Walāya in the Formative Period of Shi'ism and Sufism: A Comparative Analysis [1 ed.] 9781003366416, 2022045566, 9781032432496, 9781032432526

Table of contents :
Cover
Endorsement Page
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Acknowledgements
Note on Transliteration, Translation, and Abbreviation
Introduction
Origin of the Term Wilāya/Walāya
A Note on Vocalization and Meaning of Wilāya/Walāya
Walāya in the Qurʾan
The Cosmic Dimension of Walī
This-Worldly Dimension of Walī
Qurʾanic Walāya and Future Developments
Formative Period in Shiʿism
Formative Period in Sufism
Scholarly Challenges in the Formative Period
Shiʿi and Sufi Texts in the Formative Period
Notes
Chapter 1 Walāya in Formative Shiʿism
The Concept of Walāya according to Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī
Kitāb Sulaym
Walāya in Kitāb Sulaym
The Concept of Walāya according to Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nishābūrī
Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ
Walāya in Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ
Aspect of Knowledge
Aspect of Political Authority
The Concept of Walāya according to Aḥmad al-Barqī
Kitāb al-Maḥāsin
Walāya in al-Maḥāsin
Aspect of Primordial Covenant
Aspect of Love
The Concept of Walāya according to Abū Jʿafar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī
The Concept of Walāya according to Abū Jʿafar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī
Kitāb al-Kāfī
Walāya in al-Kāf ī
Aspect of Knowledge
Aspect of Faith
Notes
Chapter 2 Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism
Walāya as Political Authority
Walāya and Knowledge
Walāya and Primordial Covenant
Walāya and the Elect Community
Walāya as Faith and a Pillar of Islam
Closing Remarks
Notes
Chapter 3 Walāya in Formative Sufism
The Concept of Walāya according to Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā al-Kharrāz
Kitāb al-Ṣidq
Walāya in Kitāb al-Ṣidq
Stations for the Awliyāʾ
Awliyāʾ, Knowledge, and Hierarchy
The Concept of Walāya according to Sahl al-Tustarī
Al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm
Walāya in al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr
Aspect of Creation and Emanation
Aspect of Primordial Covenant
Aspect of Gnosis and Knowledge
Aspect of Spiritual Hierarchy
The Concept of Walāya according to Ḥakīm al-Tirimidhī
Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ
Walāya in Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ
Awliyāʾ Allāh vs. awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh
Aspect of Creation and Prophethood
Hierarchy of the Awliyāʾ
Aspect of Knowledge
Notes
Chapter 4 Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism
Walāya and Knowledge
Hierarchy among the Awliyāʾ
Walāya, Emanation and Primordial Covenant
Walāya vs. Nubuwwa
Closing Remarks
Notes
Chapter 5 A Comparative Study of Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism
Significance of Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism
Stage 1: Walāya in Earliest Sources
Stage 2: Walāya at the Time of Minor Occultation
Stage 3: Walāya at the Beginning of the Major Occultation
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

‘By comparing notions of authority in early Sufism and early Shi’ism, Dr Ghofrani has provided us with an engaging and instructive study. By tracing the journey of the term and concept of walāya between the two interconnected discourses of Sufism and Shi’ism, she puts forward a challenging thesis of how ideas and terminology travel between religious contexts, producing new connotations and meaning along the way’. Robert Gleave, Professor of Arabic Studies, University of Exeter, UK

Walāya in the Formative Period of Shi’ism and Sufism

Focused on Shi’ism and Sufism in the formative period of Islam, this book examines the development of the concept of walāya, a complex term that has, over time, acquired a wide range of relationships with other theological ideas, chiefly in relation to the notion of authority. The book offers a textual and comparative analysis of walāya based on primary sources in the ninth and tenth centuries, from both Shi’i and Sufi circles. The starting point is one of the oldest surviving Shi’i sources, Kitāb Sulaym. Alongside this, the author analyses al-Īḍāḥ of Faḍl Shādhān al-Nishābūrī, Kitāb al-Maḥāsin of al-Barqī, and Kitāb al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī. Three major texts in Sufism are considered: Kitāb al-Ṣidq by Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz, Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-ʿAẓīm by Sahl al-Tustarī, and Al-Tirmidhī’s Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ. Together, these sources highlight the doctrinal aspects of walāya, exploring the identity, function, appointment, and description of those considered ‘walī’. The author ultimately argues that walāya is a cluster of rich, deep-rooted responses to the question of authority, developed within both Shi’ism and Sufism after the death of the Prophet. The book is much-needed reading for students and scholars interested in Shi’i and Sufi studies and Islamic philosophy. Shayesteh Ghofrani is an independent scholar. After completing her master’s in Continental Philosophy, she received her PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Exeter and continued with a postdoc at the Institute of Ismaili Studies in the UK. Her research interests include the formative period of Islamic history with a focus on Shi’ism and Sufism.

Routledge Sufi Series

General Editor: Ian Richard Netton Professor of Islamic Studies, University of Exeter

The Routledge Sufi Series provides short introductions to a variety of facets of the subject, which are accessible both to the general reader and the student and scholar in the field. Each book will be either a synthesis of existing knowledge or a distinct contribution to, and extension of, knowledge of the particular topic. The two major underlying principles of the Series are sound scholarship and readability. Previously published by Curzon 21. Awḥad al-Dīn Kirmānī and the Controversy of the Sufi Gaze Lloyd Ridgeon 22. Sufism in Ottoman Egypt Circulation, Renewal and Authority in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries Rachida Chih 23. Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism The World of al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and his Contemporaries Sara Sviri 24. Sufism and the Perfect Human From Ibn ‘Arabī to al-Jīlī Fitzroy Morrissey 25. State and Sufism in Iraq Building a “Moderate” Islam Under Saddam Husayn David Jordan 26. Sufism in Eighteenth-Century India Muḥammad Nāṣir ʿAndalīb’s Lament of the Nightingale and Ṭarīqa-yi Khāliṣ Muḥammadiyya Neda Saghaee 27. Walāya in the Formative Period of Shi’ism and Sufism A Comparative Analysis Shayesteh Ghofrani For more information about this series, please visit: https://www​.routledge​.com​/ Routledge​-Sufi​-Series​/book​-series​/SE0491

Walāya in the Formative Period of Shi’ism and Sufism A Comparative Analysis

Shayesteh Ghofrani

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Shayesteh Ghofrani The right of Shayesteh Ghofrani to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Ghofrani, Shayesteh, author. Title: Walāya in the formative period of Shi’ism and Sufism : a comparative analysis / Shayesteh Ghofrani. Description: First. | New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge Sufi series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2022045566 (print) | LCCN 2022045567 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032432496 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032432526 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003366416 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Authority--Religious aspects--Islam. | Shīʻah--History. | Sufism--History. | Islam and state. Classification: LCC BP165.7 .G482 2023 (print) | LCC BP165.7 (ebook) | DDC 297.2/72--dc23/eng/20220928 LC record available at https://lccn​.loc​.gov​/2022045566 LC ebook record available at https://lccn​.loc​.gov​/2022045567 ISBN: 978-1-032-43249-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-43252-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-36641-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003366416 Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Service, Chennai, India

Contents

List of Illustration Acknowledgements Note on Transliteration, Translation, and Abbreviation

Introduction

x xi xii 1

Origin of the Term Wilāya/Walāya  3 A Note on Vocalization and Meaning of Wilāya/Walāya  5 Walāya in the Qurʾan  9 The Cosmic Dimension of Walī  9 This-Worldly Dimension of Walī  12 Qurʾanic Walāya and Future Developments  14 Formative Period in Shiʿism  15 Formative Period in Sufism  18 Scholarly Challenges in the Formative Period  19 Shiʿi and Sufi Texts in the Formative Period  21 Notes  24 1

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism The Concept of Walāya according to Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī  36 Kitāb Sulaym  38 Walāya in Kitāb Sulaym  39 The Concept of Walāya according to Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nishābūrī  42 Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ  44 Walāya in Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ  44 Aspect of Knowledge  45 Aspect of Political Authority  47 The Concept of Walāya according to Aḥmad al-Barqī  49 Kitāb al-Maḥāsin  50

35

viii  Contents Walāya in al-Maḥāsin  51 Aspect of Primordial Covenant  51 Aspect of Love  54 The Concept of Walāya according to Abū Jʿafar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī  55 Kitāb al-Kāfī  55 Walāya in al-Kāf ī  56 Aspect of Knowledge  57 Aspect of Faith  60 Notes  61 2

Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

73

Walāya as Political Authority  73 Walāya and Knowledge  76 Walāya and Primordial Covenant  79 Walāya and the Elect Community  83 Walāya as Faith and a Pillar of Islam  84 Closing Remarks  88 Notes  89 3

Walāya in Formative Sufism The Concept of Walāya according to Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā al-Kharrāz  98 Kitāb al-Ṣidq  99 Walāya in Kitāb al-Ṣidq  100 Stations for the Awliyāʾ  100 Awliyāʾ, Knowledge, and Hierarchy  103 The Concept of Walāya according to Sahl al-Tustarī  105 Al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm  106 Walāya in al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr  107 Aspect of Creation and Emanation  107 Aspect of Primordial Covenant  108 Aspect of Gnosis and Knowledge  109 Aspect of Spiritual Hierarchy  110 The Concept of Walāya according to Ḥakīm al-Tirimidhī  114 Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ  115 Walāya in Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ  115 Awliyāʾ Allāh vs. awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh  115 Aspect of Creation and Prophethood  117 Hierarchy of the Awliyāʾ  120 Aspect of Knowledge  124 Notes  126

97

Contents  ix 4

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism

139

Walāya and Knowledge  140 Hierarchy among the Awliyāʾ  142 Walāya, Emanation and Primordial Covenant  147 Walāya vs. Nubuwwa  149 Closing Remarks  151 Notes  152 5

A Comparative Study of Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism

156

Significance of Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  158 Stage 1: Walāya in Earliest Sources  160 Stage 2: Walāya at the Time of Minor Occultation  161 Stage 3: Walāya at the Beginning of the Major Occultation  163 Conclusion  166 Notes  170 Bibliography Index

173 185

Illustrations

Figures 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1

Hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Kharrāz’s Kitāb al-Ṣidq Hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr Hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Tirmidhī Aspects of walāya

143 145 148 168

Table 5.1 Shared Aspects of walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism

169

Acknowledgements

The present book has been a journey for me, both personally and academically. This journey would not be possible without the help of my peers. The completion of this book owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the late Dr Janis Esots at the Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, UK, whose help in revising the text was indispensable and for giving me detailed and constructive comments on this monograph. I wished we could both see the publication of this research, but sadly, he left us all very soon. This book is dedicated to him. My personal and earnest gratitude extends to Rafiq R. Ajani. This book has benefited immensely from his thorough questioning and review, throughout its journey, even when it was barely a PhD thesis. My special gratitude extends to Professor Robert Gleave for assisting me to be on the right track during the writing phase of my PhD thesis and also to Professor Andrew Newman, who read my thesis and provided me with his valuable and extensive comments.

Note on Transliteration, Translation, and Abbreviation

This book follows the transliteration system used by the Encyclopaedia of Islam, third edition. Diacritical marks are not used with some names, such as dynasties, cities, and communities, which occur frequently in the book and are treated as common English words in The Concise Oxford Dictionary. For example, Abbasid for ʿAbbāsid, Ismaʿili for Ismāʿīlī, Sufi for Ṣūfī; Sunni for Sunnī, Shiʿi for Shīʿī, Qurʾan for Qurʾān. The lunar (qamarī) dates of the hijrī calendar are followed by the corresponding Gregorian solar years. In rare instances, when a date refers to the solar hijrī calendar used in Iran, it is indicated by ‘Sh’ (shamsī). All translations from the Qurʾan are taken from The Glorious Qurʾan: Text and Explanatory. Translation by Mohammad M. Pickthall (Chicago: Iqraʾ International Educational Foundation, 2001).

Abbreviations EI1

M. T. Houtsma, M. T. et al., Encyclopaedia of Islam. First Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1913–1936. EI2 Gibb, H. A. R. et al., eds. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second edition. Leiden: Brill, 1960–2004. EI3 Fleet, Kate et al., eds. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Third edition. Leiden: Brill, 2007– EQ McAuliffe, Jane Dammen, ed. Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾan. Printed Edition. Leiden: Brill, 2002–2005. EQ Online Pink, Johanna general ed. Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾan. Online Edition.

Introduction

This book is about the genesis of the concept of wilāya/walāya. Although there are many academic studies concerning the concept of wilāya/walāya, little research has been done on the meaning, origin, historical characteristics, and significance attached to it. Within Muslim contexts, historically, the concepts of religious authority are mainly derived from three key Arabic terms, namely wilāya/walāya, khilāfa, and imāma.1 Even though wilāya/walāya, khilāfa, and imāma have their origin in the era prior to the nation-states, they are still relevant as concepts underlying authority and leadership within nation-states in Muslim contexts. There is a system of authority and leadership in Iran derived from the concept of wilāya/ walāya,2 and there are still groups wanting to create a system of caliphate in our times. Then there are several groups of Shiʿis, all adhering to the idea of imāma, whether in the form of a living imām or one in occultation. However, surprisingly there exist to my knowledge no comprehensive history of these key concepts surveying the development of the idea of authority since their inception. These three concepts, wilāya/walāya, khilāfa, and imāma, and their related cognates with their complex usage in pre-Islamic Arabia as well as the variety of meaning in the Qurʾan provided Muslim thinkers from the formative period of Islam to the present day with ideas that could easily lend themselves towards the articulation of political and spiritual authority, governance, and sanctity in Islam. The current study, however, limits itself only to the development of the concept of wilāya/walāya among the Shiʿi and the Sufi circles within the formative period of Islam. It is concerned with the notion of wilāya/walāya to be translated, for now, as ‘friendship or nearness with God’, in order to show how wilāya/walāya is understood in Shiʿism and Sufism and how the concept of wilāya/walāya develops within these two traditions with clear yet unacknowledged influence upon each other. It is this process of development that has given rise to diversity of interpretations and understanding of religious authority among Muslims. By investigating the development of the concept of wilāya/walāya, this study shows that like all concepts, wilāya/walāya is not something clearly and universally defined since inception. It came about by a gradual shift of circumstances. Wilāya/Walāya is one of the main doctrinal concepts of both Shiʿis and Sufis. The term wilāya/walāya is significant and quite unique in the sense that in its most basic meaning it designates a type of relationship between persons of equal DOI:  10.4324/9781003366416-1

2 Introduction or unequal status. Shiʿism appropriated the concept of wilāya/walāya to express its understanding of the role of the imām as well as the position of the Shiʿi community with respect to the imām, whereas the Sufis appropriated the same concept to express the role of the awliyāʾ and their spiritual characteristics. Based on the study of extant sources, it seems that Sufis came to use the concept of wilāya/ walāya much later than the Shiʿis. The Shiʿis took this term and made it their main religious and communal principle from a very early stage in their history, but Sufism, especially at the beginning, tended rather to an individual and personal spiritual path. It was later on, however, that Sufism had an influence on Shiʿism which can be observed right from the third/ninth century onwards, when the earliest works in Sufism were produced.3 Noting the influence, similarities, and differences between Shiʿism and Sufism about authority is not just the provenance of academia in our times. Comparison between these two, based on the concept of wilāya/walāya, has been made in the past. Ibn Khaldūn (d. 784/1382)4 was among the first to notice the close affinity between the concept of wilāya/walāya in Sufism and the Shiʿi concept of imāma. He investigated the early history of both Shiʿism and Sufism to conclude that Sufism is virtually saturated with Shiʿi ideas. In his Muqaddima, he writes: Each group [early Sufis and early Shiʿis] came to be imbued with the dogmas of the other. Their theories and beliefs merged and were assimilated. In Sufi discussion, there appeared the theory of the “pole” (quṭb), meaning the chief gnostic. The Sufis assumed that no one can reach his station in gnosis, until God takes him unto Himself and then gives his station to another gnostic who will be his heir … The theory of successive poles is not confirmed by logical arguments or evidence from the religious law. It is a sort of rhetorical figure of speech. It is identical with the theory of the extremist Shiʿa about the succession of the imāms through inheritance. Clearly, mysticism has plagiarised this idea from the extreme Shiʿa and come to believe in it … The Sufis, furthermore, speak about the order of existence of the awliyāʾ who came after the pole, exactly as the Shiʿa speak about their chiefs [imāms]. They go so far, (in the identification of their own concepts with those of the Shiʿa), that when they constructed a chain of transmitters of the wearing of the Sufi clock (khirqa) as a basic requirement of the mystic way and practice, they made it go back to ʿAlī. This points in the same direction and can only [be explained as Shiʿa influence].5 On what sources Ibn Khaldūn based his study of the early history of Islam we do not know. Yet, he insists on the Shiʿi influence in the Sufi understanding of religious authority and doctrine of the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ who are presented, just like the Shiʿi imāms, as the continuation of the prophetic mission on a new historic stage. Just as the Prophet Muḥammad was the ‘seal’ (khātam) of prophethood (nubuwwa), the highest of the awliyāʾ is considered the seal of sainthood (khātam al-awliyāʾ).6 He writes:

Introduction  3 It is obvious that the Sufis in Iraq derived their comparison between the manifest and the inner [world] from the Ismaʿilīyya Shiʿa and their wellknown theory concerning the imāma and concerned matters, at the time when Ismaʿilīyya Shiʿa made its appearance. The [Ismaʿilīyya Shiʿa] considered the leadership of mankind and its guidance toward the religious law a duty of the imām. Therefore, they assumed that there could be no more than one imām if the possibility of a split were to be avoided, as is established in the religious law. [Correspondingly, the Sufis] then regarded as a duty of the pole who is the chief gnostic, the instruction [of mankind] in the gnosis of God. Therefore, they assumed that there could be only one, on analogy from the imām in the manifest [world], and that he was the counterpart of the imām. They called him pole, because the gnosis revolves around him, and they equated the “saints” (awliyāʾ) with the ʿAlid chiefs (imāms), in their exaggerated desire to identify [their concepts with those of the Shiʿa].7 It can be said that the current research extends Ibn Khaldūn’s project, not focusing on the general practices, as he did,8 but on the conceptual development of the notion of wilāya/walāya.9 It is surprising that such a comparison broached by a historian in the fourteenth century has received only scant attention in our times within academia. Much attention has been paid to the line of thought concerning wilāya/walāya leading from al-Tirmidhī (d. 295–300/907–912) in the late third/ ninth century to the thought of Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) where wilāya/walāya is linked to the notion of the ‘perfect man’ (insān al-kāmil).10 Within the study of Shiʿism the concept of wilāya/walāya has been confined mainly to the concept of imāma and in particular to the discussion of the legal and theological concerns embodied in the notion of ‘wilāyat/walāyat al-faqīh’ (guardianship of the jurist) within Twelver Shiʿism.11 This research will thus be a small step towards redressing the balance by focusing on the sources earlier than the fourth/tenth century to see how the notion of wilāya/walāya came about and what were the doctrinal aspects that gave initial shape to the form of wilāya/walāya within Shiʿism and Sufism, thereby exploring the identity, function, appointment, and the description of those considered as ‘walī’,12 and hence, the first step in understanding religious authority in formative period of Islam.

Origin of the Term Wilāya/Walāya Conceptually speaking, Henry Corbin situated the origin of the concept of wilāya/ walāya within Sufism rooted in Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. In discussing the idea of the ‘pole’ within Sufism, Corbin associates the term ‘pole’ with a dominant figure in Zoroastrian called Srausha (Pahlavi Srūsh, Persian Surūsh). Srausha is represented as a priest-angel, identified as the angel of initiation (wilāya/walāya). He writes: At the pole, at the pole star, it is the abode of the Angel Srausha … since hierocosmology places the angel of Initiation in the cosmic north, and since

4 Introduction hierognosis perceives in his person the pole, it goes without saying that the arrival at the summit of mystic initiation has to experienced, visualized and described as arrival at the pole, at the cosmic north. And here exactly is where we can glimpse a link of continuity between Zoroastrian spirituality on the angel Srausha and the spiritual universe of Sufism centred around the pole … On the one hand, the pole is therefore the situs of the angel Srausha, on the other hand this is the qualification given in Sufism to the great shaykh of the period, and for this reason the pole is considered in Shiʿite Sufism as representing the hidden imām.13 Corbin also argues that the concept of wilāya/walāya as initiation has its roots in Central Asian Buddhism, especially after al-Trimidhī in whose writings the number of the 40 abdāl is particularly significant. He concludes that the symbols of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Sufism are all in accord with the same representation.14 Another scholar whose scholarship on Shiʿi doctrines and their origin throws light on the origin and understanding of the concepts of wilāya/walāya within Shiʿism is Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi.15 For Amir-Moezzi, the Shiʿi belief of wilāya/walāya grew out of a combination of ancient Arab beliefs combined with Jewish, Christian, and Qurʾanic concepts pertaining to the cult of kinship and the family of the Prophet. The early Shiʿism, according to Amir-Moezzi, was deeply esoteric and accordingly, wilāya/walāya in Shiʿism became endowed with deeply esoteric meaning as well.16 Wilāya/Walāya, for Amir-Moezzi in the context of early Shiʿism, has a simple translation with two independent and complementary meanings: (1) applied to the imāms referring to their ontological status or their sacred initiatory mission, in which it indicates that imām/walī is the ‘chief’, the ‘master’ of believers, par excellence. In this acceptation, walī is a synonym of waṣī (the inheritor, the heir)17 and (2) applied to the faithful followers of the imāms, wilāya/walāya denotes love, faith, and submission of the believers to their imām, becoming the equivalent of tawallī, being faithful friend or the obedient protégé of someone.18 Etymologically speaking, however, the term wilāya/walāya is a verbal noun from the Arabic root w-l-y which means ‘to be near’, ‘to be a friend’, and ‘to govern and to command’.19 Patricia Crone explored the origins of the root w-l-y and placed it in pre-Islamic Arabia based on the classical Muslim institution of clientage, called walāʾ. Walāʾ is, according to Crone, a kind of agreement whereby in pre-Islamic times a person with no previous bond to an Arab tribe became a member and the client of a particular tribe. Walāʾ was always used to formally connect two individuals both known as mawālī, and throughout the Umayyad period, this institution was practised as means of attachment of newcomers to the conquest society.20 Thus, walāʾ was an important institution for the reorganization of the enlarged Muslim community. Though its function later developed differently in works of fiqh,21 in the early Islam, walāʾ provided the most effective means of incorporating the non-Arab converts into the new community of the Arabs, while safeguarding the latter’s dominant role.22

Introduction  5 Hermann Landolt also places the term's origin in the pre-Islamic kinship principle and inheritance laws in Arabia. In the tribal Arab tradition, the primary heir is the walī as, the closest paternal male in descending or ascending order. Also, under specific conditions, the inheritance of a manumitted slave goes to his former owner, who has become his patron (mawlā). Also, wide-ranging marital instructions and the gift of the bridal dowry to the brides or wives, as well as the protection of the possessions of orphans and just treatment of the mentally weak (safīh), whom their walī in legal matters should represent, are Qurʾan-based laws which also have their origin in Pre-Islamic legal rules in Arabia.23 However, the history of the term wilāya/walāya, in the meaning of ‘legitimacy for leadership’ of the Muslim community, starts with the first crisis of Muslim history, that is, after the death of the Prophet in 11/632 and the election of Abū Bakr (d. 13/634). The first issue of Muslim history following the death of the Prophet was largely an institutional issue and the caliphate provided a solution to this problem. The second and far more serious issue was then, and has remained to the present an issue of legitimate authority, in which the concept of wilāya/walāya played a major role. We can conclude that the term wilāya/walāya and its cognate words have their origin in pre-Islamic Arabia and have always been defined and interpreted in various ways. Wilāya/Walāya as a concept designates a type of relationship between two or more parties, ranging from the relationship between a servant and a master, a mutual aid, a client and a patron, relations of friendship and closeness, kinship, inheritance, and so on to the imbued spiritual relationship and divine absolute authority.

A Note on Vocalization and Meaning of Wilāya/Walāya In this book thus far, the two vocalizations wilāya and walāya have been placed together because these vocalizations, derived from the same verbal root w-l-y, have given rise to a spectrum of meanings both equally relevant to this research. Within the classical Muslim texts, the question of whether wilāya and walāya were the correct vocalization was primarily a question raised by grammarians as well as philologists. It was chiefly a linguistic matter to understand the correct verbal noun of walī. In his Lisān al-ʿArab, Ibn Manẓūr (d. 711/1311–1312) has recorded several opinions on this debate, out of which a few are worth noting here. According to Ibn Manẓūr, Ibn Sikkīt (d. ca. 244/858) and Ibn Athīr (d. 606/1310) preferred the vocalization of wilāya as the source of walī, whereas Sībawayh (d. ca. 178/793) argued for the vocalization of walāya. Ibn Sīda (d. 458/1066) considered both vocalizations as almost identical. Al-Farrāʾ (d. 207/822) also accepted both vocalizations as valid sources of the word walī.24 It is clearly apparent in Lisān al-ʿArab that, from the early discussions among Muslim grammarians, there has never been an agreement over the preferred or correct form of vocalization. Both wilāya and walāya could equally be considered as the verbal noun of walī.25 It is only later in the fourteenth century that we observe a debate, albeit fragmentarily, about the meaning of the two terms, chiefly by the Sufi thinkers.

