of manifestation in which the Real has appeared; creation began with him and will end with him; he is the pole and center of the circle of existence; the world revolves around him and all beings receive emanation from him.” In this article, with reference to the ideas of earlier thinkers on this matter, Ibn Arabi’s account of the Perfect Human is analyzed.
  8. “And the connected mercy (al-raḥma al-mawṣūla)” (Shaykh al-Saduq, 1404 AH, Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih, vol. 2: 613).
  9. Six of the infallible leaders (a), in fourteen musnad and marfūʿ hadiths, have used the expression lā min shayʾ (“not from anything”) concerning divine creation. On the basis of a set of multiple pieces of evidence, the issuance of this expression from Lady Fatima al-Zahraʾ (a) in the Fadakiyya sermon and from the Commander of the Faithful ʿAli (a) is established. Accordingly, the literal meaning and logical concept of this expression have drawn the attention of Muslim traditionists, theologians and philosophers, who have used it to explain the manner of divine creation. According to an analysis of the statements of Muslim scholars, the expression lā min shayʾ depicts originative creation, without prior matter or form, on the basis of God’s power, will and wisdom, and indicates the exaltedness of the Creator and His dissimilarity to the created. The proposition resulting from the expression lā min shayʾ is an affirmative proposition with an affirmed predicate (mūjiba muḥaṣṣala) whose predicate’s object has the force of a negative proposition. “Creation not from anything” means granting existence to non-existence, which God alone is able to do. This doctrine breaks the presumed restriction to the two alternatives of “the eternity of matter” and “creation from nothingness”, and answers the objections raised against the idea of divine creation (Soltani Renani, 1397: pp. 169–190; Thaqafi, 1410 AH, al-Gharat, vol. 1: 171).