6 Introduction For example, Egyptian Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm al-Māgirī (d. ca. 696/1297) argued that both terms refer to ‘authority’ and there is no ambiguity concerning the meaning of two terms: We say (and with God is the approval): walāya is a verbal noun and wilāya is a gerund (ism maṣdar). The meaning of both is ‘assistance or support’ (nuṣra), according to Sībawayh. Al-Azharī, however, says that walāya means ‘most clearly related’ (azhar fī-naṣab), while the idea of assistance or support comes from the saying, ‘a patron by virtue of authority’ (walī bayna wilāya). Wilāya, therefore, is like a command (imāra), as in the saying ‘governing by virtue of [delegated] authority’ (wālin bayna wilāya).26 An Indian Sufi master of the medieval period, Niẓām al-Dīn Awliyāʾ (d. 725/1325), however, slightly distinguishes the two, with wilāya conveying a sense of proximity and love, and walāya connoting authority. However, he posits walī as possessing both wilāya and walāya: The walī possesses both walāya and wilāya at the same time. Walāya is that which masters impart to disciple about God, just as they teach them about the etiquette of the way. Everything such as this which takes place between the shaykh and other people is called walāya. But that which takes place between the shaykh and God is called wilāya. That is special kind of love, and when the shaykh leaves the world, he takes his wilāya with him. His walāya on the other hand, he can confer it, then it is suitable for God Almighty to confer the walāya on someone. But the wilāya is the shaykh’s constant companion. He bears it with him [wherever he goes].27 This debate, however, did not have theological or philosophical repercussions amongst Muslim thinkers in the formative and medieval periods. It was much later in the nineteenth-century academia that the two vocalizations wilāya and walāya became a locus for distinguishing Shiʿism from Sufism and subsequently gave rise to theological and doctrinal discussions. Many scholars of the field have associated the vocalization of walāya with Shiʿism and wilāya with Sufism. Henry Corbin is one of the first Western scholars who recognized that there is a relationship between Shiʿism and Sufism and wrote about the two vocalizations of the term. Corbin associated the vocalization of ‘walāya’ with Shiʿism and the vocalizations of ‘wilāya’ with Sufism.28 He considered ‘initiation to the imām’ a more suitable English translation of the term ‘walāya’ in Shiʿism and ‘sainthood’ an appropriate rendering of the term ‘wilāya’ in Sufism.29 He stated that Shiʿi gnosis is an ‘initiatic religion’ and, therefore, the common translation of walāya as ‘holiness’ would be unsatisfactory.30 ‘Walāya as an initiation and as an “initiatic” function is the spiritual ministry of the imām whose charisma initiates his faithful in the esoteric meaning of the prophetic revelations’.31 Therefore, Corbin translated the term walī as ‘grand master’ or ‘the master of initiation’.

Introduction  7 Corbin further argued that Sufism has its roots in Shiʿism. In his History of Islamic Philosophy (1964),32 Corbin stated that the final phase of the cycle of prophecy (nubuwwa) is, in Shiʿism, the initial phase of the cycle of walāya. The awliyāʾ Allāh in Shiʿism ‘are strictly speaking, the prophets and imāms, the elite of humanity to whom the divine secrets are revealed through divine inspiration’ and they are ‘spiritual guides of humanity’.33 Thus, walāya, along with the notion of bāṭin, makes Shiʿism as a whole, the ‘gnosis (ʿirfān) of Islam’. He concluded that this Shiʿi gnosis led to the elaboration of the mystical experience of the Sufis. For him, Ibn ʿArabī’s work could in this sense be read as ‘the work of a Shiʿi author’. Positing the roots of Sufi gnosis in Shiʿi gnosis, Corbin made the claim that the Sufi notion of wilāya has a Shiʿi origin.34 A few years later, in 1972, Seyyed Hossein Nasr in his ‘Sufi Essays’35 agreed with Corbin and highlighted the fluid environment of the first two centuries of Islam in which elements of Islamic esotericism appear as representing both Shiʿism and Sunni Sufism.36 Following Corbin on the vocalization, Nasr also emphasized the same distinction between the two vocalizations, arguing that the term wilāya is associated with Sufi practices whereas the term walāya is associated with Shiʿi practices. For Nasr, however, wilāya means ‘sanctity’ and the walāya refers to ‘initiatic power or function’.37 In Shiʿism, Nasr argues, the basic function of the imām is associated with the ‘power’, hence the function of walāya is ‘spiritual guidance and initiation’, which is ‘transmitted to Fāṭima and ʿAlī from the Prophet and through them to all imāms’. Nasr also agrees with Corbin that the term wilāya within Sufism was originated from the Shiʿi term of walāya and it provides a similar function of walāya, that is, ‘to concern the ever-living spiritual presence in Islam which enables men to practice the spiritual life and reach to the state of sanctity’. As in Shiʿism, the imām possesses the spiritual power and function of walāya, likewise, the Sufi quṭb possesses the function of wilāya as the spiritual guide in Sufism.38 According to Nasr, both terms communicate the same meaning and function within different historical contexts that have resulted in a remarkable similarity between Shiʿism and Sufism. One of the most detailed studies of the significance of the terms wilāya and walāya is by Vincent Cornell. To see the essential difference between these two terms, Cornell analyzed the function of the two related terms in the context of Moroccan Sufism. Cornell explains walāya as ‘the sainthood of intimacy’ and wilāya as ‘sainthood of authority’, both existing simultaneously in Sufism.39 He highlights that in Moroccan context, walāya connotes the ‘internal visage (bāṭin) of sainthood’ and thus it refers to the divine and ‘metaphysical essence of the sainthood’, enjoyed by all Sufi aspirants in all levels and varying degrees, whereas wilāya refers to the ‘outward visage (ẓāhir) of sainthood’, limited only to specially recognized (khāṣṣ) Sufi masters. Hence, walāya is translated as ‘closeness to God’ and wilāya as ‘authority on earth’. According to Cornell, these two dimensions are complementary but legitimate at the same time. The ‘saint’s authority on earth’ (wilāya) cannot be confirmed without the ‘saint’s closeness to God’ (walāya).40 Besides scholars who make a clear distinction between the two vocalizations of wilāya and walāya, there are those who make a distinction between the two

8 Introduction terms albeit not a clear one. For Maria Massi Dakake, the boundaries between walāya and wilāya are not always clear in meaning. Although she describes both terms in a similar manner, she claims that each term refers to a different aspect of the same verbal root meaning. The word walāya, she argues, is applied most commonly to the state of ‘closeness and nearness’ or of ‘friendship and kinship’, whereas wilāya, on the other hand, refers more specifically to a ‘ruling or managerial office’ and refers to ‘a kind of authority that is limited and circumscribed, confined within a particular locality or jurisdiction and subject to higher authority’. Similarly, wālī, as opposed to walī, denotes ‘governorship’ whom the caliph appointed and is a derivative of wilāya, not walāya. She writes that wālī, in principle, was simply the ‘local’ or ‘near’ representative of the far-off authority of the caliph. Such authority was not usually interpreted as religious authority; rather, it represented managerial control over the economic and military affairs. On the other hand, Dakake categorizes the relationships which involve the idea of mutual aid and support, coupled with the idea of attachment of loyalty and devotion, under the term walāya. She traces the Qurʾanic origin and early religious connotations of the concept of walāya and the role it played in shaping the sense of ‘communal solidarity’ among followers of the first Shiʿi imām, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. She states that walāya pertains not only to the charisma of the Shiʿi leadership and affection to them but also to unity and loyalty among the members of the community itself. As Shiʿi theology advanced from the late Umayyad times onwards, she sees the principle of walāya being connected in an essential way with the Shiʿi notion of faith or true belief (īmān). Thus, walāya was the essential foundation for recognizing a true believer (muʾmin), over against recognition of unbelievers (kuffār) who did not accept the walāya towards ʿAli and his family. The author argues that it is this fundamental meaning of walāya that counts for its function in the shaping of Shiʿi identity. She uses the term walāya to express the terms ‘walī’, ‘awliyāʾ’, or ‘mawlāʾ’ and uses wilāya instead to express the aspect of this word that precisely relates to authority or jurisdiction. It is the esoteric aspect of walāya, which, Dakake notes, overlaps with the history of Sufism.41 In the vocalization debate between wilāya and walāya, this research is in line with the arguments of Hermann Landolt and Carl Ernst. According to Landolt, the distinction between the two vocalizations is not normally indicated in the texts, and the classical Arab lexicographers are not unanimous on this point.42 Ernst goes even further arguing that the Sufi and the Shiʿi concepts of sainthood and initiation overlap considerably and the distinction between the two vocalizations cannot be neatly turned into doctrinal hypostases. He challenges Corbin’s distinction by saying that the initiatic authority, exclusively reserved for Shiʿism by Corbin, also plays an important role in Sufism. Similarly, the terminology of mystical experience could also be found in Shiʿism.43 In this research, which considers the period prior to the fourth/tenth century, it will be seen that the notion of wilāya/walāya is extremely dynamic. While these two terms are not distinguishable in an un-vocalized text, there is no textual evidence to support any of the discussions mentioned above regarding the vocalization during this period. What we do know is that the self-same notion started its

Introduction  9 life within the context of political authority and inheritance after the death of the Prophet and within two centuries acquired a spiritual and metaphysical dimension. This research traces the development of this self-same notion of wilāya/walāya during the period of extreme fluidity. For the sake of convenience, however, I will use the vocalization of walāya throughout this book.

Walāya in the Qurʾan Before embarking on the study of the development of the term in Shiʿism and Sufism, it is worthwhile to briefly examine how walāya or its cognate terms appear in the Qurʾan. An understanding of walāya developed from within the Qurʾan will help us measure how much the Shiʿi or the Sufi understanding of this concept merges or deviates from that of the Qurʾanic usage. The term walāya itself appears only twice in the Qurʾan (Q 8:7244 and 18:4445). However, the derivative forms of the root w-l-y appear more than two hundred times. The derivatives are yalū (1 time), wallāʾ (30 times), tawallāʾ (78 times), awlāʾ (11 times), awlayān (1 time), mawālī (3 times), mawlāʾ (18 times), wilāyat/walāyat (2 times), walī (86 times), wāl (1 time), muwallī (1 time). This section concentrates on the derivative word ‘walī’, which refers to the person who has walāya. One of the ways in which walī can be understood in the Qurʾan is by following the semantic analysis of the term.46 A semantic field denotes a conceptual network formed by a set of related words which share a common semantic property. Words in a semantic field are not synonymous but are all used to talk about the same general phenomenon. Each individual semantic field has at its centre a ‘keyword’ around which several other related words form a periphery of meaning, such that the meaning of the keyword becomes apparent by its relation to the peripheral words. Therefore, to understand walāya through the derivatives of the root w-l-y, this section will look at words that appear along with the keywords walī (and its cognates) in the Qurʾan. It will also consider words that are associated with walī. Furthermore, the Qurʾanic verses under consideration can be divided into two categories: verses that speak of a cosmic dimension and those that speak of this-worldly dimension. The Cosmic Dimension of Walī Within the cosmic dimension, those verses are grouped together that convey the relationship between God and the rest of the creatures, mainly where God declares Himself as Walī. In these verses God not only emphasizes that He is the Walī of believers (Q 4:45; 4:123) and the angels (Q 34:41), but He also states that there is no walī beside Him. This formula of declaration and then negation is similar to the formula ‘la ilāha illa Allāh’ (Q 37:35; 47:19), in which God declares Himself as Allāh and negates all other gods beside Him. Apart from this similarity there is a difference between God as ‘Allāh’ and God as ‘Walī’. God as ‘Allāh’ is God irrespectively of believers and unbelievers, whereas God is a Walī only for the believers. In the verses that God is considered as the only true Walī of the believers, the

10 Introduction Qurʾan uses terms, such as ‘min dūn Allāh’ (‘apart from Allāh’, Q 2:107; 4:123; 6:51), ‘aghayr Allāh’ (‘other than Allāh’, Q 6:14), or ‘kafī bi-Allāh’ (‘Allāh [is] sufficient’, Q 4:45), to say that there is no walī apart from or other than Himself and that He is, as a Walī, sufficient for his believers (Q 6:14). Just by looking at the statement in which God declares Himself as walī, it is difficult to say what the word walī means. The context of the verses and the words used along with the term walī, such as naṣīr, mawlāʾ, muʾmin, can help towards understanding the meaning of this term.47 The variety of meanings of walī within the cosmic dimension are discussed as follows: 1. In most of the verses God as Walī is coupled with another word, ‘naṣīr’. The word naṣīr appears 26 times in the Qurʾan along with one of the forms of the root w-l-y, out of which 15 times it is paired with the term walī.48 In all these 15 instances, walī and naṣīr are God’s attributes usually appearing after the negation form ‘min dūn Allāh’, meaning there is no God apart from Allāh who is the Walī and the Naṣīr. As part of the Qurʾanic style, double divine attributes occur frequently at the end of verses, particularly in the longer sūras.49 Numerous pairs of terms describing God’s attributes consist of synonyms such as the double epithet ‘al-raḥmān al-raḥīm’ ‘most benevolent, ever-merciful’ at the beginning of 113 chapters of the Qurʾan.50 According to Arabic-English Lexicon, the literary meaning of naṣīr is ‘assister’ and ‘aider’, especially against an enemy,51 and hence by using the synonym formula of the Qurʾanic pairs, walī is also understood as a ‘helper’ and ‘aider’. God’s omnipotence as the most powerful helper (walī/naṣīr) is one of the major themes of the Qurʾan and several verses make it clear that those who ‘turn away’ (Q 9:74) and/or ‘are led astray by him’ (Q 18:17) have no walī (Q 42:8), that is, neither helper nor protector (Q 18:44). 2. Mawlāʾ and its plural form mawālī occur 21 times in the Qurʾan and just like its cognate walī covers a wide range of meanings. In most of the Qurʾanic verses, mawlāʾ is God’s name and a divine attribute.52 In these verses, God is described as Mawlāʾ, in a sense similar to the verses in which God is described as a Walī. For instance, God is Mawlāʾ of believers (Q 2:286; 6:62; 10:31) and unbelievers do not have any mawlāʾ (Q 6:62; 9:51; 22:78; 66:2). In these contexts, mawlāʾ and walī can be taken as synonymous with the meaning of Lord, Protector, and Helper. Furthermore, as the basic meaning of mawlāʾ suggests, it is fair to say that God as Mawlāʾ and Lord of believers not only indicates the One who has the authority over them, but also implies that He is in charge of them. Mawlāʾ is also designated to show God’s patronage over Moses (Q 20:39, Q 20:40–41). The verse indicates that God had chosen Moses and led him the way He wanted to the point that God said to him: ‘I have bound you to myself’ (wa-ṣṭanaʿtuka li-nafsī, Q 20:41). According to Arabic-English Lexicon, ‘iṣṭanaʿa’ means ‘he made’ or ‘prepared’, exceeding the usual or ordinary by bounds or degree in putting a thing into a good, sound, right, or proper state.53 Hence, the phrase in the Qurʾan ‘iṣṭanʿatuka li nafsī’ (Q 2:43) means ‘and I have chosen thee for myself’ to

Introduction  11 ‘establish my evidence and to serve as my spokesman between me and my creatures’. Apart from ‘fostering someone’s career’, it also denotes at the same time an almost parental connection of a master to his client or protégé (muṣṭanaʿa, ṣanīʿ, ṣanīʿa) who has been reared, educated, and trained well by his master. 3. In the Qurʾan, the term walī occurs 22 times along with the root ʾ-m-n. This root, ʾ-m-n, is one of the most frequent roots in the Qurʾan, occurring 537 times in its verbal form ‘āmana’ and 202 times in its active participle form, ‘muʾmin’. The term muʾmin is mainly used in the Qurʾan to describe the people who have īmān (another derivative of the root ʾ-m-n) which primarily denotes ‘belief’ or ‘faith’. Thus, muʾmin has been commonly understood as ‘believer’. However, there is one exception in the Qurʾan in which muʾmin cannot be described as believer and that is, when in Q 59:23, God calls Himself as Muʾmin. Since the root ʾ-m-n has the sense of safety and security in its meaning and God also describes Himself as the One who provides security against fear (Q 106:4), in this context, God as muʾmin can be understood as the ‘Guarantor of security’ or a ‘Protector’. 4. In other verses, God as Walī also appears when God encourages believers to fight their enemies without fear (Q 4:45; 4:123). In such verses, walī can be understood as ‘Ally’ and ‘Protector’, where the protection offered is from a physical enemy (Q 3:122). Apart from providing protection from a physical enemy, God as Walī also offers believers His protection from error. There are verses in which God declares Himself as walī for the believers who remain steadfast in their beliefs and practices (Q 4:173). Furthermore, God as walī is sometimes used within the context of ‘sovereignty’ in which He is the Creator of Heavens and Earth (Q 12:101), who gives life, causes death (Q 9:116), and provides food (Q 6:14). In this context, God as Walī can be understood not just as a protector but also as a ‘Lord’, ‘Sovereign’, and ‘Provider’ (Q 6:14). Also, His provisions and protections are not limited to this world but extend to the next world as well. In this world and the next, God as Walī promises to reward the ones who recognize Him as a Walī. On the Day of Judgment, God as Walī, the Lord of Resurrection, will reward and protect those who have recognized Him as Walī (Q 6:70) and will punish those who have taken a walī apart from Him (Q 9:74; 41:31; Q 17:97). 5. One of the most interesting points regarding God as walī is that there is a clear distinction between true and false walī. If the domain of true walāya is with God, the domain of false walāya lies with the Satan. The Satan is the walī for those who do not believe in God and His walāya (Q 3:175). The Qurʾan tests the believers by asking them whom they will chose as their walī. There are clear warnings for the believers not to choose Satan and his walāya (Q 4:119). In this case, there is an element of ‘faithfulness’ and ‘loyalty’ in the use of the term walī. God in effect is asking the believers to be loyal and faithful to him instead of the Satan. These verses represent an eternal conflict between God’s walāya and the Satan’s walāya and just like Adam, every believer is given a choice between the two walāya (Q 7:27, Q 45:10). Moses

12 Introduction is also mentioned in the Qurʾan as the one who chose God as his walī (Q 7:155). This-Worldly Dimension of Walī This-worldly dimension of walī emphasizes the role of walī and walāya between mankind rather than between God and mankind. Within this dimension, walī is considered as an ally, a guardian, and in its plural form as members of the community of believers: 1. The Qurʾan portrays awliyāʾ (sing. walī) primarily as fellow members of a community of believers. Awliyāʾ are described as men and women who can be trusted, who can fight for the interest of the community, who are loyal to God and His Messenger, and who pay their religious dues (Q 9:71). Though the scope of awliyāʾ in these verses is restricted to Muslims. Some verses explicitly consider non-Muslims excluded from the bounds of awliyāʾ (Q 5:51 and Q 5:57). The historical context of these verses suggests that the Prophet was encouraging his followers not to follow those before them who have broken their covenant with God. 2. There are verses in which walī is used to suggest a relationship of mutual support. As scholars of the field have argued and we will also see in this book, there is a direct link between the terms walī and walāʾ. In pre-Islamic Arabia, ‘walāʾ’ (from the same root as walī) represented two main roles: the first role forms relationship of mutual support between two tribes or between individuals belonging to two tribes. It represented admission of individuals into a clan or a tribe through an agreement with one of its members or with the tribe. The strength of such a relationship is reflected in the fact that once ‘walāʾ’ is concluded the individuals on both sides would acquire equal rights, would inherit from each other, and would be bound by the same set of obligations (Q 17:33). From this perspective walāʾ created relationships requiring support that were equal in force to blood relationships.54 Hence, walī as a person who carries walāʾ is understood as an ‘ally’ and a ‘protector’.55 The second role of walāʾ formed relationship and support offered to the deprived members of the society, such as minors, orphans, and widows. This was mainly applicable after wars, when many orphans and widows were left uncared for which eventually resulted in verses declaring the responsibility of the Muslim community towards them. In such verses, walī comes closer to the meaning of ‘guardianship’ (Q 2:282). 3. A walī in the Qurʾan is also portrayed as heir or successor. In this sense, walī can claim certain rights of inheritance and has certain duties or responsibilities to assist an ally against enemies, in such cases as the retaliation for unjust killing of kinsmen (Q 17:33). Inheritance and assistance expected of a walī may also be of a spiritual kind. Zacharias, having no biological son, fears the claims of his mawālī as secondary heirs and asks God to give him a ‘noble offspring’ (Q 19: 5–6).

Introduction  13 4. As mentioned within the cosmic dimension of walī, God calls Himself Mawlāʾ in a sense similar to walī which indicates the meaning of Lord, Protector, and also the One who has authority. In some other verses, however, mawlāʾ is used to convey human relationships in non-religious contexts, such as a master, a responsible person, heir, a kinsman, or a client (Q 4:33, Q 16:76, Q 19:5). In this-worldly context, mawlāʾ is a person or a party by proximity (walāʾ). The Qurʾanic conception of clientage, furthermore, reflects the old Arab system of individual and collective mutual relationships in tribal society. In the legal usage of the term, mawlāʾ is a person linked to another person by the notion of walāʾ which is understood to have a pre-Islamic origin. It is an institution which places one person in a relationship of dependence with another. As a tie of clientage or a patronage for the incorporation of outsiders into Arab tribes, after many conquests, walāʾ was also used for the incorporation of non-Arabs into the conquered society.56 The term mawlāʾ thus referred to two types of social relationships.57 The first was a relationship between Arab tribesmen as kinsman and the second was the relationship of non-Arabs into the Arab tribal society as a master-manumitter and a benefactor or patron on the one side and a freedman, protégé, or a client on the other.58 Mawālī in the Qurʾan also conveyed in a sense of kinship.59 In this sense, mawālī were considered as fellow tribesmen who were related by blood or marriage.60 The most important mawālī in the sense of kinship were mentioned as ḥalīf (ally or confederate) and jār (neighbour). A mawlāʾ in the sense of ḥalīf was a pre-Islamic term which regarded as a system for a partial or total incorporation of Arab foreigners into an Arab tribe ranging from short-term agreements to mutual adoption to amalgamation. Such incorporations never included non-Arab ethnic individuals or groups.61 Ḥalīfs were occasionally singled out as mawālī al-yamīn (kinsmen by oath) as opposed to mawalī al-wilāda or qurāba (kinsmen by birth/kinship).62 The other term was ‘jār’ (neighbour).63 Jārs were mainly Arab individuals or groups who had gone to live among foreigners for some reason and enjoyed very much the same status as their host tribes.64 Mawlāʾ also indicated the relationship between manumitter (ʿabd) and freedman (ḥurr).65 This affiliation dealt with the status of freedmen in early Islamic society. The laws related to this kind of a tie have their roots in preIslamic society. The relation of manumitter and freedman was as lasting as the kinship ties. The manumitter’s rights and duties extended to the freedman’s descendants as well as his freedman and their freedmen in perpetuity. Freedman was not allowed to change his patron (mawlāʾ) and it is to this tie that freedman owes his membership of Muslim society. Although the law formally did not oblige freedmen to serve or honour their patrons, but in practice, freedmen were expected to assist their manumitters, whether in financial, military, or political matters.66 Mawlāʾ also implied a contractual clientage, a tie between a patron (mawlāʾ) and a client (mawālī). All non-Arabs who wished to join the rank of the conquerors had to find an Arab Muslim patron, who, upon their

14 Introduction declaration of conversion or allegiance, obtained very much the same rights and duties as the manumitter of his former slave. This contractual clientage also has its origin in old Arab rules of walāʾ.67 It was applied to all non-Arab newcomers, freeborn or freed, converted or unconverted, to the Arab society. Although in public law freedmen and converts enjoyed the same rights and duties as other Muslims, in private law, they were dependent on their patrons (mawālī). Thus, it was an unequal tie. As we will see in Chapters 3 and 4, al-Tirmidhī develops his understanding of the awliyāʾ based on this social system of walāʾ as clientage. 5. In the last section, we investigated the cosmic dimension of God as Walī coupled with the word naṣīr. There are other verses in the Qurʾan with the same root n-ṣ-r that indicates this-worldly dimension of walāya. The verse worth noticing here is Q 8:72,68 which reflects the situation immediately after the Prophet’s emigration in Medina, where he began to establish his new community. The occurrence of the word walāya happened at the same time. The term anṣār (helpers) occurs both in reference to the Prophet’s Medinan supporters (Q 9:100; 9:117) and more generally to those who perpetuate God’s way by siding with his chosen people, i.e., prophets (Q 61:14). In early Islamic history, anṣār were members of two Arab tribes in Medina known as Aws and Khazraj.69 They were those Medinans who accepted Islam and received the emigrants (muhājirūn) from Mecca and helped them to settle in their new abode. In regard to awliyāʾ, the verse identifies three groups: (1) muhājirūn, those who emigrated with the Prophet from Mecca; (2) anṣār, those who helped muhājirūn; and (3) those who did not emigrate.70 Thus, it is not just the anṣār who were considered as awliyāʾ, but also the muhājirūn, the emigrants, who sought help which can be translated as allies or friends of each other.71 Although the notion of ‘brotherhood’72 worked for a while between muhājirūn and anṣār (Q 3:103), the difficulties were soon to arise. To avoid further issues, Prophet made a series of agreements based on preIslamic contractual clientage system of walāʾ.73 According to this agreement, the muhājirūn were given the status of an independent tribe with the same rights and responsibilities as those of Medinan tribes who were named one by one with their mawlāʾs or mawālī. In addition, in the newly established community in Medina, awliyāʾ also described the opponents of the Prophet (Q 8:73) and also ‘the Jews and Christians’ (Q 5:51). This meant that in the newly established community in Medina, both true followers of the Prophet and his opponents were seen as awliyāʾ, as ‘alliance of each other’, whether this ally was directed to the Prophet or directed against the Prophet’s opponents.74

Qurʾanic Walāya and Future Developments In sum, in the Qurʾan, there are verses that speak of a cosmic dimension and those that speak of a this-worldly dimension of walī. Within the cosmic dimension, first

Introduction  15 and foremost, God treats Himself as the only true Walī. He claims that there is no Walī apart from Himself. This makes walāya one-directional, meaning that God can be a Walī, but no one can be walī to Him. Walī also extends to the domain of God’s rule, which, apart from believers in this-worldly realm, includes the angels. The Qurʾan also grants walāya to the Satan, but unlike God who is a true walī, Satan has been considered as a false walī, but a walī nonetheless. Just as God’s domain of walāya extends to believers, Satan’s domain of walāya extends to unbelievers. While giving the domain of walāya over unbelievers to Satan, God repeatedly emphasizes that He is not walī of unbelievers. Furthermore, within this-worldly dimension, the Qurʾan addresses the men and women members of the community of the believers as awliyāʾ (plural of walī). Apart from addressing the community of awliyāʾ, the Qurʾan instructs as not to take the non-believers as awliyāʾ. It is evident that the Qurʾanic usage of walāya and its cognates relates to a set of ideas which are interrelated, such as relationships entailing mutual protection, loyalty, and inheritance. It pertains to a bond of loyalty and trust between God and those who believe in Him, as well as those who are united in following Satan. It can be said that insofar as the Qurʾan urges the believers to consider God as their primary walī and Satan as their enemy, walāya establishes a link between faithfulness to God and loyalty or attachment to one’s religious community. The notion of the Qurʾanic walāya, however, does not encompass the entirety of the concept of walāya developed within the formative period of both Shiʿism and Sufism as we will see in this book. Among the Shiʿi circles, particularly since the second/eighth century, walī has been associated with the ‘imām’ having a special authority. From the third/ninth century, walī appears in a number of texts, largely among mystical circles designating a walī who enjoys a special relationship with God. However, in the Qurʾan, the notion of walī, unlike within the later Shiʿi and Sufi circles, does not carry any aspect of authority or a privileged spiritual hierarchy, unless it is ascribed to God Himself. Nevertheless, the notion of walāya in the Qurʾan provides the ground for the formation of the comprehensive understanding of walāya within Shiʿism and Sufism which encompasses a set of meanings bringing together many other aspects such as knowledge, spiritual inheritance, emanation, primordial covenant, etc. tied to the notion of walāya—aspects which are not linked with the notion of walāya in the Qurʾan.

Formative Period in Shiʿism There are two occasions in the early history of Shiʿism when walāya became a major subject of discussion. First at Medina, when the question of the Prophet’s successor was disputed and second in Kūfa, following the failed revolt of Ḥusayn, ʿAlī’s son, against the Umayyads which ended with the killing of Ḥusayn at Karbalāʾ in 61/680.75 The death of Ḥusayn and other descendants of the Prophet at Karbalāʾ opened a wide gulf between the Shiʿis and the Sunnis and this event in particular made the Shiʿis agree on the illegitimacy of the Umayyad dynasty which caused further dissensions.

16 Introduction The first split occurred in 65/685, when some Shiʿis headed by al-Mukhtār ibn Abī ʿUbayd revolted against the Umayyads. Al-Mukhtār’s objective ‘was the establishment of Shiʿi rule headed by the house of ʿAlī’.76 Two years later al-Mukhtār was killed by the governor of Basra, Muṣʿab ibn Zubayr, and his revolt was put down. Mukhtār’s revolt was followed by another armed resistance headed by Zayd ibn ʿAlī (d. 122/740), one of the brothers of the fifth imām, Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 114/734). Since the later revolt, armed rebellion became one of the prevalent features of Zaydī Shiʿism. However, the Ḥusaynī branch of the Shiʿis (the followers of imām al-Bāqir), and later on what became the imāmī sub-sect of Shiʿism, adopted ‘passive methods of protest’ and channelled their efforts towards the development of the imāmī Shiʿi doctrine.77 The tension between the Shiʿis and the Umayyads started at the time of the caliphate of ʿAlī. The conflict between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya rested on ʿAlī’s conviction of the legitimacy of his caliphal authority and on Muʿāwiya’s increasing insistence on his own right to be heir (walī) to ʿUthmān in demanding retaliation for his blood.78 This claim, moreover, became the basis of Muʿāwiya’s bid for the caliphate. Ibn Qutaybah reports that Muʿāwiya received the allegiance of the people of Syria as ʿUthmān’s successor soon after ʿAlī had assumed the caliphate office.79 The situation between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya, which was chiefly based on the understanding of the terms walāya and ahl al-bayt, was causing rupture in the Muslim community, a rupture that soon found expression in the civil war known as the Battle of Ṣiffīn. The clearest assertion of Muʿāwiya’s claim to the caliphate was made to the people of Syria shortly before the Battle of Ṣiffīn. Muʿāwiya argued: O people! Tell me, why ʿAlī son of Abū Ṭālib has become more worthy of this office than me? By God, I was the scribe of the Messenger of God. My sister [Umm Ḥabība, daughter of Abū Sufyān] was wife to the Messenger of God. I was, moreover, governor for both ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb and ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān. My mother was Hind daughter of ʿUtba b. Rabīʿa, and my father was Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb. Although the people of the Ḥijāz and Iraq pledged allegiance (bayʿa) to ʿAlī, the people of Syria pledged allegiance to me. And all those people are equal, and whoever has the power to seize something, it becomes rightly his.80 The rule of the Umayyad dynasty (r. 41–132/661–750) was troubled with ongoing tension with the Shiʿis, especially after the event of Karbalāʾ. The harsh anti-Shiʿi policy adopted by most of Umayyad caliphs, however, provided fertile ground for the development of both Shiʿi and Sunni heresiographic literature, and in fact, many Shiʿi sub-sects emerged during the Umayyad era.81 The situation of Shiʿis did not change with the rise of the Abbasids.82 According to Muhammad Qasim Zaman, the Abbasid revolution was a Shiʿi movement, calling for the rights of the family of the Prophet (ahl al-bayt) which brought the Abbasids to power in 132/749.83 There is enough evidence to demonstrate that in the period following their elevation to political leadership, the Abbasids took great pains to emphasize their position as the kin of the Prophet and members of his household.84 For M.

Introduction  17 Sharon, there ‘is no doubt that around the year 100 AH [718 CE] the term ahl al-bayt was already used to refer exclusively to the house of ʿAlī’.85 Madelung, however, criticized this view and after a close examination of the Hāshimiyyāt of al-Kumayt, he argues that the special status of the Banū Hāshim as the relatives (dhawuʾl-qurba) of the Prophet and his ahl al-bayt had been well established in the lifetime of Muḥammad: As the kin of the Prophet, the Banū Hāshim were excluded, like Muḥammad himself, from receiving alms (ṣadaqa, zakāt) and from administering their collection. They were associated with the Prophet in their entitlement to a portion of the khums, the fifth of the war booty not distributed among the warriors, and in the fayʾ, the spoils that fell to the Muslims without battle. Their title as dhawuʾl-qurba to these portions was explicitly confirmed in two verses of the Qurʾan.86 Madelung argues that after studying al-Kumayt’s poetry there cannot be room for doubt that ahl al-bayt meant the descendants of Hāshim in general, rather than exclusively the house of ʿAlī, which was the supposed ground for the claimed legitimacy of the Abbasids in place of the Umayyads.87 The many uncertainties about the Abbasid genealogical position in the Prophet’s household do not, however, bring into question the Shiʿi character of the movement which brought them to power. This Shiʿi direction is evident not only by their urge to reinstate the political rights of the Prophet’s family and to pursue retribution for the wrongs done to members of ahl al-bayt, it is also expressed in the superior position accorded to the person of ʿAlī as the sole legitimate successor of the Prophet.88 Once the Abbasids realized that the Shiʿis offered a probable revolutionary threat and would not recognize the legitimacy of the Abbasid rule, they began to limit and control the activities of the various Shiʿi sects and Shiʿism once again found itself in the position of persecuted minority. It was only during the reign of al-Maʾmūn (r. 198–218/813–833) that the aspirations of the Shiʿis were temporarily raised, affected by al-Maʾmūn’s marriage to the daughter of imām al-Riḍā, the eighth imām, and al-Maʾmūn’s promise to nominate al-Riḍā as heir apparent. However, the hopes of imāmī Shiʿis for the recognition of their claims to be Prophet’s successor were soon dispelled with the death of al-Riḍā and they were reverted to their previous situation of a persecuted sect.89 Most Shiʿi imāms living under the Abbasid rule were kept under house arrest and died under unnatural circumstances.90 The Abbasids kept a cautious eye on the Shiʿi imāms and on other descendants of the Prophet’s family, whom their disciples considered to be the only legitimate candidate for leadership of the Muslim community.91 It should be noted that in speaking of Shiʿism at this time, we are still only speaking of certain broadly recognizable tendencies, often in mutual conflict, with much

18 Introduction fluidity about them. Abbasids may initially have claimed for themselves the position and prerogatives of a Shiʿi imām (claims which they came to abandon not long after their rise to power); however, they could scarcely have been ignorant of the appeal that the ʿAlid household and its prominent members—some of whom seem to have been regarded as imāms at this time—could exercise over the Abbasid supporters themselves. It was with good reason that after the revolution, if not already before it, the Abbasids seem to have been suspicious of the ʿAlids.92 In gradually distancing themselves from the Shiʿi circles in which the Abbasid revolution had originated, the early Abbasid moved in the direction of the ‘ahl al-sunna’.93 The religious development of Shiʿism continued at a significant pace despite the community’s political suppression. The imāmī Shiʿism that initially emerged in Kūfa94 began to spread and influence important cities of the eastern provinces of the Abbasid state. Already in the days of the Umayyads, disciples of imām Jaʿfar Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) had arrived in Qum, the earliest Shiʿi stronghold in Iran.95 As we shall see, all the imāmī Shiʿi literature selected for the current study were produced in Iraq and Iran.96 Apart from Qum in which Shiʿism managed to establish a firm stronghold, Kūfa, Baghdad, Rayy, and Nishāpūr are among the places where the Shiʿis took refuge from the central Abbasid and Umayyad states and produced their works far from the caliphate’s centre of power.

Formative Period in Sufism Many scholars have seen the origins of Sufism97 influenced by religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism as well as from the cultural borrowings of greater Syria, Iran, and Egypt to the Gnostic Neoplatonic and the patristic–monastic heritage of Eastern Christianity.98 Scholars such as Louis Massignon and Paul Nwyia have criticized this one-sided approach and have inquired into the Qurʾanic heritage for understanding the origins of Sufism.99 Inclination towards asceticism played a major role in the emergence of Sufism.100 We have few details about the earliest appearance of ascetic tendencies in early Islam, but by the time of the Umayyad rule, it is possible to trace some evidence of them. These tendencies can be seen within the context of the resistance of the ascetic and pious circles against the Umayyad worldliness which was expressed in theological debates concerning the rightful ruler of the faithful and the conditions suitable for the leadership of the community. The name that stands out within the early anti-Umayyad ascetic circles is that of the patriarch of Muslim mysticism, Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728).101 Ḥasan al-Baṣrī’s preaching and his exhortations constantly warned against the worldly attitude to earthly possessions apparent around the time.102 This ascetic movement in the first centuries of Islam gradually combined with mystical tendencies developed the earliest form of Sufism.103 Ibn Khaldūn gives the following account of this development: The way of life adopted by Sufis was in force from the beginning of Islam and the most of eminent of the Companions and their disciples it to be the way of Truth and Guidance. It was based upon devotion to God and separation and the renunciation of the pomp and vanities of this world and the reckoning as

Introduction  19 nothing, pleasures and riches and fame, and [it included] retreat for purpose of devotion. Nothing was more common among the Companions and the others of the Faithful in the earliest times, and when the love of the world was widespread in the second century [of the Islamic era], and later, and most men allowed themselves to be dragged into the whirlpool of the world, those consecrated to piety were called Sufis.104 A new episode in the history of Islam was opened when the Abbasids came to power in 133/750.105 The beginning of many changes within Sufism can be traced back to the time of al-Maʾmūn (r. 198–218/813–833). Al-Maʾmūn encouraged the discussion of religion by representatives of various creeds and, in this manner, speculative elements were soon assimilated into Sufism.106 The expansion of the Islamic Empire during the late Umayyad and early Abbasid periods had brought the Muslims into contact with large groups of non-Muslims representing different cultures and diverse traditions: Zoroastrian influences especially at the beginning of the Abbasid period, when the capital was shifted from Damascus to Baghdad; Buddhist influence in Eastern Iran and Transoxiana and Manichaeism widespread in the Near and Middle East and in Central Asia. The most noteworthy contacts of the early Abbasid Muslims were with Christian ascetics and hermits who inhabited places in Iraq and Lebanon that are mentioned repeatedly in Sufi stories. Jesus, the last prophet before Muḥammad, according to the Qurʾan, appears to the Sufis as the perfect ascetic and also as the pure lover of God. Perhaps, it can be said that the first Sufis adopted the woollen garment (ṣawf) from the Christian ascetics, from which their name derives.107 A parallel development in early Sufism was taking place in Khurāsān in the north-eastern part of the Abbasid Empire. Among the early Khurāsānian Sufis, the former merchant Shaqīq al-Balkhī (d. 193/809) is worth mentioning. Recent studies have shown that he professed tawakkul (absolute trust in God)108 while being the first to discuss the ‘mystical states’ and was deeply concerned with what he calls ‘the light of pure love of God’. This refers him to the saint of Basra, Rābiʿa al-Adawiyya (d. ca. 185/801). Rābiʿa is generally regarded as the person who introduced the element of selfless love into the austere teachings of the early ascetics and gave Sufism the hue of true mysticism.109 She was famed for her teaching on mystic love (ḥub, maḥabba) and the intimate friendship with God (uns) which is the preoccupation of His lover.110 It is during this time that many individuals appeared to support this trend of Islam, such as Sulaymān al-Diyānī (d. c.215/830) and al-Dhunnūn al-Miṣrī (d. 245/859 or 248/862). Somewhat later, figures like Abū Yazīd al-Basṭāmī (d. ca. 261/874 or 264/877–878)111 and Abū Manṣūr al-Ḥallāj (d. 309/922)112 appeared in the eastern part of the Abbasid state.

Scholarly Challenges in the Formative Period The two first centuries of Islam are probably the most problematic era for researchers in Islamic history. Josef van Ess admits that there are only a few early witnesses from the first two Muslim centuries still extant. Further, he admits that all later Islamic texts stand under suspicion of projection. Consequently, he refuses

20 Introduction to present the first century of Islam at all. Rather, he begins with the second, although he states that the same problems exist for this century too, in that there are hardly any ‘original texts’ to be found.113 In Ohlig’s words: The first two Islamic centuries lie in the shadows of history, and it remains inexplicable how the development of a large Islamic empire could have left behind no witness whatsoever, even among groups from whom we might expect such traces, such as the enemies of the Arabs, the many Byzantines known for their literary skills and output, and the Jews and Christians living under the alleged Islamic authority.114 The lack of sources that can be dated with precision to this period hinders the efforts of modern scholars to reconstruct its history and the early development of various Islamic doctrines and movements.115 Most of what we know about this time is found in scattered quotations in later scholarship, a fact that in and of itself raises serious questions about their authenticity.116 The problems of reconstructing early Islamic history are further complicated by the nature of the transmission of knowledge. The debates about whether early Islamic scholarship was transmitted orally or in written form still rage in recent scholarship.117 Even if writing was practised on a large scale, orality continued to have its own tradition. Certain types of texts were preserved only through oral transmission.118 Needless to say that oral transmission involves memory and memory has its own shortcomings. Problems resulting from orality include confusion about the sequence and significance of events as well as details such as names and settings. Furthermore, in contexts where orality is the primary means of communication, despite its significance and value in preserving a community’s traditions and beliefs, historical fact easily becomes mixed with myths and legends, making the product meaningless as history. These issues apply equally well to the writing. Early Islamic scholarship is full of cases in which an account of an event takes a particular form as a result of its being produced out of several not necessarily identical reports. This applies to both religious accounts and historical narratives (ḥadīth, conquests and the like).119 There is another challenge that one cannot ignore when studying early Islam: determining the motivations and biases of information and authors. As Robinson noted, ‘to make these early authorities objective and reliable transmitters of Islam’s origins is not simply anachronistic: it underestimates the creativity of early Muslims’.120 Their biases and prejudices determined, on the one hand, the way each original informant understood an event and transmitted it, and on the other hand, the way an author later presented it. The form and context of a narrative, for instance, might reflect the informant’s or author’s eagerness to legitimize certain views and practices of the group he belongs to by negating views and practices of opposing groups. In the context of Sunni-Shiʿi debate, the event of Ghadīr Khumm in 10/632 is a significant example of how both informants and authors

Introduction  21 determined the form and context of a report in accordance with their religious and political biases. What Muḥammad said at Ghadīr Khumm can never be reconstructed with any certainty. The Shiʿis insist that it was there that Muḥammad designated ʿAlī as his successor. The Sunnis, however, are either silent about the incident or reject the claim that Muḥammad said anything about the issue of succession at the Ghadīr Khumm.121 Clearly, the beliefs of any author determine not only whether an account is to be recorded or ignored but also what goes into it in terms of details. Attributing words and views to an authoritative figure is a motivation that must be kept in mind especially when studying and examining the early Islamic period. Turning to the past for legitimization is a phenomenon that generally involves pseudo-epigraphy. That is, the ‘internal forgery of texts and their ascription to authoritative historical figures and transfer of authorship, the reattribution of anecdotes and sayings from one person to another’.122 Two factors led to the development of pseudo-epigraphy and transfer of authorship in early Islam. The first relates to the rapid spread of Islam, and the second to internal Islamic hostility. Both pseudo-epigraphy and transfer of authorship demonstrate the eagerness of particular groups to attain legitimization by falsely attributing works and words that endorse the group’s views, beliefs, and practices to historical figures of great religious symbolism. Pseudo-epigraphy and transfer of authorship were practised to a great extent in Islamic scholarship.123 The issue of authenticity of the primary sources in the current study has been left to the scholars who have already examined the authenticity of those texts. Discussions on the authenticity of a particular manuscript or text are beyond the scope of this research as well as of the author’s expertise. I have relied on the assessments of the scholars who have worked on and edited these sources and have dealt with the issue of the authenticity of a particular manuscript. As a matter of fact, wherever a manuscript is available in the printed version, all references are given to the printed edition, usually to the most recent one. What follows is a brief on available literature in Shiʿism and Sufism in the formative period and main primary sources which this book is based on.

Shiʿi and Sufi Texts in the Formative Period Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai has situated the beginning of Shiʿi literature in the late Umayyad period (established in 40/661), primarily focused on anti-Umayyad themes. Many anti-Umayyad pamphlets and books were written, but the oldest surviving Shiʿi book from this period is Kitāb al-Aṣl or simply Kitāb Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī. In later Shiʿi works, it is mostly referred to as kitāb or aṣl. The word ‘aṣl’, in the Shiʿi ḥadīth literature, denoted a personal notebook of material received through oral transmission.124 Kitāb Sulaym is one of the earliest Shiʿi extant sources which, the scholars agree, was composed either in the late Umayyad or early Abbasid period. This means that by the time of Kitāb Sulaym, the Shiʿi history has already witnessed the First and Second Civil Wars in Islam, the massacre of Ḥusayn and his family in the event of Karbalāʾ in 60/680, and

22 Introduction also the rise of the ghulāt around 133/750. The work provides the earliest documented understanding of wilāya/walāya in Shiʿism. As much as the Civil Wars were concerned with the right political leadership of the Muslim community, it seems it was the massacre of the grandson of the Prophet that awakened a prevailing religious wave against the Umayyads and their supporters. The event of Karbalāʾ marked a critical turning point and the consequences of al-Ḥusayn’s martyrdom contributed to the proliferation of powerful religious sentiments.125 Ghulāt (radicals) also offered a distinct speculative political orientation as well as religious tendencies within Shiʿism.126 Ḥasan al-Baṣrī (d. 110/728), the famous preacher of the Umayyad period in Basra, was also active around the same time. Ḥasan’s political judgements of the earlier caliphs arise from his religious principles. Just like Shiʿi writers, he also fearlessly criticized the rulers of his time, the governors of Iraq, and had to go into hiding.127 The Umayyad period is also the time of the appearance of the major work al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya (sometimes as al-Sīra al-Rasūl Allāh) by Ibn Isḥāq (d. 50/767),128 biographer of the Prophet Muḥammad whose book, in a recession by Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833),129 is one of the most important sources on the Prophet’s life. Citations from the al-Sīra also appear in the works of Muslim historians such as al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923).130 In addition, it should be noted that through vast Muslim conquests, the Umayyad period was also the time when the Muʿtazilī ideas took shape under the influence of three non-Islamic religions, i.e. Christian, Zoroastrian, and Manichaean theologies.131 By the time of the Abbasid revolution, the Greek philosophy also found its place within the Islamic world. During the reign of Hārūn, the first translations of Greek philosophical and scientific works were made.132 Meanwhile Abu al-Hudhayl (d. ca. 235/849) developed the first elaborated Muʿtazilī system.133 Neoplatonic ideas through the translations of Greek philosophy into Arabic had a major impact on theological discussions.134 Caliph al-Maʾmūn was interested in Muʿtazilī doctrines and supported the translation of the major writings of the Greek philosophy. The first philosopher in Islam, Yaʿqub ibn Isḥaq al-Kindī (d. ca. 252/866), was close to the Muʿtazila in his theological views.135 It is in this context of intellectual flourishing and stifling that Sufism found room to participate in the theological debates and prominent Sufi writers emerged. All three major texts which will be discussed in this research are almost contemporary and were compiled towards the end of third/ninth century. Kitāb al-Ṣidq by al-Kharrāz (d. 279/892 or 286/899), Tafsīr by Saḥl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), and Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ by al-Tirmidhī (d. 318/936 or 320/938) are three major early extant works that were established in the mid-late Abbasid rule. It should be noted that Sufism by this time is still in its formative period, more than half a century away from the systematic manuals of Sufism, such as al-Taʿaruf by al-Kalabadhī (d. 380/990 or 384/994), al-Kitāb al-Lumʿa by al-Sarrāj (d. 378/988), Qūt al-Qulūb by Abū Ṭālib al-Makkī (d. 388/998), and al-Ādāb by al-Sulāmī (d. 412/1021), among others. The Shiʿi source extant from this period is Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ of Faḍl Shādhān al-Nishābūrī (d. ca. 260/873–874).136 As compared to Sulaym ibn Qays, there is

Introduction  23 much more credible information available about the life and writings of Faḍl. It is clear from the text of al-Īḍāḥ that the issue of knowledge of the imām was of significant import at this stage. As we will see later, Faḍl held a moderate view against the extreme views of the ghulāt, maintaining that imāms’ special knowledge was restricted to the law and to the interpretation of the Qurʾan and was based entirely on transmission from the Prophet. From the period of the Minor Occultation, two major extant works are Kitāb al-Maḥāsin of al-Barqī (274/888 or 280/894) and Kitāb Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt of Ṣaffār al-Qummī (d. 290/902–903). Al-Barqī and al-Ṣaffār were contemporaries and reflect almost similar viewpoints. Towards the end of the Minor Occultation and beginning of the Major Occultation, walāya becomes well established in Shiʿism. Al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939–940 or 329/940–941) is the most important text documenting in detail all the basic ingredients of imāmī Shiʿi theory in this period. The approach used in this research drives from two standpoints: ontological and epistemological. First, from an ontological standpoint, this research is concerned with the question of ‘what is the nature of the concept of walāya?’ And second, from an epistemological standpoint, ‘how can one know a walī?’ The discussions carried out within the texts under this study do not distinguish between ontological and epistemological corresponding questions. The present study attempts to answer these questions by a study of the classical texts in their own context. It should be noted that the manner in which this research approaches the classical texts in relation to the issue of walāya involves primarily looking for keywords related to the concept of walāya insofar as they are identified within the semantic field of walāya. Therefore, the ideas from the classical texts examined in the following chapters are restricted to the scope of the keywords identified. There is thus a possibility that the classical texts may contain discussion relevant to the concept of walāya in which the identified keywords may not have been used. This is true as well of the texts which belong to the formative period but have been left outside the scope of this research, primarily for the reason that the keywords do not appear in those works. However, the information obtained by focusing on the keywords is sufficient to meet the objectives for this research towards the study of the development of the concept of walāya in formative Shiʿism and Sufism. The book is divided into five chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 consider sources that deal with the concept of walāya in Shiʿism before the Minor Occultation (i.e., before 260/874) and the sources dealing with the same during the Minor Occultation and just before the beginning of the Major Occultation. The starting point for research into the development of walāya in Shiʿism is one of the oldest surviving Shiʿi sources—Kitāb Sulaym. The second major text considered here is al-Īḍāḥ of Faḍl Shādhān al-Nishābūrī (d. ca. 260/873–874). This work is one of the main sources in the early imāmī literature. Both sources are important because these are the only two extant sources that provide a pre-ghayba understanding of the notion of walāya. For the period of the Minor Occultation, Kitāb al-Maḥāsin of al-Barqī and for the period of the Major Occultation, Kitāb

24 Introduction al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939–940 or 329/940–941) are considered, which are among the most important early texts documenting in detail the basic ingredients of imāmī Shiʿi theory. While Chapter 1 provides an exhaustive account of the walāya in these texts, Chapter 2 analyzes the understanding of walāya from the ontological and epistemological viewpoints in these texts to see the changes and development of walāya in the formative period of Shiʿism. Chapters 3 and 4 perform a similar exercise on the early Sufi sources. Within the scope of this research, there are three major documents concerned with the subject of walāya in Sufism: Kitāb al-Ṣidq by Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz (d. 286/899), Tafsīr al-Qurʾan alʿAẓīm by Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), and Al-Tirmidhī’s (d. 320/938) Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ. Chapter 5 performs a comparative analysis of the concept of walāya in formative Shiʿism and Sufism.

Notes 1 There are other terms related to authority as well, such as ‘amīr’ or ‘sulṭān’. However, the ‘religious authority’ is largely denoted by the three mentioned terms. Amīrs were mainly commanders and army generals whose primary duties were martial in nature. Umayyads also called themselves amīrs until ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Nāṣir (d. 350/961) assumed the title of caliph. Their governors and the governors of the Fāṭimids were called not amīr but wālī (see A.A. Duri, ‘Amīr’, in EI2, http://dx​.doi​.org​.iij​.idm​ .oclc​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_islam​_SIM​_0602 (consulted online on 23 November 2020)). Sulṭān, on the other hand, denotes mainly ‘proof’ or ‘argument’ and it only occasionally seems to mean ‘authority’, and even then, mostly in association with ‘proof’ (see Kadi, Wadad al-Qāḍī, ‘Authority’, in EQ Online, http://dx​.doi​.org​.iij​.idm​ .oclc​.org​/10​.1163​/1875​-3922​_q3​_EQSIM​_00037 (consulted online on 23 November 2020)). Also see Asma Afsaruddin, ‘Authority, religious’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​ .1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_23445 (consulted online on 17 October 2020), where she refers to a number of terms such as sulṭān, mulk, ḥukm, and amr, stating that none of these terms has the meaning of authority. 2 Amir-Moezzi has pointed out that the concept of wilāyat/walāyat al-faqīh has its genesis in the philosophy of Mullā Ṣadrā and his understanding of the notion of wilāya/walāya. For more information, see Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and Christian Jambet, What is Shīʿī Islam? An Introduction, trans. into English by Kenneth Casler and Eric Ormsby (London and New York: Routledge, 2018), pp. 116–117. 3 In his book, Sufism and Shiʿism (1991), Kamil Mustafa al-Shaibi also emphasized the similarities prevailing between Shiʿism and Sufism. He concluded that since Shiʿism came first and had established its doctrines upon a spiritual foundation long before Sufism, it was Shiʿism that provided Sufism with many pivotal ideas. Al-Shaibi maintains that Sufi wilāya/walāya formed a ‘complete imāma’ with all its divine privileges. It is for this reason that Sufism was compelled to be dependent upon the Shiʿi beliefs. Al-Shaibi observes that Sufism also had an influence on Shiʿism, albeit later, especially during the rise of the Safavid dynasty. For more information, see Kamil M. al-Shaibi, Sufism and Shiʿism (Surrey: LAAM Ltd, 1991). 4 Ibn Khaldūn was a famous historian of the fourteenth century. His work Muqaddima, as the name suggests, is a prolegomenon to the science of history and epistemology. See M. Talbi, ‘Ibn Khaldūn’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 826. 5 Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddima, tr. Franz Rosenthal (New York, 1958), vol.3, pp. 92–93. For this point, also see Alexander D. Knysh, Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition:

Introduction  25 6

7 8

9

10

11 12

13 14 15 16 17

18

The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam (Albany: University of New York Press, 1999), pp. 192–193. The expression khātam al-awliyāʾ first appears in the writing of al-Tirmidhī (d. ca. 298/910) in which the position of the highest ‘awliyāʾ’ is placed in parallel to the prophet Muḥammad, who is declared as the seal of the prophets (khātam al-nabīyyīn) in the Qurʾan: ‘Muḥammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of Allāh and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allāh is ever aware of all things’ (Q 33:40). We will discuss this term in detail within the writing of al-Tirmidhī later in this book. Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima, vol.3, p. 94. Apart from noting the invisible hierarchy of the walī, Ibn Khaldūn looks at the practice of using cloak (khirqa) and the esoteric instructions passed down as secrets (asrār) within both Shiʿism and Sufism. See Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddima, vol.1, p. 187. In this research, we will not be concerned with the general practices but with the development of the notion of wilāya/walāya. We are also not sure about Ibn Khaldūn’s intentions and probable biases in writing about the closeness of Shiʿism and Sufism and their influences on each other. Even though he has been praised as a great (or even sometimes greatest) Muslim historian of medieval times, the method he uses to write history indicates his time’s understanding of history. A time when polemic writings, biased ideas, and also divine predictions were impertinently part of historical texts. In fact, Ibn Khaldūn’s Muqaddima is a massive book and only those parts that refer to Ibn Khaldūn’s logical and innovative explanations of history are often translated and published. There is a little mention of the massive collection of books and articles about his obsession with diviners and saints, with magical books written secretly for the Prophet Muḥammad that foretold the entire history of the world. For more details, see Allen James Fromherz, Ibn Khaldūn: life and times (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), ch.1. For instance, see Fitzroy Morrissey, Sufism and the Perfect Human: From Ibn ʿArabī to al-Jīlī (Routledge, 2020). In this book, Morrissey investigates the history of Sufism through the concept of insān al-kāmil and shows the development of the concept from Ibn al-ʿArabī to al-Jīlī and beyond. See Hamid Dabashi, ‘Early Propagation of Wilāyat-i Faqīh’, in Expectation of the Millennium: Shiʿism in History, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 287–300. Ahmet T. Karamustafa has correctly identified the four-fold areas of (1) identity, (2) function, (3) appointment, and the (4) description of awliyāʾ as those which are sorely missing from the contemporary scholarship on wilāya/walāya. See Ahmet T. Karamustafa, ‘Wilāya according to al-Junayd’, in Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, edited by Todd Lawson (I. B. Tauris, 2005), p. 64. Henry Corbin, The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism (London: Shambhala, 1978), pp. 55–56. Corbin, The Man of Light, p. 57. Amir-Moezzi also uses the vocalization of walāya in his study of Shiʿism. Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, The Divine Guide in Early Shiʿism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), p. 29. Waṣī, pl. awṣiyāʾ or waṣiyyūn, is a theological term in Shiʿism translated as legatee, executor, successor, or inheritor. It was first used to designate ʿAlī as the inheritor of the Prophet’s worldly possessions and of his political and spiritual authority. To read more about waṣī, see E. Kohlberg, ‘Waṣī’, in EI2, vol. xi, p. 161. Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, p. 159. Also see Amir-Moezzi’s recent work, Ali, le secret bien gardé. Figures du premier Maître en spiritualité shi’ite (Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2020) where he shows that in Shiʿism, ʿAlī, son-in-law and cousin of the

26 Introduction

19 20 21 22

23 24 25

26

27 28 29

30 31 32

33 34

Prophet Muḥammad, occupies the highest spiritual rank and is the imām par excellence, a similar status, as the Christ has in Christianity. Shiʿism can therefore be defined, in its most specific religious aspects, as absolute faith and love in ʿAlī. ʿAli is portrayed as the most perfect manifestation of the attributes of God. See Maria Massi Dakake, The Charismatic Community: Shiʻite identity in early Islam (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), p. 16. Patricia Crone, Slaves on Horses: The Evaluation of the Islamic Polity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 49. See Monique Bernards, John Abdallah Nawas (eds), Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam (Leiden: Brill, 2005). The significance of the institution of walāʾ in al-Tirmidhī’s language has been noted by Aiyub Palmer in his study of al-Tirmidhī’s works. I will discuss this point in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of this book. See Aiyub Palmer, Sainthood and Authority in Early Islam: Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’s Theory of Wilāya and the Re-envisioning of the Sunnī Caliphate (Studies on Sufism: E-Book, December 2019, vol. 5). Hermann Landolt, ‘Walāyah’, in Encyclopaedia of Religion, vol. 15 (New York: 1987), p. 317. Abū al-Faḍl Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-ʿArab (Beirut: Dār al-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1419/1999), vol. 15, pp. 402–404. Also see Michael Chodkiewicz, Le Sceau des saints: Prophétie et sainteté dans la doctrine d’Ibn Arabî (Paris, 1986), pp. 29–39. Also see Vincent Cornell, The Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998), p. xviii. Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ al-Māgirī, Al-Minhāj al-wāḍiḥ fī taḥqīq karāmāt Abī Muḥammad Ṣālih (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿIlmiyya, 1933), p. 80. This is a translation by Cornell in The Realm of the Saint, p. xix. Nizam al-Din Awliya, Morals for the Heart, tr. Bruce B. Lawrence (Mahwah and New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1992), p. 95. Corbin, The Man of Light, p. 149. Annemarie Schimmel does not agree with this. She makes it clear that the role of the awliyāʾ in Islam does not correspond to that of the ‘saint’ in Christianity. According to Schimmel, ‘walī is closely connected with the mystery of initiation and progress on the spiritual path and leads through a well-established hierarchy, the members of which surpass each other according to the degree of their love or gnosis’. For this reason, the word ‘saint’ is not an appropriate translation of the term walī or for that matter ‘sainthood’ for wilāya/walāya. See Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975), p. 204. Corbin, The Man of Light, p. 134. Corbin, The Man of Light, p. 149. Henry Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy (London-New York: Kegan Paul International; London: in association with Islamic Publications for the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 1993). This book was first published in French as Henry Corbin, Histoire de la Philosophie Islamique (Paris: Gallimard, 1964). Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy, p. 26. Corbin, History of Islamic Philosophy, pp. 28–29. Hermann Landolt found Corbin’s opinion regarding the origin of Sufism highly problematic. According to Landolt, it is untenable as a historical statement. However, Landolt admits that Corbin’s thesis can be taken as a simple reflection of the powerful notion of ‘inheritance’ in Islam. ‘The fact that Sufism cannot be understood without the notion of prophetic inheritance as transmitted by a shaykh, and that the notion of prophetic inheritance as transmitted by the imāms belongs to the very essence of Shiʿism in the first place’. See Hermann Landolt, ‘Henry Corbin, 1903–1978: Between Philosophy and Orientalism’, in

Introduction  27

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

45 46

47

Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 119, No. 3 (Jul.–Sep. 1999), pp. 488– 489. Also, for critical reviews of Corbin’s theory, see articles by Hamid Algar, ‘The Study of Islam: The Work of Henry Corbin’, in Religious Studies Review 6 (April 1980), pp. 85–91 and Charles J. Adams, ‘The Hermeneutics of Henry Corbin’, in Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, ed. Richard C. Martin (Tucson and Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1985), pp. 129–150. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Sufi Essays (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1972). Seyyed Hossein Nasr, ‘Shiʿism and Sufism: Their Relationship in Essence and in History’, in Sufi Essays (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1972), pp. 104–120. Sayyed Hossein Nasr, Living Sufism (London, Boston: Unwin Paperbacks, 1980), p. 45. Nasr, Living Sufism, p. 95. Cornell, The Realm of the Saint, pp. 216–217. Cornell, The Realm of the Saint, p. 227. See Dakake, The Charismatic Community, pp. 16–25. Hermann Landolt, ‘Walāyah’, in Encyclopaedia of Religion, vol. 15 (New York: 1987), p. 316. Grace Martin Smith and Carl W. Ernst, ‘Introduction’, in Manifestation of Sainthood in Islam eds. Grace Martin Smith and Carl W. Ernst (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993), p. 15. Lo! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allāh, and those who took them in and helped them: these are protecting friends one of another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help [them] except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allāh is Seer of what ye do (Q 8:72). In this case is protection only from Allāh, the True, He is Best for reward, and best for consequence (Q 18:44). The semantic analysis of the Qurʾanic concepts was first proposed by Toshihiko Izutsu. For Izutsu, the entire vocabulary of the Qurʾan can be treated as an array of interrelated semantic fields. See Toshihiko Izutsu, Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurʾan (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002). pp. 24–41. In addition, there are also several less frequent terms coupled with walī in the Qurʾan which are not much significant to this study. I will mention few here: (1) Rabb: The Arabic verb ‘rabba’, lit. ‘to be lord’, also means ‘to bring up’ or ‘to care for’ and, thus, ‘rabb’ not only means lordship and master or authority but also provider and sustainer. Rabb in the Qurʾan mainly refers to God’s dominion over both the worlds (Q 1:2; 2:131; 5:28; 6:45), over Heaven and Earth (Q 13:16; 17:102; 18:40; 19:65), and as the Lord of the east and the west and what is between them (Q 26:28) (see Simonetta Calderini, ‘Lord’, in EQ, vol. 3, pp. 229–231). Rabb in pre-Islamic times was used in Old Arabia for a ‘master of slave’, and many gods were called rabb and the kāhins of Mecca (soothsayers) were also called rabb (A. J. Wensinck and T. Fahd, ‘Rabb’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 350). The Qurʾan also uses the form arbāb as a plural of rabb for the gods other than Allāh (Q 9:31; 12:39). Rabb also occurs in the Qurʾan with reference to human master (Q 12:23,24, 41,50). The word occurs three times along with walī in Q 6:127; 6:128 and 7:3. In Q 6:127, God as Rabb is the ‘Provider of peace’, and hence, God as Walī can be understood as ‘Protector’ or ‘Ally’. In Q 6:128, awliyāʾ can be understood as ‘human masters’ and in Q: 7:3, rabb refers to the divine lordship. In these contexts, the term walī portrays the meaning of ‘lordship and mastership’ and can be understood as ‘Lord’ and a ‘Protector’. (2) Shafīʿ: The word shafīʿ is also paired three times with walī in the Qurʾan (Q 6:51; 6:70; 32:4). Shafīʿ is a nominal noun referring to the one who possesses shafāʿa (intercession) and thus, in the Qurʾan, shafīʿ is the one pleading with God on behalf of or advocating someone

28 Introduction

48 49 50 51

(Valerie J. Hoffman, ‘Intercession’, in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 551–552). Like the term walī, God is the only one who possess shafāʿa and He is the absolute Shafīʿ (Q 39:44), which can be understood as ‘Lord’ and a ‘Protector’; however, under His permission two parties are mentioned that can intercede: the angels (Q 42:5; 53:26) and the prophets (Q 7:53). Without God’s permission, even these two parties are powerless and cannot intercede on the Day of Judgment. Intercession is in the Qurʾan mentioned mainly in two contexts. It does not apply to unbelievers (Q 7:53), and it may only apply to believers whom He wills and approves (Q 2:254; 4:85; 34:23) (see Hoffman, ‘Intercession’, p. 553). Where shafīʿ occurs in pair with walī as God’s divine attributes in the Qurʾan, these two terms cannot be taken fully as synonymous. God is Walī and Lord of believers exclusively but His shafāʿa would be bestowed to only among believers with certain qualities. They are mentioned in the Qurʾan as the people of ʿahd (For ʿahd (pl. ʿuhūd), lit. ‘joining together or a contract’, see J. Schacht, ‘ʿAhd’, in EI2, vol.1, p. 255). (3) sulṭān: The word sulṭān occurs twice with the root w-l-y and only once with the term walī itself in (Q 17:33). Sulṭān usually means ‘proof’ or ‘argument’ and very rarely means authority in the Qurʾan (Kadi (al-Qāḍī), ‘Authority’, in EQ, vol. 1, pp. 188–189) which can be taken as ‘Lordship and the absolute Authority in the entire creation’. However, God Himself has given His authority to His selected people. In the Qurʾan, sulṭān is also mentioned to be in the possession of God’s prophets and His messengers. God has selected and empowered His messengers with extraordinary power and authority supported by sulṭān (Q 11:96; 4:144). These prophets and messengers are well aware of the fact that their authority fundamentally is from God (Q 14:11) and exactly for this reason people must listen to them and obey them. Whoever does not take God’s sulṭān and obeys Satan’s word is considered as non-believer (Q 14:22). In the later verse, the sulṭān as a right authority has been given to walī by God to strike back if a walī’s relative is wrongfully killed. We might add that in the above quotation, it is clear that walī refers to a legal case and not a divine attribute. (4) wāq: The following quotation may be used to illustrate the way Qurʾan understands walī as related to wāq, ‘thus have We revealed it, a decisive utterance in Arabic; and if thou shouldst follow their desires after that which hath come unto thee of knowledge, then truly wouldst thou have from Allāh no walī nor defender’ (Q 13:37). Wāq is a verbal noun from the root w-q-y with the literal meaning ‘to fear’ (Leonard Lewisohn, ‘Taḳwā’, in EI2, vol. xii, p. 872.) and ‘to protect oneself from harm’ (Scott C. Alexander, ‘Fear’, in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 194–196). Wāq and taqwāʾ are from the same root. Taqwāʾ is one of the most frequent occurrences in the Qurʾan. Taqwāʾ with the closer meaning of ‘seeking protection from God’ is an essential term which can be called religious piety and hence, it is considered as the common characteristic of the believers and as a measurement for the sincerity of a believer’s life (Lewisohn, ‘Taḳwā’, p. 872). Taqwā is also considered as the essence of the faith (Q 22:32) and internal piety (Q 22:37) and whoever does the most taqwāʾ is the most honoured before God (Q 49:13) (Alexander, ‘Fear’, p. 196). The verse Q 5:2 reflects a clearer understanding of taqwāʾ, which centres around the notion of a careful and watchful fear of the divine vengeance to prevent severe punishment. This basic understanding reflects taqwāʾ as the fear of divine chastisement. In this verse, God as wāq coupled with walī can be understood as ‘Defender’ and ‘Protector’. It can be said that while walī conveys a sense of protection through loyalty and lordship, wāq conveys a sense of protection from fear of punishment. See Q 2:107; 2:120; 4:45; 4:75; 4:89; 4:123; 4:173; 9:74; 9:116; 29:22; 33:17; 33:65; 42:8; 42:31; 48:22. Sabine Schmidtke, ‘Pairs and Pairing’, in EQ, vol. 4, pp. 1–2. This phrase is recited before each sūra, except for the ninth. Edward William Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (London: Williams & Norgate 1863), p. 2083.

Introduction  29 52 See Q 2:286; 3:150; 6:62; 8:40; 9:51; 10:30; 19:5; twice in 22:78; 47:11; 66:2; 66:4. 53 Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 1730. 54 Patricia Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 78–83. 55 Let not the believers take disbelievers for their awliyāʾ in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allāh unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allāh biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allāh is the journeying (Q 3:28). 56 For more information, see Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 78–79. 57 For detail information about the types of relations regarding walāʾ, see Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 36–63. 58 Patricia Crone, ‘Mawlāʾ’, in EI2, vol. vi, pp. 875–876. 59 The Qurʾan contains a variety of what might be identified as ‘kinship terms’: qurabā (close relative Q 2:83; 2:177; 4:8; 4:36; 5:106; 6:152; 8:41; 9:113; 16:90; 17:26; 24:22; 30:38; 35:18; 42:23; 59:7); the superlative, al-aqrabūn as the closest relatives (Q 2:180, 215; 4:7; 4:33; 4:135); arḥām, as maternal kin (Q 8:75; 33:6); ʿashīra as clan or tribe (Q 9:24; 26:214; 58:22); zawj and zawja as husband and wife (Q 2:25; 2:35; 2:102; 2:230; 2:232; 2:234; 2:240; 3:15; 4:1; 4:12; etc.); imraʾa as wife or woman (Q 2:282; 3:35; 3:40; 4:12; 4:128; 7:83); ṣāḥiba as wife, companion, or friend (Q 6:101; 70:12; 72:3; 80:36); akh as brother or friend (Q 2:178; 2:220; 3:103; 3:156; 3:168; 4:12); ḥamīm as solicitous relative or close friend (Q 40:81; 68:38; 70:10); ṣihr as relation through marriage (Q 25:54); nasab as lineage, kindred, attribution (Q 23:101; 25:54; 37:158) among others. See Talal Asad, ‘Kinship’, in EQ Online, http:// dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1875​-3922​_q3​_EQSIM​_00250 (consulted online on 12 January 2020). 60 Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, p. 48. 61 See Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 51–52. According to Crone, Arab conquerors did not assign the status of ḥalif to the non-Arab converts; however, the only non-Arabs to be incorporated as ḥalīfs were Persian troops of the Ḥamrāʾ and Asāwira who deserted to the Arabs at an early stage of the conquests and Arabs respected their military strength (for more detail information, see Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 54–55). 62 Crone, ‘Mawlāʾ’, in EI2, p. 876. 63 The Qurʾan mentions jārs along with parents, near kindred, orphans, and needy people whom kindness should be shown (Q 4:36). 64 Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 51–52. 65 Here, I would like to explain a little bit about the term ʿabd as opposed to ḥurr (freeman). According to Arabic-English Lexicon dictionary, ʿabd is an epithet, used for ‘a male slave’. ʿAbd is used for black male slave and ‘mamlūk’ for the white male slave. It also means ‘servant’ and ‘worshiper’. Slavery is expressed by derivatives of ʿabd such as ʿubūdiyya. The ‘master’ is, in this context, called ‘sayyid’ and also ‘mawlāʾ’. For more information about ʿabd, see R. Brunschvig, ‘ʿAbd’, in EI2, vol. i, pp. 25–40, and also Jonathan E. Brockopp, ‘Slave and Slavery’, in EQ, vol. 5, pp. 57–60. 66 Crone has done extensive and detailed work on the legal aspects of early Islamic law. For more information, see Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 36–68. Also see her other book, Crone, Slaves on horses. Robert Gleave, too, looks at the legal aspects of walāʾ, arguing that these legal aspects are common to both the Shiʿi and the Sunni legal sources. However, according to Gleave, in the legal sense, walāʾ in Shiʿi law is an insubstantial institution and of a secondary importance in comparison to its counterpart in the legal Sunni sources. See Robert Gleave, ‘Patronate in early Shiʿite law’, in Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, eds. Monique Bernards and John Nawas (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005), pp. 134–166.

30 Introduction 67 Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, pp. 36–39. 68 Lo! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them: these are protecting friends one of another. And those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them) except against a folk between whom and you there is a treaty. Allah is Seer of what ye do. 69 Muhammad al-Faruque, ‘Emigrants and Helpers’, in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 15–17. 70 The worried remaining Meccan Muslims also asked God to bring them out of ‘the city of the unjust’ and to provide for them ‘a walī from thee and a helper (naṣīr) from thee’ (Q 17:80). But then, according to (Q 8:72) ‘those who believed but did not leave their homes, ye have no duty to protect them till they leave their homes; but if they seek help from you in the matter of religion then it is your duty to help (them)!’ 71 These two groups made the nucleus of the future Muslim community (umma). 72 There are verses in the Qurʾan that indicate that the sense of community and mutual respect, concern and aid implied by brotherhood in its extended, metaphorical sense which unites Muslims. For more details, see my footnote on akh in this section. 73 Crone, Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law, p. 36. This is reflected in the verses Q 8:72–74. 74 To continue with the semantic analysis, the next frequent word coupled with walī in the Qurʾan is āmanū. There are verses which describe the characteristics of muʾminīn, for instance, muʾminīn are like brothers (ikhwān) to each other (Q 49:10); they protect and help each other (Q 8:72; 8:74; 9:71); they make peace if they fall to fight (Q 49:9–10); they are merciful among themselves, forceful to unbelievers, and do righteous deeds (Q 48:29). In these verses, the term muʾminīn primarily connotes the description and adherence of the Muslims and therefore the terms muʾmin and muslim can be taken as synonymous. However, there are clear references in the Qurʾan that recognizes believers of other religions as muʾmin as well. For instance, non-Muslims referred to as People of the Book are also described as muʾminīn (Q 2:62; 3:110; 3:113–115; 3:199; 5:66; 5:83; 28:52–54; 57:27). The other term is akh/akhū/akhī (brother). There are verses that refer to the term’s literal biological kinship (Q 4:23), whereas there are other verses that indicate brotherhood outside the confines of biology (Q 2:220; 49:12). Although several occurrences of akh emphasize that biological relationship is less important than spiritual kinship, Q 33:5–6 indicates that for legal purposes biological brotherhood is more relevant to matters of inheritance. These verses also confirm the adoption of each other as brothers in the case of relationship between Meccan muhājirūn and Medinan anṣār. In the verse Q 33:5, the term ikhwān (sing. akh) attached to the term mawālī can be understood as ‘clients’’ or ‘protégé’ of those who are called brothers (ikhwān). Compared with akh, mawlāʾ is an expression which describes a slightly firmer relationship with another person. 75 For more information, see M. M. Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis in Early Imāmī Shiʿism (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 1–2. 76 For more detail about al-Mukhtar, see G.R. Hawting, ‘al-Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd’, in EI2, vol. vii, p. 521. 77 See Bar-Asher, Scripture and exegesis, p. 2. 78 Muhammad M. Ayoub, The Crisis of Muslim History, Religion and Politics in Early Islam (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003), p. 93. 79 Ibn Qutaybah, Al-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah aw Taʾrīkh al-Khulafāʾ, ed. ʿAlī Shīrī (Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1990), vol. 1, p. 99. 80 Abū Muḥammad Aḥmad Al-Kūfī, Kitāb al-Futūḥ (Ḥaydarābād: ʿUthmāniyyah University, 1969), vol. 2, pp. 428–429. I have made amendments to the Ayoub’s translation of this paragraph in The Crisis of Muslim History, p. 104. 81 Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis, p. 2.

Introduction  31 82 For the rise of Abbasids and their daʿwa, see Daniel L. Elton, ‘ʿAbbāsid Revolution’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_0025 (Consulted online on 13 June 2020). 83 Muhammad Qasim Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early Abbasids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite (Brill: Leiden and New York, 1997), p. 33. 84 For detail information about early Abbasid, see chapter 4 in M. Sharon, Black Banners from the East: The Establishment of ʿAbbāsid state-Incubation of a Revolt (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University and Leiden: Brill, 1983). 85 Sharon, Black Banners, p. 79. 86 W. Madelung, ‘The Hāshimīyyāt of al-Kumayt and Hāshimī Shiʿism’, in Studia Islamica, No. 70 (1989), p. 10. 87 For a critique and some evidence that the Banū ʿAbbās and the Banū Muṭṭalib were together with the household of ʿAlī, also regarded as part of the ahl al-bayt, see W. Madelung, ‘The Hāshimīyyāt of al-Kumayt and Hāshimī Shiʿism’, pp. 10–25. 88 Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early Abbasids, p. 34. 89 To read more, see Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis, p. 3. 90 Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis, p. 4. Also see Moojan Momen, An Introduction to Shiʿi Islam, the history and doctrines of Twelver Shiʻism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 39–45. Nimrod Hurvitz also agrees that it is quite likely that the Abbasid caliphs put the Shiʿi imāms under house arrest in reaction to their growing influence, but he also mentions that they did not follow a consistent policy. He classifies Abbasid caliphs’ reaction to Shiʿi imāms into three types: (1) some caliphs such as al-Maʾmūn or al-Mustanṣir attempted to appease the imāms and their followers, (2) others such as al-Mutiwakkil persecuted them, and (3) a third group did not take any clear stand. For more information, see Nimrod Hurvitz, ‘Early Hanbalism and the Shiʿa’, in The Sunna and Shiʿa in History: Division and Ecumenism in the Muslim Middle East, ed. by Ofra Bengio and Meir Litvak (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), p. 39. 91 Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis, p. 3. 92 Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early Abbasids, p. 35. 93 The term ‘ahl al-sunna’ seems to have made one of its earliest appearances in the statement by Muḥammad b. Sīrīn (d. 110/729), who is reported to have remarked: ‘they (the traditionalists) were not used to inquiring after the isnād, but when fitna occurred, they said: name us your informants. Thus, if these were ahl al-sunna, their traditions were accepted, but if they were ahl al-bidʿa, their traditions were not accepted’. See Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī, Ṣaḥīḥ, ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī (Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Kutub al-ʻArabīya, 1955), vol. 1, p. 15. 94 For origins and early development of Shiʿism until the emergence of the major sectarian branches, see W. Madelung, ‘Shīʿa’, in EI2, vol. ix, pp. 420–424. 95 Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis, p. 4. 96 For more information about these centres, see Andrew Newman, The Formative Period of Twelver Shiʿism: Ḥadīth as Discourse between Qum and Baghdad (Curzon Press: Richmond, Surrey, 2000). 97 ‘Sufism’ or ‘mysticism’? Which one is a better title for this trend of Islam in the formative period? This question has been raised by many scholars within Islamic Studies and also of Study of Religions alike and there have been different views to answer this question. For a detailed study of the differences between Sufism and Mysticism in early Islam, see Sara Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic MysticismThe World of al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and His Contemporaries (London and New York: Routledge, 2020), pp. 23–32. For the period of current study, however, it is evident in early sources that in the socio-historical context of the second half of the second/ eighth century, two different social types had been named by the term ṣūfī. On the one hand, the rough living, harsh, and in times, provocative ascetics and on the other,

32 Introduction

98 99

100

101 102 103 104 105

106 107 108

109 110 111 112 113 114 115

the respectable, pious, well-to-do religious leaders and individuals (also see Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism, pp. 23–32). In this light, leaving many complications of the terminology aside, in this study, I will use the term ‘Sufism’ by which I mean the later connotation. Gerhard Böwering, Sufi Hermeneutics in Medieval Islam (Tokyo: Sophia University, Institute of Asian Cultures, 1987), p. 1. For the origin of Sufism, see L. Massignon, Essai sur les origines du Lexique Technique de la Mystique Musulmane (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1954) and Paul Nwyia, Exegese coranique et langage mystique: nouvel essai sur le lexique technique des mystiques musulmans (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq editeurs, 1970). For more information on this, see Ahmet T Karamustafa, Sufism: the Formative Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), pp. 2–10; also see Margaret Smith, Studies in early mysticism in the Near and Middle East: being an account of the rise and development of early Christian mysticism in the Near and Middle East up to the seventh century, and of the subsequent development of mysticism in Islam known as Sufism, together with some account of the relationship between early Christian mysticism and the earliest form of Islamic mysticism (London: Sheldon Press, 1931), p. 154. See Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, pp. 29–30. H. Ritter, ‘Ḥasan al-Baṣrī’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 248. Smith, Studies in early mysticism in the Near and Middle East, pp. 157–158. Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddima, p. 59–60. Also see M. Smith, Studies in early mysticism in the Near and Middle East, p. 158. Arts and sciences, law and philology, theology and philosophy were developing and the legal injunctions of the Qurʾan were brought into a more systematic form by the scholars who are considered the founders of the four orthodox law schools: Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767), Mālik ibn Anas (d. 179/796), al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204/820), and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855). Theological issues were extensively discussed, and the initial efforts were made more or less at the same time to define the central subject of Islam, namely the unity of God, with theologians progressively learning the skills of dialectical debate and logic. The theological discussions by now showed a great new interest in Greek science and philosophy. See Schimmel, Mystical Dimension, pp. 31–33. See Masood Ali Khan, ‘Sufism: origin and earliest sects’, in Encyclopaedia of Sufism, ed. Masood Ali Khan and S. Ram (New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 2003), vol.1, p. 58. For more information on this, see Schimmel, Mystical Dimension, pp. 33–35. Tawakkul is a verbal noun form ‘wakala’ which literally means ‘to entrust to, have confidence in (someone)’ and it is a concept in Islamic religious terminology, especially in Sufism. To read more about tawakkul, see L. Lewisohn, ‘Tawakkul’, in EI2, vol. x, p. 377. See Schimmel, Mystical Dimension, pp. 35–38. Margaret Smith-[Ch. Pellat], ‘Rābiʿa al-ʿAdawiyya al-Ḳaysiyya’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 355. See H. Ritter, ‘Abū Yazīd (Bāyazīd) Ṭayfūr b. ʿ Īsā b. Surūshān al-Biṣṭāmī’, in EI2, vol. i, p. 162. See L. Massignon, ‘al-Ḥallādj’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 100. See Josef van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2 und 3 Jahrhundert Hidschra: Ein Geschichte des religiosen Denkens im fruhen Islam (Berline and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), vol. 1, p. viii. Karl-Heinz Ohlig, The Hidden Origins of Islam, ed. Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R Puin (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2010), p. 9. On the types of documents from the first century of Islam, see N. Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1957–1972).

Introduction  33 116 For example, see J. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History (Oxford University Press, 1978) and also Patricia Crone and M. Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). 117 Suleiman Ali Mourad, Early Islam Between Myth and History: Al-Ḥaṣan Al-Baṣrī (d. 110H/728CE) and the Formation of His Legacy in Classical Islamic Scholarship (Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2006), p. 3. 118 For more information, see H. Kennedy, ‘From Oral Tradition to Written Record in Arabic Genealogy’, in Arabica 44 (1997), pp. 531–544. 119 For more information, see Mourad, Early Islam between Myth and History, p. 5. 120 Chase F. Robinson, Islamic Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 54. 121 For more information on Ghadīr Khumm, see L. Veccia Velieri, ‘Ghadīr Khumm’, in EI2, vol. ii, p. 993 and also W. Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammd: A Study of the Early Caliphate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1997), p. 253. 122 Mourad, Early Islam between Myth and History, pp. 5–6. 123 For more information about pseudo-epigraphy, see Mourad, Early Islam between Myth and History, pp. 7–15. 124 See Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival: a Bibliographic Survey of Early Shiʿite Literature (Oxford: Oneworld, 2003), pp. xiii–xiv. 125 However, Dakake argues that ‘there is actually little evidence that the Karbalāʾ tragedy inspired an immediate or radical shift in Shiʿi thought from a political to a more explicitly religious iteration of their cause and movement’. See Dakake, The Charismatic Community, p. 6. 126 Ghulāt, sing. ghālī, is a term of disapproval for individuals accused of exaggeration (ghulū) in religion. In the first generations, the Ghulāt seem to have been representatives of Zealot elements in the various Shiʿi movements. But by the second/eighth century, some of them probably initiated independent political activity and their ideas also helped to defend the formation of certain specific lines of imāms. Both the lines of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya and that of Muḥammad Bāqir and Jʿafar al-Ṣādīq were surrounded by Ghulāt thinkers. Imāmī tradition places all supporters of any claimants from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya as Ghulāt, under the collective name of Kaysānīyya. Some of these Kaysānīs also continued to support the Abbasids as imāms. The Abbasid revolution originated in the milieu of a sectarian movement called the Hāshimīyya, a sub-sect of the Kaysānīyya leading to the fall of the Umayyads and the establishment of the Abbasid dynasty in the mid-second/ eighth century. To read more about their history and ideas, see M.G.S. Hodgson, ‘Ghulāt’, in EI2, vol. ii, p. 1094. Also see Daniel L. Elton, ‘ʿAbbāsid Revolution’, in EI3. 127 See Ritter, ‘Ḥasan al-Baṣrī’, p. 162. 128 See J.M.B. Jones, ‘Ibn Isḥāḳ’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 811. 129 A scholar best known for his work on the biography of Muḥammad, see W. Montgomery Watt, ‘Ibn Hishām’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 801. 130 Jones, ‘Ibn Isḥāḳ’, p. 811. Al-Ṭabarī is most famous as a historian and Qurʾan commentator of the first three or four centuries of Islam. One of al-Ṭabarī’s most influential teachers was ʿAbd Allāh b. Ḥumayd al-Rāzī (d. 248/862), known as Ibn Ḥumayd. Since Ibn Ḥumayd was an authorized transmitter of Ibn Isḥāq’s Kitāb al-Maghāzī, he is an oft-quoted authority in al-Ṭabarī’s Taʾrīkh (Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh al-Rusul waʾl-mulūk, ed. M. J. De Goeje (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964)), see C.E. Bosworth, ‘al-Ṭabarī’, in EI2, vol. x, p. 11. 131 To read about the origin of the muʿtazila, see George F. Hourani, ‘Islamic and NonIslamic Origins of Muʿtazilite Ethical Rationalism’, in International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1976), pp. 59–87.

34 Introduction 132 Greek philosophy was already represented by a handful of disciples of the ancient philosophical tradition, working in Syriac or Arabic. Some of them did so intensely, in the small circles that cultivated the secular sciences and philosophy, from the days of the early Abbasids ruler Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 170–193/786–809). See R. Arnaldez, ‘Falsafa’, in EI2, vol. ii, p. 770. 133 See Hourani, ‘Islamic and Non-Islamic Origins of Muʿtazilite Ethical Rationalism’, p. 81. 134 Arnaldez, ‘Falsafa’, in EI2, p. 770. 135 Hourani, ‘Islamic and Non-Islamic Origins of Muʿtazilite Ethical Rationalism’, p. 81. 136 Two editions of al-Īḍāḥ have been used in this research: one published in Beirut 1982 and the other published in Tehran 1971. The references are taken from the more recent Beirut edition: al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nīsābūrī, Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ, ed. Anonymous (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-ʿIlamī lil Maṭbūʿāt, 1982). For reference purposes, the Beirut edition will be cited as al-Īḍāḥ/Beirut. The Tehran edition, al-Faḍl ibn Shādān al-Nishābūrī, Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ, ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Ḥusaynī al-Urmawī al-Muḥaddith (Tehran: Intisharat Dānishgāh Tehran, 1350 Sh./1971), also will be referenced as al-Īḍāḥ/Tehran.

1

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

By the time of imāmate of the sixth Shiʿi imām, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765), the doctrine of walāya had found its place within the Shiʿi thought. It was under the guidance of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq that the Shiʿis began to take definite positions on various issues and grew into a distinct legal and theological school.1 By the third/ninth century, the concept of walāya already established in the imāmī Shiʿi doctrine of imāma became centred on the figure of hidden imām.2 The Minor Occultation (from 260/874 to about 329/941) and the overall situation of the Shiʿi community at this time significantly alter the understanding of walāya, as it will be seen in this chapter and the next. This chapter examines the understanding of the concept of walāya in the earliest extant Shiʿi sources and investigates it from a thematic perspective dealing with the historical period before and after the Minor Occultation. To study the notion of walāya in the earliest Shiʿi sources, it seems reasonable to start with the sayings and the views of ʿAlī himself. Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai has identified five texts attributed to ʿAlī out of which three are related to the subject of the present study.3 First, it is believed that ʿAlī was the compiler of one of the earliest recessions of the Qurʾan and that the codex of ʿAlī was chronologically arranged in the order of revelation and included additional exegetical material. There are numerous reports claiming that after the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī presented his codex to the companions of the Prophet, but they rejected it. Also, a number of differences between ʿAlī’s codex and the current ʿUthmānic codex are recorded in the sources. Second, it is believed that ʿAlī had compiled the sayings of the Prophet in a text that came to be known later as Kitāb ʿAlī. Some reports describe this book as dealing with the matters of law. A similar description is given to another text called Muṣḥaf (or Kitāb) Fāṭima. Both these books are believed to include ʿAlī’s notes taken from the Prophet to form the written heritage of the ahl al-bayt providing proofs for their special knowledge and their distinguished excellence and superiority over the rest of the community. Modarressi Tabatabai suggests that perhaps both were expansion of one single text. These books are reported in the Shiʿi sources to have been in the possession of three imāms, namely ʿAlī Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn (d. 94/712 or 95/713), Muḥammad al-Bāqir (d. 117/735), and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) and that the latter two frequently quoted from it. Modarressi Tabatabai also makes a note that there existed texts in the first centuries of Islam that ʿAlī’s followers compiled about ʿAlī’s DOI:  10.4324/9781003366416-2

36  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism virtues (faḍāʾil), in many instances as quotations from him and these citations from the ‘Book of ʿAlī’ may actually refer to the works in this later genre. Neither of these works ascribed to ʿAlī are extant.4 The third text attributed to ʿAlī is Nahj al-Balāgha (Peak of Eloquence). This text is available today. The earliest surviving version of Nahj al-Balāgha is an eleventh-century compilation. The main reason for not discussing Nahj al-Balāgha in this study is that the collection of statements and sermons attributed to ʿAlī was compiled in the period which is outside the scope of this research. Also, as Modarressi Tabatabai points out, the content of Nahj al-Balāgha cannot be dated precisely due to the fact that much of the content of Nahj al-Balāgha was derived from earlier sources which were subjected to extensive rewording as the Shiʿi doctrine stabilizes.5 Thus, in this book, to study the development of walāya in the formative Shiʿism, sources produced during two historical periods have been identified. That is, the sources which deal with the concept of walāya before Minor Occultation (i.e., before 260/874) and the sources dealing with the same concept during the Minor Occultation and just before the beginning of the Major Occultation. The starting point for research into the development of walāya in Shiʿism is one of the oldest surviving Shiʿi sources, Kitāb Sulaym.6 As we will see, there are different views on the life and work of Sulaym. There is disagreement about the historical existence of Sulaym; nevertheless, scholars in the field have placed him within a period starting from the time of ʿAlī himself to the beginning of Abbasid reign between 145/762 and 160/780. The second major text considered here that deals with the notion of walāya is Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ of Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nishābūrī (d. ca. 260/873–874).7 This work is one of the main sources in the early imāmī literature. Both the above-mentioned sources are important because these are the only two extant sources that provide a pre-Occultation understanding of the notion of walāya. For the period of the Minor Occultation, two major texts, namely Kitāb al-Maḥāsin of Aḥmad al-Barqī (d. 274/888 or 280/894)8 and Kitāb Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt of al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī (d. 290/902–903),9 are extant. Al-Barqī and al-Ṣaffār were contemporaries and took similar positions in regard to walāya. This book considers al-Maḥāsin of al-Barqī as more important than Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt of al-Qummī. The reason for the preference is that al-Maḥāsin provides a more detailed and dedicated account of walāya, within its concern over the theological doctrine of imāma and the position of the Shiʿi community. For the early period of the Major Occultation, al-Kāfī10 of al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939–940 or 329/940–941) is the most important early text documenting in detail all the basic ingredients of imāmī Shiʿi theory.

The Concept of Walāya according to Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī al-ʿĀmirī was a well-known Shiʿi ḥadīth transmitter.11 Sulaym was contemporaneous with ʿAlī, the first Shiʿi imām, as mentioned by al-Ṭūsī (d. 459 or 460/1066–1067).12 His most famous work, Kitāb Sulaym, also

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  37 called Kitāb al-Aṣl and Kitāb al-Saqīfa in later Shiʿi tradition, is the oldest surviving Shiʿi book and one of the rare examples of works surviving from the Umayyad period.13 It is considered as being equal to the four principal collections of Islamic traditions, i.e., the two Ṣaḥīḥs, the Musnad of Ibn Ḥanbal, and the Muwaṭṭaʾ of Mālik.14 This work also has been a reference and an aspiration for later Shiʿi writers, notably al-Kulaynī (d. 329/941) who took a considerable number of traditions from Kitāb Sulaym for his famous book al-Uṣūl al-Kāfī. In his al-Fihrist, Ibn Nadīm (d. 385/995) describes Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī al-ʿĀmirī, Abū Sāʿī, as a Kūfan and a contemporary of ʿAlī, and flourishing in a period towards the end of ʿAlī’s life.15 According to the Shiʿi tradition, Sulaym was pursued by the Umayyad governor al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf (d. 126/744)16 who intended to kill him. Sulaym and his Shiʿi disciple, Abān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh (d. ca. 138/755), who was then only 14 years old, took refuge and were saved from the impending threat. Just before his death, Sulaym entrusted his book Kitāb al-Aṣl to Abān. In his turn, according to the Shiʿi tradition, two months before his own death, Abān gave this work to another Shiʿi, ʿUmar ibn Udhayna (d. before 169/785), and it is to the efforts of the latter that we have this book. Thus, based on the traditional Shiʿi view, Sulaym must have lived during the Umayyad period, towards the end of the late seventh and early eighth centuries.17 Patricia Crone, however, situates Sulaym in the early Abbasid period, right after their Abbasid revolution. Crone bases her argument on the evidence found in a famous letter attributed to Sulaym.18 This letter, according to Crone, was written after the Abbasid revolution because the author wrote it in ‘full awareness of black banners from Khurāsān and the massacres of the Umayyads with which they were associated’. Since the above-mentioned letter presents the Abbasid revolution as a fulfilment of Shiʿi hopes and since there is no sign of disenchantment and regret that it had led to the succession of Abbasid rather than ʿAlid caliph, Crone suggests that Sulaym was a ‘Hāshimī Shiʿi’. In this letter, Sulaym implicitly rejects Abū Bakr and ʿUmar in favour of the Hāshimīs, hence he must have been writing in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. She situates Sulaym’s writing before 145/762, emphasizing that Sulaym could not have been writing after the 160s/780s, ‘when the last adherents of Hāshimīte Shiʿism must have been dead or dying’.19 However, some scholars of this field have raised serious doubts about the historical existence of Sulaym. Ibn Abiʾl-Ḥadīd (d. 656/1258) questioned the historical reality of Sulaym by saying that he had heard people say, ‘that this man was nothing but pure invention of the imagination, no such a writer having had any earthly existence and his alleged book being nothing but a forgery’.20 A contemporary scholar Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai also doubts the existence of Sulaym. Modarressi Tabatabai claims that ‘it is obvious that such a person never existed and that the name is only a pen name used for the sole purpose of launching an anti-Umayyad polemic in the troubled later years of that dynasty’.21 Moktar Djebli in his short article also doubts the existence of Sulaym and his work. According to Djebli, apart from Ibn Nadīm, only few Shiʿi works mention Sulaym and that too in a very brief and terse manner. Djebli writes that Ibn Nadīm himself drew

38  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism his information on Sulaym from a Shiʿi source, probably from the ʿAlid ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-ʿAqīq (d. after 298/911), whose information is also re-produced by later biographers, such as al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067), amongst others.22 Whether Sulaym actually existed or someone used this name only as a pen name (as Modarressi Tabatabai suggests) is not the concern for this research. What is important is the fact that Kitāb Sulaym exists as one of the earliest Shiʿi extant sources composed either in the late Umayyad or early Abbasid period. Kitāb Sulaym There are different views on the authenticity of Kitāb Sulaym. According to Shaykh Mufīd (d. 413/1032),23 the book is not reliable and contains extra unauthentic material.24 Later Shiʿi scholars attributed such corruption to Sulaym’s protégé, Abān. Modarressi Tabatabai does not agree with such claims and argues that apart from some factual errors, Kitāb Sulaym displays a simple, not highly sophisticated belief found among the Shiʿis of Kūfa during the late Umayyad period with clear exaggerations of Kaysānī tendency concerning the virtues of the ahl al-bayt and that the later Shiʿi scholars, such as al-Mufīd, had obvious problems digesting some of these ideas. Modarressi Tabatabai acknowledges that there are serious forgeries and additions in the book. However, he claims that ‘later accretions seem always to have been in the form of insertion and additions rather than replacements and alterations’ and therefore, he believes that the core of the book is ‘preserved in most of the manuscripts, even at the cost of obvious contradictions’. For Modarressi Tabatabai, the book is older than two months before Abān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh’s death in 138/755 and composed possibly in the final years of the Umayyad Caliph Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 105–125/724–743). Thus, Modarressi Tabatabai acknowledges Kitāb Sulaym as the oldest not only surviving but also authentic Shiʿi book from the Umayyad period.25 A similar position to Modarressi Tabatabai has been adopted by Maria Massi Dakake. In her book, The Charismatic Community, Dakake, by analyzing the language of the text, mentioned events, and the names of the people cited in the book, situates Kitāb Sulaym in the late Umayyad period. For instance, Dakake examines the description of the event of the Ghadīr Khumm and notes the antiZaydī character of the ḥadīth which limits the authority to the Ḥusaynīd descendants of ʿAlī. Based on the fact that the ḥadīth does not mention the name of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq or later imāms, Dakake suggests the work to have been written shortly after the rebellion of Zayd but before Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. Dakake finds the references to Ghadīr Khumm ‘authentically early, almost certainly originating in the early second century’ and of the late Umayyad period.26 Robert Gleave, however, suggests a dating between late eighth and the early ninth century for Kitāb Sulaym. By a textual analysis of the tenth report of the Kitāb Sulaym, together with its variants, and setting against the early history of Muslim hermeneutics, Gleave situates this text in the period immediately following the death of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq in the early Abbasid period.27 Gleave’s analysis also suggests that the work is more composite than Modarressi Tabatabai believes.

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  39 That means the reports originated from different periods incorporated into existing work. This is Amir-Moezzi’s position too. While Modarressi Tabatabai considers the insertions and alterations in the Kitāb Sulaym to be easily recognizable, Amir-Moezzi, however, considers it difficult, if not impossible, to retrieve the original text mainly due to the volume of insertions and alterations.28 Even though the majority of the scholarship to date has been concerned with situating Sulaym and his work in the history of early Shiʿi literature, not many scholars have worked with this text in detail. Nonetheless, it is clear that Kitāb Sulaym or Kitāb al-Aṣl is considered by experts on Shiʿism as one of the oldest sources for Shiʿism and the work has been the main source for later Shiʿi scholars, especially al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939–940 or 329/940–941). The book is divided into 98 sections, entitled ‘al-ḥadīth’, from al-ḥadīth al-awwal (ḥadīth no. 1) to the last section, al-ḥadīth al-thāmin wa al-tisʿūn (ḥadīth no. 98).29 Each section includes traditions with a documented chain of transmission going back to ʿAlī and the Prophet. The traditions cover a variety of topics and historical events, from the event of Saqīfa; Prophet’s burial ceremony; polemical discussion on the appointments of Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān; position of ahl al-bayt; Ḥusayn’s martyrdom; etc. Walāya in Kitāb Sulaym Sulaym begins with recognizing ʿAlī as waṣī to later on to use it as the reason for the legitimacy of his walāya to be the Prophet’s political successor. These traditions depict the Prophet lying in his deathbed consoling his daughter Fāṭima, ensuring her that God has ordained only good for him and his family. It is in these set of traditions that ʿAlī is repeatedly marked out as the waṣī: The Messenger of God said: O daughter why are you crying? She said: O Messenger of God, I fear for the destruction of myself and my children after you. The Messenger of God said, and he had tears in his eyes: O Fāṭima! don’t you now that God has chosen for us the People of the Household (ahl al-bayt), the hereafter instead of the world. Destruction has been ordained for all creatures. God looked at the earth and chose me from them and made me a Prophet. Then He looked at the earth for the second time and He chose your husband and ordered me to marry you to him. I took him as a brother and a vizier and made him to be my caliph in my community. Your father is the best among the prophets and messengers of God and your husband is the best of the successors and viziers. You will be the first one to meet me from my Family.30 Waṣiyya is a Qurʾanic term. Several Qurʾanic verses mention or refer to waṣiyya (bequest), such as Q 36:50, 2:180, 2: 240, 5: 106. This means that the terms waṣī and waṣiyya were known to Arabs and making a bequest was in practice among them and thus, they are pre-Islamic terms.31 Based on the Qurʾanic verses, making bequests to parents, widows, spouses, close relatives was known and was

40  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism specifically used ‘to give the spouse relict and non-agnatic relatives a part of the estate at the expense of the male agnates’.32 One could appoint by testament an executor (waṣī) to take care, after one’s death, of the issues among the heirs or a guardian (waṣī) over minor children such as debt arrangements and division of property.33 Sulaym holds clearly that after the death of the Prophet, ʿAlī was his waṣī. Using the term waṣī34 indicates that ʿAlī was recognized as the inheritor of Prophet’s worldly possessions and matters related to the Muslim community after the Prophet’s death, i.e., of his political authority.35 Setting above, Sulaym moves to make his point about the walāya of ʿAlī. There are three instances in the Kitāb Sulaym in which the word ‘walāya’ and ‘walī’ appears. These three instances occur within the lengthy narratives regarding the incident of the Ghadīr Khumm.36 The event of Ghadīr Khumm is the central theme in this work, and a range of versions and interpretations of the ḥadīth on the event of Ghadīr Khumm can be found all throughout the text. Concerning the notion of walāya, all the accounts in Kitāb Sulaym consistently claim that walāya towards ʿAlī, as announced at Ghadīr Khumm, is the final religious duty (farīḍa) and that announcement clearly stated an official designation of ʿAlī as immediate successor to the Prophet. There is an emphasis in nearly all the accounts of the Ghadīr Khumm in Kitāb Sulaym that walāya towards ʿAlī, as announced at Ghadīr Khumm, dictates the final religious duty (farīḍa). This is a duty which was revealed by God through the Prophet and the Ghadīr Khumm announcement represented an authorized appointment of ʿAlī as immediate heir to the Prophet. Regarding the walāya of ʿAlī, Sulaym mainly situates the Prophet’s announcement between the revelation of few Qurʾanic verses in two sūras, i.e., al-Māʾida (fifth sūra) and al-Tawba (ninth sūra) and writes that these verses indicate the event of Ghadīr Khumm and ʿAlī’s walāya after the Prophet’s death: This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and I have chosen for you as religion al-Islām. (Q 5:3) Your walī can be only Allāh, His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due and bow down [in prayer]. (Q 5:55) Or deemed ye that ye would be left (in peace) when Allāh yet knoweth not those of you who strive, choosing for familiar none save Allāh and His messenger and the believers? Allāh is informed of what ye do. (Q 9:16) O ye who believe! Obey Allāh and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority (uluʾl amr); and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allāh and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allāh and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end. (Q 9:59) Sulaym extracts three points from the verses quoted above to explain his view on walāya: the idea of ‘the perfection of religion’ from Q 5:3, who is designated as a walī from Q 5:55, and the idea of ‘the possessors of authority’ (uluʾl-amr) from Q 9:16 and Q 9:59. Sulaym explains that according to the Prophet, all the abovementioned verses were intended for ʿAlī and his right to be the Prophet’s heir. In one of the narrations in Kitāb Sulaym, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar asked the Prophet

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  41 if these verses refer explicitly to ʿAlī, and the Prophet answered in affirmative. In another account of the Ghadīr Khumm within Kitāb Sulaym, the Prophet is asked who are the ‘uluʾl-amr’ (mentioned in Q 5:59) as well as who is the walī (mentioned in Q 5:55), and the Prophet is said to have confirmed that these words refer to ʿAlī.37 The text points towards an arrangement where in the Prophet was tasked to bring to attention those who are deemed as the possessors of authority, just like he was tasked to explain prayer, alms-giving, fasting, and pilgrimage.38 Hence, Sulaym makes a link between walāya and farīḍa (religious duty) as important as the other four obligations of prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage.39 One can detect through the accounts in Kitāb Sulaym that the notion of walāya is not only considered a religious duty for all Muslims but also represents the political side of the event. Kitāb Sulaym mentions three kinds of authority (walāya): walāya of God, walāya of the Prophet, and walāya of ʿAlī. The relationship between these three kinds of walāya is, according to Kitāb Sulaym, clearly established in the words uttered by the Prophet at the event of the Ghadīr Khumm, as well as in the notion that the Prophet’s statement at Ghadīr Khumm represented an official designation of ʿAlī as the legitimate successor to the Prophet. In one instance, the book states that Salmān al-Fārsī once asked the Prophet if his announcement of walāya was in reference to ʿAlī alone, and the Prophet replies: ‘[it was revealed] in reference to him [ʿAlī] and his awṣiyāʾ (successors) till the Day of Resurrection’.40 In another instance, ʿAbd Allāh b. Jaʿfar recounts for Muʿāwiyah b. Abī Sufyān the words of the Prophet concerning the extension of walāya for ʿAlī and his descendants: O people! I am closer to the believers than they are to their very selves, they have no authority over me. After me, ʿAlī is closer to the believers than they are to themselves, they have no authority over him. Then my son al-Ḥasan is closer to the believers than they are to themselves, they have no authority over him. Then my son al-Ḥusayn after his brother is closer to the believers than they are to themselves, they have no authority over him … If my son al-Ḥusayn should be martyred, then my son ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn … and if he is martyred, then his son, Muḥammad … Then there will be men from the offspring of Muḥammad, one after the other and [the people] will have no authority over them.41 Furthermore, Sulaym takes the notion of ʿAlī’s walāya in the Prophet’s announcement as a dispute made by ʿAlī and his followers to those who challenged his authority.42 For example, ʿAlī makes his case to the members of the shūrā,43 by addressing Ṭalḥa b. ʿUbayd, arguing: The proof - O Ṭalḥa - of the deceitfulness of their demonstration is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the day of Ghadīr Khumm: ‘for whomever it is the case that I am nearer (awlāʿ) to him than he is to his very self, ʿAlī is [also] nearer to him than he is to himself’. Hence,

42  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism how is it possible that I am nearer to them than they are to their very selves while they have authority over me?44 It is clear in these statements that Sulaym purposely represents the event of Ghadīr Khumm as the Prophet’s wish regarding ʿAlī’s walāya, and ʿAlī’s explicit argument for his own indisputable authority. Thus, walāya of ʿAlī is described by Sulaym as utterly incompatible with any other person’s authority. Taken together, these references provide substantial evidence for the importance of Ghadīr Khumm within the early Shiʿi thought of the late Umayyad period to establish walāya as a religious duty as well as the political authority of ʿAlī after the death of the Prophet. The above quotations suggest that walāya as a religious deed, even in the very early Shiʿi doctrine, must find its basis in the Qurʾanic text itself. Since there is no explicit mention of authority after the death of the Prophet, the notion of walāya is given a new interpretation that examines the meaning of historical events and men’s deeds from a Shiʿi point of view. In the case of walāya, to interpret what has not been clearly spelt out in the Qurʾan, Sulaym extracts the doctrine of walāya allegorically from the Qurʾan on the basis of other words such as ‘uluʾl amr’. Although Sulaym uses the terms ‘walī’ and ‘walāya’, he does not give any account of the meaning of these terms or how the acceptance of walī’s authority reflects as a religious deed. It seems that Sulaym’s main message is a political one, i.e., recognition of the authority of ʿAlī as the right to the caliphate after the death of the Prophet which has been projected through the term walāya, pronounced at the event of Ghadīr Khumm and also through interpretation of few Qurʾanic verses. The language of the book carries a polemical undertone against the first caliphs of Islam.45 The word walāya in Kitāb Sulaym seems to be simply a designation of political authority rather than a fundamental religious doctrine which the later Shiʿi texts consider walāya to be.

The Concept of Walāya according to Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nishābūrī Faḍl ibn Shādhān ibn Khalīl al-Azdī al-Nishābūrī (d. ca. 260/873–874) was a traditionalist, jurist, and theologian, who is regarded in the imāmī Shiʿi tradition as one of the leading imāmī scholars of his time. His name and his works have been a reference and an aspiration for later Shiʿi writers such as Muḥammad Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, al-Majlisī (d. 1110/1698 or 1111/1699) and Muḥaddith Nūrī.46 This section looks at Faḍl’s understanding of walāya within his Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ. Compared to Sulaym ibn Qays discussed in the previous section, there is much more credible information about the life and writings of Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nishābūrī. No scholar has doubted the historical existence of Faḍl.47 It is reported that in his youth, Faḍl travelled with his father to Baghdad, where he studied Qurʾan and then travelled to Kūfa, where he studied ḥadīth with al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Faḍḍāl (d. 224/838–839) who supported the imāmate of ʿAbdallāh b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 149/766), who was not recognized by the majority of Shiʿis as

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  43 a legitimate imām. The circumstances of Faḍl’s return to Nishāpūr from Iraq are not clear. He was sent to exile from Nishāpūr to Bayhaq by ʿAbdallāh b. Ṭāḥir, the Abbasid governor of Khurāsān (r. 213/828–230/845), on account of some of his imāmī beliefs.48 Faḍl returned from Bayhaq to Nishāpūr in 260/873–874, having fallen ill and died in Nishāpūr in the same year.49 Today, Faḍl’s tomb is located five-kilometre Eastward in the Nishāpūr city centre in Iran and it is famous as Shāh Faḍl’s tomb which attracts many Shiʿi pilgrimages every year.50 Faḍl became a point of reference for many later Shiʿi writers such as well-known Shiʿi ḥadīth collectors, historians, and theologians. Sayyid Jalāl al-Ḥusaynī al-Urmawī al-Muḥaddith, in his introduction to Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ, provides a long list of such Shiʿi scholars influenced by Faḍl, such as al-Najāshī, al-Ṭūsī, and Muḥaddith al-Qummī, among others.51 There are, however, some uncertainties about Faḍl’s life and works. Al-Ṣadūq preserves a report which indicates that he was a disciple of the eighth imām ʿAlī al-Riḍā (d. 202/818).52 Al-Najāshī and al-Ṭūsī, on the other hand, do not seem to have considered Faḍl to be a contemporary of imām al-Riḍā. Al-Ṭūsī refers to Faḍl as a disciple of the tenth imām ʿAlī al-Hādī (d. 254/868).53 Al-Kashshī mentions two reports which suggest that Faḍl at some stage refused to recognize the imāmate of the 11th imām, al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī (d. 260/874).54 In addition to this uncertainty about Faḍl’s association with the eighth, tenth, or eleventh Shiʿi imām and his descendants, there are virtually no records of Faḍl having transmitted traditions from any of them.55 Bayhom-Daou argues that this may well be due to the fact that Faḍl never actually met any of the imāms but that does not mean one need to suspect his commitment to imāmī doctrine.56 Whatever the case may be regarding his association with the contemporary line of the imāms, the important point is that his works and the doctrines that he propounded must have been considered sufficiently ‘imāmī’ to gain the approval of the Rijāl authors.57 His writings provide us with some understanding of the concept of walāya at the beginning of an important junction in the history of Shiʿism, that is, after the time of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and before the Minor Occultation. Imāmī bibliographers (like al-Najāshī) confirm that Faḍl wrote on an extensive range of legal and doctrinal topics, particularly those issues on which there was disagreement with other Muslims. His works contained refutations of the doctrines of non-imāmī scholars and schools and thus are polemical in nature. For instance, Faḍl devotes a full section of his Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ to the attack on the Ḥashwiyya (traditionalists) of the Sunnis.58 Al-Najāshī mentions that Faḍl wrote more than 180 books and epistles.59 However, what is left today from his writings is much less than this figure. Furthermore, some of the works that exist today appear to be different parts of the same work which has been divided and considered as separate books. For instance, in his book, Kashf al-Ḥujub wa al-Asfār, Iʿjāz Husayn lists the titles of 20 of Faḍl’s books which are, in fact, only parts of Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ, such as Kitāb al-Mutʿa al-Nisāʾ or Kitāb al-Mutʿa al-Ḥajj, or Kitāb al-Mash ʿala al-Khafīn.60 Interestingly, he does not list Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ among Faḍl’s writings. Muḥaddith al-Urmawī has also included a similar list to al-Najāshī’s in his introduction to al-Īḍāḥ.61 Apart

44  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism from polemic writings such as the one mentioned above and the refutation of the Muʿaṭṭila (a term used polemically of the Muʿtazila and others who denied the existence of God attributes distinct from His essence), Faḍl also wrote books and epistles defending the imāmī doctrines, such as the idea of Qāʾim or al-Mahdī in Shiʿism, temporary marriage (mutʿa), divorce, and laws of inheritance, among others. Faḍl’s treatise ʿIlal al-sharīʿa is preserved in Ibn Bābawayh’s work.62 It should be noted that among all mentioned books and epistles attributed to Faḍl, none of his works are fully extant except the al-Īḍāḥ.63 In his introduction on al-Īḍāḥ, Pakatchi questions Faḍl’s authorship of the first part of this work;64 however, he recognizes the second part,65 which may ‘possibly be the same work listed by al-Najāshī as the ‘Kitāb al-radd ʿalā l-Murjiʾa (Book of Refutation of the Murjiʾa)’.66 Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ Despite its being the biggest and most important of Faḍl’s writings, there is little research done on this book. Tamima Bayhom-Daou and Muḥaddith Urmawī are among the few scholars who have worked on al-Īḍāḥ.67 Muḥaddith Urmawī has edited al-Īḍāḥ and has written a detailed introduction on this book. This is one of the major references in Arabic on al-Īḍāḥ. Bayhom-Daou, on the other hand, examines sources in pre-ghayba school of thought to show that the basis of the imāmī school of thought was laid down by Hishām b. al-Ḥakam (d.179/795– 796),68 one of the most important figures in early imāmī history, and remained characteristic of imāmī Shiʿism until the early stages of the ghayba including the period of the Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ. However, the authenticity of the al-Īḍāḥ has not yet been established by reliable research. Bayhom-Daou, fragmentary though, discusses the authenticity of alĪḍāḥ. Her main reason to consider the work possibly authentic stems from the fact that the kind of disputes mentioned in the work, such as the refutation of ilhām as a source of knowledge of the imām, along with the discussion of prophetic inheritance, are the kind of disputes which were taking place during the life of al-Faḍl.69 Muḥaddith Urmawī in his introduction to al-Īḍāḥ questions the authorship of the first part, but both Bayhom-Daou and Muḥaddith Urmawī agree that the second part of al-Īḍāḥ is possibly authentic,70 in which the main adversaries are referred to as the Murjiʾa, and that this may be the same work listed by al-Najāshī as Kitāb al-radd ʿalā al-Murjiʿa.71 Hence, regarding the authenticity of al-Īḍāḥ, with respect to the study of walāya, it should be noted that even though the word walāya appears throughout the book, our main discussion about walāya and the concept of ahl al-sunna waʾl jamāʿa is present in the second part of the book where there is consensus among the scholars that it is possibly authentic. Walāya in Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ The importance of al-Īḍāḥ regarding the concept of walāya lies in the evidence it provides of the existence of this concept and its cognate terms in pre-ghayba Shiʿi

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  45 imāmī teachings of ideas. It seems that there are two main arguments present in al-Īḍāḥ regarding the notion of walāya. The first is the refutation of inspiration (ilhām) as a source of knowledge for an imām/walī. The second is condemnation of the caliphate of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar in support of ʿAlī as the true political leader of the community. Aspect of Knowledge With reference to ḥadīth of Ghadīr al-Khumm, Faḍl’s refutation of ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa challenges the way they approach the religious affairs based on the notions of raʾy72 along with their dismissal of ʿAlī’s access to divine knowledge. It seems the issue of knowledge was a source of contention between the Shiʿis and ahl al-sunna waʾl jamāʿa during Faḍl’s lifetime. He challenges the ahl al-sunna and their allegation that the Shiʿis believe in ʿAlī having access to spiritual knowledge through the notion of ilhām.73 Faḍl defends the Shiʿi position by saying that the source of ʿAlī’s knowledge is not ilhām. He interprets the terms wāl, walī, and mawlāʾ, which the Prophet used in the event of Ghadīr al-Khumm, within the context of ʿAlī having access to the transmitted divine knowledge through the process of interpretation unique to him which makes him a legislative walī/imām after the Prophet. He writes: The Shiʿis though do not maintain that and do not believe in what you maintain concerning raʾy and ilhām. And the proof for this is the statement of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib: We do not have anything except that which is in the Book of God or in the ṣahīfa. And ʿAlī spoke the truth; he did not have anything except that which is in the Book of God; for the Book of God contains all the ʿilm that people need for their religion, and everything in the ṣaḥīfa is interpretation (tafsīr) of that which is in the Book of God.74 According to Faḍl, based on the ḥadīth of Ghadīr al-Khumm, the perfection of religion was achieved on ‘that particular day’, namely on the way back from the last Prophet’s pilgrimage to Mecca when Q 5:3 was revealed to him.75 This idea of the perfection of religion, announced in Q 5:3, then becomes the foundation for Faḍl’s argument not only to refute the ideas of ilhām and raʾy but also to incorporate within it the legislative authority of the imām/walī.76 Faḍl challenges the idea of ilhām and raʾy and its usage among traditionalists and their reliance on this belief to prove his own belief that the doctrines of the imāma/walāya are rooted solely in the Qurʾan. Faḍl’s refutation of the doctrines of ilhām and raʾy and his insistence that the imām/walī’s inherited knowledge (ʿilm) of the Qurʾan and its interpretation as the only source of imāmī doctrine are summarized in a passage that occurs towards the end of al-Īḍāḥ. Addressing the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa, he writes: And you allege that the Shiʿis maintain that Āl Muḥammad are inspired with ʿilm without receiving instruction (yulhamūna al-ʿilma ilhāman bi ghayri

46  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism taʿlīm). But then it is you who are of this opinion since you have related that Ibn ʿUmar said: ‘they (Āl Muḥammad) are mafahhamūn, and that ʿAlī said: I do not have anything except al-waḥy unless God awards understanding (fahm)’. Is fahm anything but ilhām which God causes man to ingest (yulhimahu)? And you claim that raʾy is permissible to you if you come across something that you do not find in the Book or the Sunna. Is raʾy anything but ilhām which God casts in man’s mind so he speaks with it (yaqūlu bihī)? And similarly, ilhām, God causes man to ingest it so he speaks with it.77 Faḍl sets his polemical approach on the idea that ilhām is not a quality peculiar to the chosen man, i.e., to the imām/walī, but is a source of knowledge open to all mankind, instilled by God, as an ordinary human ability to comprehend, and comparable to comprehension (fahm) and opinion (raʾy).78 He also argues that whereas the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa admit personal raʾy as a source which is additional to the Qurʾan and the Sunna, the Shiʿis do not recognize the imām/walī’s ilhām as an admissible source. For Faḍl, the Shiʿis believe that the Qurʾan is a complete and perfect source and that the imām’s understanding of it is derived from a ṣaḥīfa79 in his possession containing its complete interpretation. In equating prophetic waḥy with the Book of God and the ṣaḥīfa is indicative of his belief that both the Qurʾan and its interpretation were revealed to Muḥammad. The revealed status of not just the scripture but also its interpretation is inconsistent with the idea of ilhām. Since imām/walī’s knowledge of scripture and its interpretation it is based entirely on transmission from the Prophet, there is no room for ilhām, irrespective of its utility as either a source of knowledge or as a means of interpreting the revelation. The authority of the Qurʾan is at the center of al-Faḍl’s polemics against the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa. Faḍl argues that the objections of the ahl alsunna waʾl-jamāʿa against the family of the Prophet contradict their own beliefs and practices. He says: How is it possible to recognize the progeny (Āl) of Muḥammad with comprehension (fahm) and to acknowledge their legal view and the view of others as an additional source of doctrine, but then deny that they have access to knowledge not based on transmission?80 In other words, by condemning Sunni traditions about ʿAlī and the ahl al-bayt, and by equating ilhām with fahm and raʾy, Faḍl is able to accuse the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa of spreading the idea that progeny of Muḥammad have knowledge (ʿilm) without learning.81 Faḍl goes as far as citing traditions that ʿAlī denies having any knowledge other than revelation (waḥy) unless God grants understanding (fahman fī) of His Book or of that which is in the ṣaḥīfa. Here, ʿAlī’s fahm appears to be regarded as a means of interpreting the revelation and not as an additional source of doctrine.82 There is another point that Faḍl makes in this understanding of the Qurʾanic basis of knowledge. There are two occurrences in al-Īḍāḥ where Faḍl talks about the incompleteness of the text of the existing Qurʾan. In one chapter entitled ‘What

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  47 went missing from the Qurʾan’, Faḍl lists a number of traditions related to the ahl al-sunna which, according to him, indicate that part of the Qurʾan which was revealed to the Prophet has gone missing. Faḍl also mentions that according to two Sunni traditions ʿAlī was assigned by the Prophet to compile (taʾlīf) the Qurʾan which has been stated in the tradition as the reason for his delay in giving pledge (bayʿa) to Abū Bakr, as he was occupied with that duty. Having said this, however, Faḍl does not make clear what his view on the ʿUthmānīc codex is. He also does not mention anything about the Shiʿi belief that ʿAlid codex is complete. Faḍl only portrays the idea that ʿAlid codex is more complete than the ʿUthmānīc codex.83 Aspect of Political Authority As for the second argument, in al-Īḍāḥ, Faḍl quotes from the Qurʾanic verses where the term walāya and its derivatives occur in order to prove that walāya as interpreted by him is a genuine Qurʾanic notion. He mentions the occurrences of walī/mawlāʾ and walāya in the Qurʾan in Sūra Āl ʿImrān (Q 3:28),84 Sūra al-Nisāʾ (Q 4:33)85 and (Q 4:76),86 Sūra al-Māʾida (Q 5:5587–5688), and Sūra al-Aʿrāf (Q 7:3)89 to prove that the notion of walāya has a Qurʾanic basis. Once he shows that the idea of walāya has a Qurʾanic basis, he proceeds, just as his predecessor, Sulaym, using the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm to show that ʿAlī has the designated walāya from the Prophet, which he concludes as valid according to the Qurʾan too. He challenges the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa not for their understanding of walāya as political authority—for he himself is trying to justify the political authority of ʿAlī. Instead, his challenge is against the individuals chosen by the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa to represent the worldly walāya. And you claimed and enforced your consensus upon us (ajmʿatum antum) when Abū Bakr was appointed to the people (wulliya al-nās), he gave a speech saying: O People! I became your walī (wulliyyatakum) while I am not the best among you. If you see me following the right direction, follow me, and if you see me deviating from it, put me right. I have a Satan residing within me.90 Here Abū Bakr mentions that he was chosen to be their walī (wullitukum), but he is not the best person among them (lasta bikhayrikum) and he leaves it to people whether to follow him. Thus, in this occurrence, walāya can be translated as political authority. Most of the discussion leading to the implicit endorsement of the legitimacy of walāya of ʿAlī takes place within polemical narrations regarding the incompetency and thereby illegitimacy of the Caliph ʿUmar. Few such instances are as follows: They asked Abū Bakr: ‘did you appoint for us (wullītu ʿalaynā) such an impudent ruler’, meaning ʿUmar?91 And indeed there were people (qawm) that did not approve (karahū) of ʿUmar’s walāya and wanted to take it away from him, but they did not get any chance.92

48  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism We [Mughayra and Abū Mūrsā] told him [ʿUmar] what was our conversation all about till we reached to the [narration of] when Quraysh envied him and tried to stop Abū Bakr from approval of ʿUmar’s walāya.93 Then you narrated from ʿUmar bin Khaṭṭāb saying: if they had given walāya (wallūha) to the bold man [ajlaḥ, meaning ʿAlī] he would have enacted according to the Book of God and the Prophet’s tradition (sunna). And what is more criticism against your criticism that he [ʿUmar] himself admitted that there was a more suitable choice than him for the authority (li-walāh) for the caliphate (khilāfa).94 Then you narrated from the Prophet Companions (aṣḥāb Muḥammad) quoting: O Messenger of God! What if you choose the walāya of Abū Bakr upon us? He [the Prophet] said: you would find his [Abū Bakr’s] body weak but himself strong in [applying] God’s commandment (amr Allāh). But if you choose ʿUmar you would find him strong in his body as well as in [applying] God’s commandment, but if you were to choose ʿAlī, and you would not, you would find him the guided guide (hādīyan mahdīyan) who would guide you to the right path.95 Then you claimed that on the day of Council (yawm al-Shūra) if authority (wallūhā) had been given to the bold man [i.e., ʿAlī], he would have made everyone enact [according] to the law (maḥja), then you claimed when [people] pointed at him to [accept] walāya (yuwallīhi), he [ʿAlī] said he does not fit for khilāfa, that is a joke!96 Here also, wullītu clearly refers to the appointment of political authority of ʿUmar which was based on the shūrā. In all of the above citations one can also demonstrate that the primary expression of these occurrences of w-l-y is political protest against the Sunni caliphate, mainly against the Caliph ʿUmar. However, it is recognizable that the purpose of this was to support the claim that ʿAlī, instead of Abū Bakr or ʿUmar, is the righteous candidate. Faḍl takes one more step to complete his method. If he could support and verify the walāya of ʿAlī on the basis of the Qurʾan, he must also verify the illegitimacy of ʿUmar on the same basis. For this, he focuses on the notion of mawālīs. In classical Arabic, mawālī is a term which was used to refer to non-Arab Muslims. This term became prominent and widely used during the Umayyad period due to the increasing number of non-Arab converts to Islam. With the conquests, the Arabs found themselves in charge of a huge non-Arab population. Given that it was non-Muslim, this population could be awarded a status similar to that of clients in Arabia, retaining its own organization under Arab control in return for the payment of taxes. The solution to this problem appeared to be through the institution of walāʾ, in which the non-Arab Muslims acquired an Arab patron. In al-Īḍāḥ, Faḍl severely criticizes ʿUmar for believing in the superiority of the Arabs. In one instance, we read: Then you said that ʿUmar was the first to maintain the tax collection registers (dawwana dawāwīn) and that he decreed that Immigrants (muhājirīn) receive

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  49 4000 dirham [from the treasury] and he decreed that Arabs receive 300 [dirhams] and for mawālī 250 [dirhams] and decreed that Helpers (anṣārs) receive 2000 [dirhams]. Thus, he favoured Immigrants over Helpers, and favoured Helpers over [other] Arabs and favoured Arabs over mawālīs. And since then, group cohesiveness (ʿaṣabīyya) was fixed among people [in contrary] to what the Prophet said: Muslims are brothers, and their blood is equal.97 Or Faḍl quotes that ʿUmar forbids Arabs marrying mawālī women: Verily! You narrated from ʿUmar that he forbade marriage between Arab and non-Arab (ʿajam). ‘Indeed I will forbid their vaginas [women] except for the noble ones’, while the Prophet allowed marriage between Arab and mawālī.98 To complete his methodology, Faḍl then quotes from the Qurʾan to say that ʿUmar’s treatment of mawālī is not according to the Qurʾan.99 He writes: Here is tradition (sunna) of ʿUmar and what ʿUmar decreed: [he] does not follow to the God’s Words and the tradition of the Prophet and distinguishes Arabs from mawālī and separates them one from another, which is not in the Book and in the sunna.100 Such walāya expressed mostly in Faḍl as a political authority has little to do with the spiritual authority. Even when Faḍl is concerned with claiming for ʿAlī a superiority of knowledge in terms of his unique interpretive powers, the purpose is only to legitimize his political authority after the Prophet.

The Concept of Walāya according to Aḥmad al-Barqī Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Barqī (d. ca. 280/849) is among the earliest Shiʿi ḥadīth collectors at the time of the Minor Occultation. Aḥmad al-Barqī became a point of reference for many later Shiʿi writers, ḥadīth collectors, historians, and theologians, such as al-Najashī (in his Rijāl) and al-Kulaynī (in his al-Kāfī), among others. It is worth noting that a great number of traditions from al-Barqī’s work Kitāb al-Maḥāsin are cited in Biḥār al-Anwār, the magnum opus of Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī (d. 1110/1698 or 1111/1699), consisting of an encyclopaedic compendium of Shiʿi ḥadīth.101 The fact that al-Majlisī used this book as one of his major sources conveys the importance and centrality of al-Barqī in the eyes of later Shiʿi scholars. There is much more certainty about Aḥmad al-Barqī’s life and writings compared to those of Sulaym ibn Qays and Faḍl ibn Shādhān. Following the suppression of the Shiʿi revolt of Zayd b. ʿAlī (d. 122/740), Aḥmad al-Barqī’s ancestor, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, was imprisoned and then killed by Yūsuf b. ʿUmar al-Thaqafī (r. 120–126/738–744).102 Thereafter, the family fled from Kūfa to Barqa or Barqrūd, a small village in the region of Qum, Iran, and established themselves as

50  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism a learned family in the region. For this reason, al-Qummī is often attached to the name al-Barqī in order to avoid confusion.103 Aḥmad al-Barqī mentions his father as a companion of the seventh imām, Mūsā al-Kāẓim (d. 183/799) and also the eighth imām, ʿAlī al-Riḍā (d. 203/818).104 He himself may have been a disciple of both the ninth imām, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī (d. 220/835), and the tenth imām, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad (d. 254/868).105 Both al-Najāshī and al-Ṭūsī considered Aḥmad al-Barqī to be trustworthy (thiqa)106 in the ḥadīth collection.107 They also agree that he was the author of numerous books including Kitāb al-Maḥāsin.108 Aḥmad al-Barqī’s date of death is given as either 274/888 or 280/894.109 At any rate, Vilozny puts his date of death after the occultation of the 12th imām in 260/873–874.110 Kitāb al-Maḥāsin According to the al-Fihrist of Ibn Nadīm, which differs on this point from other biographical sources, al-Maḥāsin was written by Aḥmad’s father and not by Aḥmad himself.111 If true, this would explain why most traditions included in Kitāb al-Maḥāsin are ascribed to Aḥmad’s father. In fact, his father, Muḥammad b. Khālid, served as the chief source of traditions in all surviving books except the first one.112 A full listing of all books of al-Maḥāsin can be found in al-Ṭūsī’s al-Fihrist and al-Najāshī’s al-Rijāl too.113 It may be the case that al-Maḥāsin as a compilation of several small books may contain contributions of both the father and the son.114 Yet it may not be possible to make this distinction clearly. Therefore, in this study, the text of al-Maḥāsin would be considered regardless of whether the actual author was Aḥmad al-Barqī or his father. By looking at the writing style of ḥadīth collectors and examining the differences between the collections of the ḥadīth compiled before and after the Occultation, i.e., the disappearance of the 12th imāmī Shiʿi imām in 260/873–874, it is argued that al-Maḥāsin was compiled either before or shortly after the beginning of Minor Occultation (al-ghayba al-ṣughrā).115 Newman notes that since al-Barqī sees his main task outlining the key points of doctrine and practice as enunciated by the imāms during their ‘presence’ in the community, and since the evidence of Twelver Shiʿi beliefs is absent from the work, he suggests his death at a time that belief in 12 imāms had not yet been formulated as an imāmī creed.116 Despite the significance of al-Maḥāsin among the early Shiʿi literature and the fact that it served as a key source for later Shiʿi literature such as Biḥār al-Anwār of Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī, only few scholars have worked on it. Pellat notes that all 11 of al-Maḥāsin’s books have been preserved in the same order as the old list provided by Ibn Nadīm and considered as authentic. He argues, however, that what we possess as al-Maḥāsin is only one-sixth or one-seventh of an original work, which is essentially a collection of ḥadīth attributed to the Prophet and to the ahl al-bayt, in particular to al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. The surviving al-Maḥāsin, according to Pellat, has simply been classified and reproduced without any interference on the part of the compilers.117 Andrew Newman suggests the same in this regard.118 This means that the 2,606 traditions in the published

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  51 version of al-Maḥāsin arranged in 11 books, each of which containing numerous chapters, shape our existing text of al-Maḥāsin and are taken as mostly reliable.119 Walāya in al-Maḥāsin The term walāya in al-Maḥāsin is mainly discussed in the fourth book entitled Kitāb al-Ṣafwa wa al-Nūr wa al-Raḥma. From the variety of ideas and doctrines discussed in this book, the most important and central discussions are walāya towards imāms, ḥubb ahl al-bayt (love for the family of the Prophet), and qabūl al-aʿmāl (God’s acceptance of deeds). The beginning of this book reads: I asked Abū ʿAbdullāh about the Words of God Mighty and Majestic [Q 20:82] to him who repents and believes and does righteous deeds, then follows the right Guidance. He said: ‘To our walāya, by God! Have you not seen how God Mighty and Majestic has Kept it (our walāya) as a condition!’ Regarding the Words of God Mighty and Majestic [Q 2:185] proclaim the Greatness of God for His having Guided you. He said: ‘the exclamation of Greatness and the reverence is for God, and the Guidance is the walāya’.120 At the beginning of the fourth book, in the above tradition, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq is asked about the meaning of the Qurʾanic verse: ‘Only he who has repented, believed and acted rightfully, will be rightly guided’.121 In his answer, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq refers only to the last phrase ‘will be rightly guided’ and does so by adding to its two words—‘ilā walāyatinā’. He indicates that the ‘right guidance’ is linked to his own walāya and ahl al-bayt, as he uses the plural form of the term. Thus, at the outset, al-Maḥāsin, sets a stage in which righteousness, and right guidance is linked with walāya, and in words of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, such is the nobility of the walāya that the one who fulfils that condition can only be ‘rightly guided’. Here Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq explains the word takbīr by its synonym taʿẓīm (glorification) and the term ‘hidāya’ by walāya as if the two were synonymous. In this sense, walāya can be interpreted as ‘loyalty’ to himself and other imāms. According to this tradition, walāya is not a duty one should actively perform but a right or grace that God bestows upon his true believers when they fulfil his condition by repenting, believing, and acting right. This idea, as we will see later within al-Kulaynī’s understanding of walāya, is significantly important, as it marks one of the basic characteristics of the Shiʿi walāya towards their imāms, which is presented as one of the highest levels of veneration to which one can aspire. Aspect of Primordial Covenant To understand al-Barqī’s idea of walāya, one should also understand his idea of creation. Al-Barqī’s time is the period when the Shiʿi thinkers began for the first time to explain the pre-existence of the imāms before they assumed the form of flesh and blood, and subsequently, the confirmation of imāms’ walāya in this preexistent realm.122

52  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism Al-Barqī’s main inspiration for his story of creation confirming the imāms’ walāya in a primordial realm is the Qurʾan. One of the most crucial Qurʾanic verses affirming the intimacy between God and man describes the establishment of the primordial covenant between God and mankind before the creation of the material universe (Q 7:172) which al-Barqī uses to explain his idea of walāya towards imāms: And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware. (Q 7:172) In this verse, not only does the Qurʾan confirm the existence of this unique covenant, but it also confronts the believer with God’s immanence within the created universe.123 Al-Barqī notes: [God says to the Prophet]: I created the seven heavens and what they contain; I created the seven earth and what they contain. If one of My followers invoked Me from the beginning of creation [to the Resurrection] or if I were to encounter him while he rejects the walāya of ʿAlī, I would swiftly send him to hell.124 To sketch his idea of the story of creation, first al-Barqī provides accounts of four traditions in which the faithful (muʾmin) is created by God from His Light (Nūr Allāh).125 It seems that within al-Maḥāsin, light (nūr) is the source of life of the imāms and a tool for the creation of all beings. In one of the traditions, narrated via Abū Ḥamza and in reference to the Qurʾanic verse (Q 83: 18–21),126 we find detailed account of creation and that imāms stated that the souls and bodies of the prophets and the imāms are both created from a certain material called ‘ʿillīyūn’: Verily God, blessed and exalted is He, took the mīthāq from our Shiʿis for walāya towards us when they were particles (dharr) on the day when He took the mīthāq of the particles to acknowledge Him as Lord, and Muḥammad as Prophet. And He showed Muḥammad his community (ummatihī) in the clay (ṭīna), and they were shadows (aẓilla)127 and He made them from the clay from which He had created Adam, and He created the spirits (arwāḥ) of our Shiʿis a thousand years before their bodies and showed them to [Muḥammad] and they were recognized by the Messenger of God (peace and blessings upon him) and by ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) and we recognize them by the peculiar nature (laḥn) of their speech.128 So, I {Prophet} said: ‘O Lord! And who is this Guardian of Yours (waliyyika)? So that I know that he is the one who is fighting Your battles’. So He said: He is the one for whom I covenanted for you, as your successor, and for both of you to inherit the walāya.129

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  53 So, here is an interesting imaginary scene of pre-existential pact between God and the Shiʿis on the day of creation: at first, when everyone was in the form of particles (dharr), God took a pact (mīthāq) from the Shiʿis to affirm Him as Lord, Muḥammad as Prophet, and walāya towards their imāms. Then, God went on to create the bodies and souls of all prophets from Adam as well as all Shiʿi imāms from ʿAlī, of a special matter called ʿillīyūn. From the same material, He also created the hearts of Shiʿis. The Shiʿis bodies as well as the rest of the creation were subsequently made from a material much beneath the exalting ʿillīyūn. The word ʿillīyīn/ʿillīyūn is regarded as a plural without a singular, signifying high places.130 It is a Qurʾanic term.131 Etymologically, it is from the Hebrew word ‘elyūn’, meaning the ‘highest’ and it refers to a place or a book. It is generally taken as the name of the seventh heaven, under the Throne of God, where a book of righteous actions is kept.132 According to Amir-Moezzi, the Qurʾan commentators have identified ʿillīyūn as ‘one of the highest levels of Paradise’.133 Al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī both consider ʿillīyūn as an exalted place in proximity to God, in comparison with heavenly places which do not enjoy such proximity. This material ‘ʿillīyūn’, common to both the Prophets and the imāms, implicitly emphasizes the similarity of the roles of the imāma and prophecy. For the believers, on the other hand, only their hearts are created from the same material. This commonality of hearts thus creates a special bond not only between the believers themselves but also between the believers and the imāms or prophets. The word mīthāq is a noun derived from wathaqa (root w-th-q) meaning ‘agreement, covenant, and contract’, which is applied to political compacts and civil agreements as well as to the idea of a covenant between God and man.134 The later usage of the term has found a significant place in Shiʿi theology. In alMaḥāsin as well as in the Qurʾan,135 the verb which is used for mīthāq is akhadha, which means ‘took, enjoyed’. In the Qurʾan, God concluded mīthāq (covenant) with Prophet Muḥammad (Q 57:8)136 as well as with other prophets (Q 3:81)137 like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (Q 33:7).138 Also mīthāq is taken by God from the followers of the scriptures, for instance, mīthāq with the children of Israel (Q 2:63,139 Q 2:83140) or with the Christians (Q 5:14).141 As illustrated in the above quotations from al-Maḥāsin, al-Barqī alludes to a pre-existential world where the Shiʿis existed in the form of particles (dharr)142 and God made a pact with the Shiʿis for their loyalty and affection (walāya) towards the imāms. This pact was made when the believers were still in the state of dharr (tiny particles), that is, at the very inception of their existence. Belonging to the Shiʿi community is thus dependent on the primordial pact taken for the walāya towards ʿAlī. Immediately after this pact the believers were presented to the Prophet for the first time, and although they were yet in their pre-existential state, the Prophet was able to recognize them. This creates an identity of a ‘closed community’. Obviously, anyone who was not a part of the stored clay of creation could not be present when the pact was conducted and could therefore not become a member of this community. This pact had been concluded only once and at that very moment, the Shiʿi community was defined forever.

54  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism Aspect of Love With the notion of Ḥubb ahl al-bayt (love for the family of the Prophet) al-Barqī is possibly the earliest person to bring the aspect of love in proximity to the concept of walāya. In a tradition ascribed to Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, love for the family of the Prophet is regarded as the foundation of Islam: Everything has its foundation and the foundation of Islam is loving us, the family of the Prophet.143 Here Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq introduces the threefold relationship between Islam, love and walāya. Al-Barqī devotes three chapters of Kitāb ʿIqāb al-ʿAmal in al-Maḥāsin to the consequences of not recognizing the imāms and their walāya:144 God established ʿAlī as a point of reference (ʿalam) between Himself and His creation and there is none other. He who follows ʿAlī is a believer; he who rejects him is an unbeliever and he who doubts him, an associationist.145 The conviction that this kind of love is essential creates a bifurcation in the world: between those who love the family of the Prophet and those who do not love them. By proclaiming that ‘loving us is belief and hating us is unbelief’, Muḥammad al-Bāqir takes the love of the Prophet’s descendants one step higher and in fact turns it into the very basic condition of faith.146 It is only logical that the Shiʿi creed, which sees kinship to the family of the Prophet as its initial source of legitimacy, tries to present this principle as an essential factor of walāya, i.e., not just loyalty but love for the imāms. This represents a key metaphysical transition, from loyalty to love which gravitates the concept of walāya within the early Shiʿi tradition closer to the gnostic tradition. In sum, the importance of al-Maḥāsin in the present context lies in the way it sheds light on the Shiʿi thought at the beginning of the Minor Occultation. There is an obvious move away from the writing of Faḍl ibn Shadhān and Sulaym ibn Qays. These later authors were living in a time when they were engaged in the discussions about the caliphate of ʿAlī and his legitimate authority over the Muslim community against the caliphate of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. By the time of al-Barqī, however, one can sense from the style and the contents of his writing that the Shiʿi community has already found its basic form and in the years following the imām’s disappearance, this community has established itself as a clearly defined religious and spiritual community. Al-Maḥāsin appears to show that there is a sense of community within Shiʿism by this time. It includes traditions which stress the Shiʿi beliefs and practices as a ‘community’, but still the emphasis is on the ‘presence’ of the imāms in the community. Newman has shown that more than half of traditions preserved in the extant part of al-Maḥāsin deal with special position of the imāms and their followers and the view that the imām’s traditions must be taken as the key source of reference for matters of doctrine and practice, as well as for practical aspects of community life. The lack of references to the occultation in al-Maḥāsin also confirms the view of continuity of necessity of the

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  55 presence of the imām within the community. According to Newman, the lack of such references is not surprising ‘given the expectation recorded in contemporary sources that the eleventh imām’s son would make himself known shortly and the imāma and the succession would resume’.147 Al-Maḥāsin, as a work belonging to the time when the imām was not present, tells us not just about the changing notion of walāya but also about the changing notion of the Shiʿi community itself. In al-Maḥāsin, the term walāya is not expressed as an intentional personal commitment to ʿAlī or the ahl al-bayt. Walāya is, rather, a state that one enters through the will of God, in a primordial realm and before his existence on earth, to be considered as part of the Shiʿi community.

The Concept of Walāya according to Abū Jʿafar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Yaʿqūb b. Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī (328/939–940 or 329/940–941) is one of the foremost Shiʿi compilers of the ḥadīth. His main work, al-Kāfī, is one of the most important ḥadīth references among the Shiʿi scholars. His life coincides with the end of Minor Occultation and beginning of the Major Occultation. Al-Kulaynī was originally from a village southwest of Rayy in the district of Pashāpūya in Iran, which was Arabized as Kulayn or Kulīn and his nisba, Kulaynī or Kulīnī, refers to this place.148 Al-Kulaynī transmitted his collection of ḥadīth mostly from Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Nishābūrī who in turn transmitted traditions mainly from Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Nishābūrī.149 Al-Kulaynī moved to Baghdad, probably between 913 and 923, where he lived for the rest of his life and finished his famous grand work, Kitāb al-Kāfī, which is said to have taken him 20 years to finish.150 Al-Ṭūsī mentions two different dates for al-Kulaynī’s death in his two books: in his al-Fihrist he gives 328/939 and 329/940–941 in his al-Rijāl.151 Al-Najāshī dates his death as 329/940–941.152 Madelung agrees with the date provided by al-Najāshī, since it is the same as in al-Ṭūsī’s al-Rijāl too. Al-Kulaynī died in Baghdad and his tomb near al-Maʾmūn bridge continues to attract many visitors to date.153 Kitāb al-Kāfī Kitāb al-Kāfī, as Etan Kohlberg describes, is the source where all the basic ingredients of Twelver Shiʿi theory may be found.154 Al-Kāfī, with its topical arrangement of traditions, reflects a basic structure of the imāmī doctrines and theology of Shiʿism in early mid-ninth to mid-tenth century. It is mostly a collection of sayings of the imāms and is arranged according to subject matter. Only the views and elaborations of imāmī scholars, such as the elaborations of Faḍl b. Shādhān on the law of inheritance, are quoted.155 The work is divided into three major parts: (1) al-Uṣūl: which is mainly a collection of traditions dealing with theology, prophecy, imāma, and the prayers, providing the basic conceptual and pragmatic

56  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism foundation of Shiʿi law and principles (ʿusūl) of Shiʿi jurisprudence; (2) al-Furūʿ: which is mainly fiqh traditions; and (3) al-Rawḍa, which contains miscellaneous traditions and theological basis for recourse to the imāms as the authority and source of knowledge. Of 16,199 traditions in total spread over eight volumes, the first two volumes entitled al-Uṣūl includes 3,783 traditions. The biggest part, alFurūʿ, which is almost 75 per cent of the whole compilation, is in five volumes, containing 11,810 traditions. The eighth and last volume is al-Rawḍa and contains 597 traditions.156 According to Madelung, al-Kāfī was not immediately considered in the imāmī communities ‘as an authoritative source of fiqh’ even though Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) in Baghdad referred to it as one ‘of the most important and useful books of the Shiʾism’.157 Al-Mufīd’s student Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436/1044)158 included al-Kulaynī in his general censure of the imāmī traditionalist school of Qum and ‘accused him of including numerous forged and rationally absurd traditions in the Kitāb al-Kāfī’.159 It seems to have been largely due to the influence of al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1068), who praised al-Kulaynī and relied extensively on al-Kāfī in his fiqh works, that the work gained such popularity. Al-Kāfī soon came to be considered as one of the four canonical collections of traditions on which imāmī fiqh is based, and often as the most authoritative one among them with acknowledged authenticity. It reached the peak of its fame in the Safavid and post-Safavid periods, when numerous commentaries, interpretations, translations, and abridged versions of al-Kāfī were composed.160 Al-Kulaynī’s traditions are accompanied by isnāds that later tradition viewed as complete, in the sense that al-Kulaynī related a report directly from the firstnamed person in the isnād.161 However, Robert Gleave argues that the inclusion of akhbār162 with full isnāds may not be a reflection of a serious imāmī commitment to isnād at this stage and can be explained by a generic influence from contemporary Sunni collections.163

Walāya in al-Kāf ī Majority of the references to the concept of walāya in al-Kāfī are to be found in the first part of al-Uṣūl. The two volumes of al-Uṣūl contain traditions on the matters of Shiʿi theology, acts of worship (ʿibādāt), personal and communal. There are numerous occurrences of walāya, walī, and other derivatives of the root w-l-y in the section entitled Kitāb al-Ḥujja (Book of the Proof) in which we can understand al-Kulaynī’s idea of walāya. In this mentioned section, al-Kulaynī aims to demonstrate a major imāmī Shiʿi view, and that is the belief that imāms are the pre-eternal pillars of the sacred cosmos164 and hence, they are the knowledgeable proofs of God to humankind165 and His instruments of guidance.166 Imāms are portrayed as incarnations of light,167 in their contest against the forces of darkness embodied in their enemies, ‘the people of ignorance (juhhāl)’.168 The Earth would not remain without an imām in any age.169

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  57 In Kitāb al-Ḥujja, as it was the case with previous authors, the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm is considered as the starting point to give ʿAlī and his successors the position of walāya. It is clear that for al-Kulaynī too, the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm along with the idea of the perfection of religion discussed earlier provides the ground for the legislative authority or walāya of the imām. The point where he departs from previous authors is his interpretation of the notion of perfected knowledge and ʿiṣma (infallibility).170 On par with Faḍl, al-Kulaynī emphasizes that the religion is perfected through the walāya of ʿAlī and his successors and adds that the notion of imāma is one of the things by which religion is completed.171 He includes traditions which state that Prophet Muḥammad did not die until he had clarified the guiding principles of religion to his community.172 According to al-Kulaynī, Prophet established ʿAlī for the community as a sign and as imām, and whoever imagines that God has not perfected His religion by designation of ʿAlī as the guidance of the community after the Prophet has rejected the Book of Allāh and is an unbeliever.173 For al-Kulaynī, the unique position of the imām is based fundamentally on two factors. First, the imām is viewed as a divinely chosen successor to the Prophet, and second, he alone is seen as invested with personal qualities which make him the certain and undisputed leader of the believers. One quality in particular which al-Kulaynī emphasizes is imām’s possession of knowledge (ʿilm), to the extent that this divine knowledge gives credibility and proof of eligibility to the walāya of ʿAlī and his successors. The imām is unique in his time and no one can approach his rank and no man of knowledge is comparable to him.174 Aspect of Knowledge For al-Kulaynī, as regards to walāya and its connection with knowledge, the centrality of the figure of ʿAlī is explained through a process of initiation through which ʿAlī received the prophetic knowledge and the Prophet’s authority over this knowledge through transmission. This is proved in al-Kāfī through many prophetic traditions, for instance: The Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) said ‘Whoever desires to live my life and to die my death and to enter the Gardens of ʿAdn (Eden), which Allāh, my lord, has planted with His hands, must take ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him) as his walī … and must submit to his successors after him since they are my descendants from my flesh and my blood. Allāh has bestowed on them my understanding and my knowledge. To Allāh I make complaint against (the deeds of those of) my community who deny their excellence and who sever what ties them to me.175 This is the case with the descendants of ʿAlī too. Each imām receives knowledge through the initiatic transmission from the previous imām and hence, the walāya as well as the knowledge continues within the line of the imāms. The divine knowledge for the imām/walī is considered the fundamental substance of

58  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism spiritual inheritance, and therefore, walāya seems to refer to a kind of initiatic process through which that walāya as spiritual inheritance is transmitted. In this sense, walāya denotes an initiatic bond between imāms, and indeed between the imāms and the Prophet as well as all preceding prophets. Our followers (shīʿatinā) have been recorded with their names and the names of their fathers; Allāh has taken a pledge (mīthāq) from us and them. They arrive at the place of our arrival, and they enter where we enter. There is no one to the right (millah) of Islam except us and them. We are the saved noble ones … we are the descendants of the successors … so He has taught us and we transmit what He has taught us and He has entrusted us with their knowledge, we are the heirs of the uluʾl-ʿazm176 among the messengers. ‘Perform you the religion, O Muḥammad! And scatter not regarding it (be you as one unit), very hateful is that for those who associates’ (those who associate others in the walāya of ʿAlī, ‘that to which thou callest them’ [which is the walāya of ʿAlī]. Verily — Allāh, ‘o Muḥammad! Chooses unto Himself whomsoever He will, and He guides to Himself whosoever turns to them, penitent’ (Q 42:12), he who accedes to the walāya of ʿAlī (peace be upon him).177 To establish the view of the supreme position of the imāms as possessors of divine knowledge (ʿilm), two main issues are discussed in the Kitāb al-Ḥujja: first, the sources of imām’s knowledge and second, the nature and scope of this knowledge. Al-Kulaynī describes three main sources of imām’s knowledge through numerous reports, namely knowledge attained through God’s Command and His Will; through transmission from the previous imām; and through direct contact with the divine, i.e., through inspiration (ilhām). The special transference of divine knowledge through God’s Command and Will, according to al-Kulaynī, has been accommodated by God Himself to His prophets and imāms: He gives them of His stored knowledge and wisdom, which He does not give to anyone else. Thus, their knowledge is far above the knowledge of the people of their time.178 For hereditary transference, al-Kulaynī makes it clear that imāma is the position (manzil) of the prophets and the heritage (mīrāth) of the successors.179 Imāma, for al-Kulaynī, is the position of authority of Allāh Himself, then the Messenger, then the status of imām ʿAlī and then, it is inherited by Ḥusayn and Ḥasan, the children of ʿAlī. Imāma never leaves its seed. This seed was generally sown in all the prophets, generation after generation, till Prophet Muḥammad received it in a particular form. From there, then it comes to be ‘in ʿAlī’s selected seed, those whom Allāh has given knowledge and faith’.180 For al-Kulaynī, the third source of knowledge, which is through direct contact with the divine, takes place in two ways: God reveals Himself either through waḥy (revelation) or through ilhām (inspiration).181 In his understanding, inspiration

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  59 occurs to men individually through knowledge cast into their minds, whereas revelation takes place through messages sent through angels to the Prophets. Inspiration is mainly for the instruction of the recipient, whereas revelation is for the instruction of mankind.182 Imāms, especially, are the recipients of ilhām, because their hearts are prepared for it. Al-Kulaynī reports: Amīr al-Muʾminīn (peace be upon him) said: we the Household, are the tree of Prophethood, the place where the messagengerhood has been deposited, the place frequented by the angels, the house of Mercy and the mine of knowledge.183 Al-Kulaynī introduces a cosmology based on hierarchy or knowledge. In this cosmology imāms stand in a higher position than all prophets except Prophet Muḥammad. In a lengthy report, al-Kulaynī emphasizes that imāms are more knowledgeable than the prophets except Prophet Muḥammad; therefore, they stand higher in rank. Whereas Prophet Muḥammad and imāms possess equal authority because they possess equal knowledge: Abū Jaʿfar said ‘They suck at the moisture while they leave aside the great river’. It was said to him: what is this great river? He said: The Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) and the knowledge which Allāh gave to him. Verily, Allāh to Whom belong Might and Majesty, gathered together in Muḥammad (peace be upon him) the sunna of the prophet from Adam right down to Muḥammad (peace be upon him). It was said to him: what are these sunna? He said: ‘the knowledge of the prophets, all of it. And the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) transmitted this, all of it, to Amīr al-muʾminīn (peace be upon him)’. A Man said to him: ‘O son of the Messenger of Allāh! Was Amīr al-muʾminīn more knowledgeable, or some of the prophets?’ Abū Jaʿfar (peace be upon him) said: ‘O listen to what he says. Surely, Allāh opens the ears of everyone whom He wishes to. I told him that Allāh has gathered together in Muḥammd (peace be upon him) the knowledge of the prophets and that He has brought together this, all of it, in Amīr al-muʾminīn (peace be upon him). And he (this man) asks me if he is more knowledgeable or some of the prophets!’184 A key point that al-Kulaynī raises for the credibility and legitimacy of walāya of ʿAlī and his successors is the issue of infallibility of the imām (maʿṣūm). As the possessor of God-given infallibility (ʿiṣma), therefore, the imām cannot and does not make an error. He argues that the quality of infallibility of the imāms is based on their perfect knowledge. This perfect and therefore infallible knowledge is not only described as the cornerstone of the doctrine of the imāma, but it also gives all rights to the imāms to have walāya over believers. In different reports, the authoritative teaching of the imāms is described as the central function of the imāma. Based on divine knowledge, al-Kulaynī draws a line between two groups among the Muslims. He divides Muslims into ‘wicked’ ones and the Shiʿis. This

60  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism division, by al-Kulaynī’s definition, consists in accepting the walāya of ʿAlī and his successors. He writes: I heard Abū Jaʿfar said: ‘The Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him) said: Verily, Allāh, the Blessed, the Sublime says: My Proof against the wicked ones of your community has been made complete against the one who had abandoned the walāya of ʿAlī and has taken his [ʿAlī’s] enemies as his walī and who denies his eminence and the eminence of the successor after him … they are the imāms of right guidance after you. Your spirit has flowed to them, and it is your spirit which has flowed into you from your Lord. They are your descendants (made) from your clay and (they are) your flesh and your blood’.185 Aspect of Faith Walāya is also asserted explicitly in traditions transmitted by al-Kulaynī as an obligatory religious duty (farīḍa). This is one of the earliest sources in which walāya is considered not just as any other religious duty, but explicitly as one of the ‘pillars (daʿāʾim)’ of Islam. In total, al-Kulaynī reports 15 traditions regarding the subject of daʿāʾim al-islām, all going back to al-Bāqir and al-Ṣādiq in which walāya is included separately as one of the five pillars of Islam.186 In these traditions, al-Kulaynī considers walāya as part of fundamental religious practice and duty imposed upon every Muslim. The most common formulation of the Shiʿi daʿāʾim tradition is attributed primarily to al-Bāqir: Islam is built upon five pillars: prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage and walāya; and not one of them was declared, the way walāya was declared.187 Al-Kulaynī emphasizes on this point: The components of the faith (ḥudūd al-īmān) are: the shahāda, that there is no god but God and Muḥammad is the messenger of God, belief in what the prophet brought on behalf of God, the five canonical prayers, alms, fasting, during the month of Ramaḍān, the pilgrimage to Mecca, walāya with regard to the walī among us (the imāms), hostility to our enemy (ʿadāwat ʿaduwwinā) and finally frequenting the truthful (al-dukhūl maʿal-ṣādiqin).188 In another tradition also attributed to al-Bāqir, it is said that among the five pillars, walāya is the supreme pillar for it is ‘the key’ (miftāḥ) to all other pillars which follow in sequence after the walāya: prayers, alms, pilgrimage, and fast.189 The imām’s walāya is the highest degree of religion to the extent that if a man were to spend the entire nights praying and all days fasting, offer all his possessions as alms and be able to make the pilgrimage, but not recognise walāya of walī of God, in order to undertake all his actions as guided by the

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  61 latter, then God would not reward him at all and he is not considered among people of the faith (ahl al-īmān).190 It can be said that within al-Kulaynī’s writings, there is a theological component and an elaboration of the ontology of walāya in such a way that walāya almost becomes synonymous with faith and the concept of imāma. By the time of al-Kulaynī, the doctrinal and polemical emphasis on walāya within earlier authors is seen to be slowly replaced with a more general and less polemical idea of right guidance based on religious knowledge. This point will be analyzed in more detail in the next chapter.

Notes 1 Amir-Moezzi has shown that the Shiʿi understanding of the world, which is primarily manifested in ontology and cosmology, gave rise to the conception of walāya. For Amir-Moezzi, the notion of imāma is the hidden dimension of prophecy and walāya is the indistinctness and concealed dimension of imāmī Shiʿism (see Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and Christian Jambet, What is Shīʿī Islam? An Introduction, section on ‘On the Origins and Conceptions of the World’). For a discussion on the Shiʿi context of this period, see Modarressi Tabatabai, Crisis and Consolidation, p. 9. 2 Our analysis on the concept of walāya in the next chapter will examine the slow shift from the usage of the term walāya to the term imāma within imāmī Shiʿism towards the end of minor Occultation. 3 Apart from the three texts that their brief discussion is provided, Modarressi Tabatabai identifies two other texts which are considered as ʿAlī’s sayings. First is a compilation entitled ‘Musnad’ which is believed to be a collection of reports quoted from ʿAlī on doctrinal, legal, and ethical topics. And second, is a ‘Dīwān’ which is believed to be a composition of ʿAlī’s poetry. For more information about these two sources, see Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, pp. 15–16. 4 Modarressi Tabatabai lists some of the Shiʿi sources where these ideas have been mentioned. See Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, pp. 2–14. 5 Scholarship concerned with identifying the sources of Nahj al-Balāgha is very recent. The most recent scholarly work in this area is Madārik al-Nahj al-Balāgha by Riḍā Ustādī. Riḍā Ustādī, Madārik al-Nahj al-Balāgha (Qum: Dār al-Tablīgh-i Islāmī, 1396 Sh/1976). Also see Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, p. 14. 6 Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, p. 83. There are a number of editions of Kitāb Sulaym. The two volumes recently published in Qum have been used in this research. Only volume II contains discussions on walāya. Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī, Kitāb Sulaym b. Qays al-Hilālī, volume II, ed. Mohammad Baqer Ansari (Qum: Dalīl-i mā Publications, 1381 Sh./2002). For reference purposes, the abbreviation ‘Kitāb Sulaym’ accompanied by the page number will be used throughout the book. 7 Two editions of al-Īḍāḥ have been identified in this research: one published in Beirut 1982 and the other published in Tehran 1971. The references are taken from the more recent Beirut edition: al-Faḍl ibn Shādhān al-Nīsābūrī, al-Īḍāḥ, ed. Anonymous (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-ʿIlamī lil Maṭbūʿāt, 1982). For reference purposes the Beirut edition is abbreviated as ‘al-Īḍāḥ’ throughout this book. The Tehran edition, if used, will be abbreviated as ‘al-Īḍāḥ/Tehran’ (al-Faḍl ibn Shādān al-Nishābūrī, Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ, ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Ḥusaynī al-Urmawī al-Muḥaddith (Tehran: Intishārāt Dānishgāh Tehran, 1350 Sh./1971). 8 The edition published in Qum 1952 has been used in this research. Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Barqī, Kitāb al-Maḥāsin, ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn

62  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

9

10

11 12

13 14 15

16

17 18 19 20 21 22

al-Ḥusaynī (Muḥaddith) (Qum: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyah, 1331 Sh/1952). For the purpose of referencing, this edition will be abbreviated throughout this book as ‘alMaḥāsin’. More information on Ṣaffār al-Qummī and his works is available in M. A. AmirMoezzi, ‘al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī (d. 290/902–903) et son Kitāb Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt’, in Journal Asiatique, 280/3–4 (1992), pp. 221–250. The Tabriz 1960 edition has been used for this research (al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī, Kitāb Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt ed. M. Kūchibāghī (Tabriz: Shirkat-i Chāp-i Kitāb, 1960)). The work al-Kāfī, as we will see later, is divided into three major parts: al-Uṣūl, al-Furūʿ, and al-Rawḍa. Only the first part, al-Uṣūl, has been used in this research, as discussions on walāya are provided in al-Uṣūl and considered among the fundamental issues, i.e., the Uṣūl. The Tehran 1955 edition has been used which is published in four volumes as Abū Jaʻfar Muḥammad ibn Yaʻqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Uṣūl min al-Kāfī, ed. ʻAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī. 4 vols. (Tehran, 1375 Sh./1955). For the purpose of citation and referencing, these volumes have been abbreviated as ‘al-Uṣūl’ accompanied by the volume and page number throughout the book. The scholars of Shiʿi Studies have raised serious issues about Sulaym’s life and dates of his birth and death. See the following discussion here on Sulaym’s life. Abī Jaʻfar Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, ed. Maḥmūd Rāmyār (Mashhad: Chāpkhāna-yi Dānishgāh Mashhad, 1351 Sh/1973), p. 162. Al-Ṭūsī was a prominent imāmī Shiʿi scholar. For more information, see Amir-Moezzi ‘al-Ṭūsī’, in EI2, vol. x, p. 745. Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, p. 83. Moktar Djebli, ‘Sulaym b. Ḳays’, in EI2, vol. ix, p. 819. Abuʾl-Faraj Muḥammad b. abī Yaʿqūb Isḥāq al-Warrāq al-Baghdādī, known as Ibn Nadīm, is the author of the well-known Kitāb al-Fihrist, which is an index of Arabic books. Very little is known about his life. He died in 385/995 according to Ibn al-Najjār or according to others in 388/998. To read more about his life and works, see J. W. Fück, ‘Ibn al-Nadīm’, in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 895–896. For reference to his book here, see Ibn Nadīm, Al-Fihrist (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, Bayrūt, 1994), p. 119. For further referencing, see al-Ḥillī, Kitāb al-Rijāl (Najaf: al-Matʿaba al-Ḥaydarīyya, 1972), p. 83. Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī was governor of Iraq between 120/738 and 126/744 under the Umayyad caliphs Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Walīd II b. Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik. His residence was in al-Ḥīra rather than in al-Kūfa, the more usual gubernatorial seat of governance. His fall from office followed the murder of al-Walīd II and the succession of Yazīd III b. al-Walīd as caliph. When the latter sent Manṣūr b. Jumhūr al-Kalbī to replace him as governor over Iraq, Yūsuf fled to the Balqāʾ, where he was subsequently captured, imprisoned in Damascus, and when Marwān b. Muḥammad advanced towards that town in 744, Yūsuf was killed in his prison. For further information, see G. R. Hawting, ‘al-Thaḳafī’, in EI2, vol. x, p. 432. Ḥāʾirī provides a lengthy account on the life and works of Sulaym. See Abū ʿAlī Ḥāʾirī, Muntaha al-Maqāl fiʾl Aḥwāl al-Rijāl (Qum: Muʿassasa Āl al-Bayt, 1995), pp. 374–383. Which in fact is Sulaym’s account of Muʿāwiya’s letter to his governor of Iraq, Ziyād ibn Abīh. See Patricia Crone, ‘Mawālī and the Prophet’s Family: An Early Shiʿite View’, in Patronate and patronage in Early and classical Islam (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005), pp. 167–194. Ibn Abiʾl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ-i Nahj al-Balāgha (Cairo: ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Hạlabī, 1965–1957), vol. 12, pp. 216–217. Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, pp. 82–83. Djebli, ‘Sulaym b. Ḳays’, p. 819.

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  63 23 Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. al-Nuʿmān al-Ḥārithī al-ʿUkbarī, known as Shaykh Mufīd, was a leading imāmī Shiʿi theologian and jurist. See W. Madelung, ‘al-Mufīd’, in EI2, vol. vii, p. 312. 24 Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Mufīd, Taṣḥīh al-Iʿtiqād bī-Sawāb al-Intiqād aw Sharḥ ʿAqāʾid al-Sadūq (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, 1983), p. 149. Also see Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, p. 85. 25 As for the authenticity of Kitāb Sulaym, this study simply relies on Modarressi Tabatabai’s claim that Kitāb Sulaym is authentic. For a detailed account on the authenticity of Kitāb Sulaym, see Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, pp. 83–86. 26 For more information, see Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 110–123. Also see Maria Massi Dakake, Love, Loyalty and Faith: defining the boundaries of the early Shiʿite community, PhD Thesis (Princeton University, 2000), pp. 346–356. 27 Robert Gleave, ‘Early Shiʿite hermeneutics and the dating of Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays’, in Bulletin of SOAS, 78, 1 (2015), pp. 83–103. 28 Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, ‘Note bibliographique sur le Kitâb Sulaym b. Qays, le plus ancien ouvrage shiʿite existent’, in M.A. Amir-Moezzi, M.M. Bar-Asher and S. Hopkins (eds), Le shîʿisme Imāmīte quarante ans après. Hommages à Etan Kohlberg (Paris, 2009), p. 40. Also see Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, ‘The silent Qurʾan and the speaking Qurʾan: history and scriptures through the study of some ancient texts’, in Studia Islamica 108, 2013, 143–174 (for reference to the Kitāb Sulaym, see pp. 146–149). This may also be suggested by the fact that the available manuscripts vary in length and the number of traditions they include. For an account of the available manuscripts, the tradition on the transmission of the work, see M.A. Amir-Moezzi, ‘Note bibliographique’, pp. 33–48. 29 The ḥadīths themselves have versions and Ansari provides the transmission version in his footnotes. 30 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 565. 31 This is obvious especially from Meccan verses such as Q 36:50. 32 See R. Peters, ‘Waṣiyya’, in EI2, vol. xi, p. 171. Peters here argues that the two verses, namely Q 2:180 and 2:240, are traditionally seen as the beginning of the Islamic law of succession, ‘since they command the making of bequests, without limitations, to close relatives and spouses, who would be excluded under the pre-Islamic rules of agnatic succession’. 33 Peters, ‘Waṣiyya’, p. 171. Peters notes that there are no prescribed requirements for the making of a waṣiyya. It could be in writing, orally stated, or even through intelligible signs. In all cases, witnesses must be present in order to prove it. 34 pl. awṣiyāʾ or waṣiyyūn is translated as legatee, executor, successor, or inheritor. To read more about waṣī, see E. Kohlberg, ‘Waṣī’, p. 161. 35 Also see Kohlberg, ‘Waṣī’, p. 161. 36 These three passages occur in Kitāb Sulaym, pp. 644–646, 758–759, and 828–829. 37 The phrase uluʾl-amr, largely translated as ‘those possessing authority’, occurs twice in the Qurʾan, both in sūra al-nisā (Q 4:59 and 4:83). This phrase opened up an ongoing debate regarding the religious and political aspects of walāya. The questions of ‘what kind of authority does this phrase refer to?’ and ‘who does possess this authority?’ have made the understanding of ulūʾl-amr critical to constructions of religious and political authority. 38 See Kitāb Sulaym, pp. 644–645. 39 On this point, also see Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 109. 40 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 759. 41 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 836–838, I have used Dakake’s translation in Charismatic Community, p. 110. 42 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 645.

64  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism 43 Shūrā is used for the small consultative body of prominent persons which eventually chose ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān as the third Caliph. See C. E. Bosworth, ‘Shūrā’, in EI2, vol. ix, p. 505. 44 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 650. For this point, also see Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 109–110. 45 To read more, see Modarressi Tabatabai, Tradition and Survival, pp. 83–84. 46 See Tamima Bayhom-Daou, ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​ .org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_26904 (consulted online on 23 July 2019). 47 In his book, al-Ansāb by ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad Samʿānī (d. 562/1166. Born in Marw in 506/1113), his rich literary production which centred on the prophetic traditions and their transmission made him a well-known scholar of ḥadith and fiqh. His work, al-Ansāb, is arranged alphabetically according to nisba, provides 5,348 entries of scholars, followed by the full name of the scholar in question with information on teachers and disciples (isnād), places and times of their activities, and the date of death. For more information, see R. Sellheim, ‘al-Samʿānī’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 1025. The author claims that Faḍl belonged to an Arab tribe as his nisba (azdī) suggests (ʻAbd al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad Samʻānī, Kitāb al-Ansāb (Leiden: impr. de E. J. Brill, 1912), p. 176). Samʿānī concludes that Faḍl was a descendant of an Azd Arab tribe who moved from Arabia and eventually settled in Nishāpūr. However, Faridūn Junaydī believes that Faḍl had a Persian origin rather than an Arab, considering that his father had a Persian name ‘Shādhān’ (Persian: Shādān) and the fact that Arabs were reluctant to use Persian names for their children. Also, Junaydī supports his view by referring to one of Faḍl’s statements rejecting the superiority of the Arabs over the Persians in his Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ. See Faridūn Junaydī, Faḍl ibn Shādān-i Nishābūrī va Nabard-i Andīshah-hā dar Īrān pas az Islām (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Balkh, 1981), p. 7. Whether Persian or Arab in origin, scholars agree that he lived most of his life in Nishāpūr and became a famous Shiʿi theologian (mutakallim) of his time. 48 Bayhom-Daou, ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī’, in EI3. See references in Muḥammad ibn ʻUmar al-Kashshī, Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (Mashad: Dānishkadhʼi Ilāhīyāt va Maʻārif-i Islāmī-yi Dānishgāh Mashhad, 1969), pp. 539–541 and p. 543. Also see al-Najāshī, Fihrist-i Asmāʼ Muṣannifī al-Shiʻa al-Mushtahir bi-Rijāl al-Najāshī (Qum: Muʼassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 2008), pp. 306–307. 49 Junaydī, Faḍl ibn Shādān-i Nishābūrī, pp. 10–11. Also see Bayhom-Daou, ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī’, in EI3. 50 Junaydī, Faḍl ibn Shādān-i Nishābūrī, pp. 6–11. 51 Al-Īḍāḥ/Tehran, p. 6. 52 Muḥammad ibn ʻAlī ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (The Book of Divine Unity of al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq with select commentary by Sayyid Hāshim al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭihrānī), tr. Ali Adam, ed. Michael Mumisa and Mahmood Dhalla (Birmingham: AMI Press, 2013), p. 66. 53 Al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 254. 54 Liyakatali Nathani Takim, The Rijāl of the Shiʿi Imāms as depicted in Imāmī biographical Literature (London: University of London, 1990), p. 85. 55 See al-Kashshī, Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, pp. 539–541. Also, Tamima BayhomDaou, ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan according to al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Nishābūrī (d. 260 AH/874 AD)’, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 64, No. 2 (2001), pp. 188–207. 56 Bayhom-Daou, ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan’, p. 5. 57 Generally speaking, rijāl means ‘study of the men’. Rijāl refers to study of the people who transmitted ḥadīth reports, manifested in the production of biographical dictionaries (tabaqāt), and aimed to demonstrate their moral character as a means of validating the reliability of those reports. See G.H.A. Juynboll, ‘Ridjāl’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 515.

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  65 58 Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 209–229. 59 Out of which he lists 48 books. See Abū ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. al-ʿAbbās al-Najāshī, Rijāl al-Najāshī (Beirut: Alaalami Co., 2010), p. 295. 60 Iʿjāz Ḥusayn Kantūrī, Kashf al-Ḥujūb waʾl-Astar ʿan Asmaʿ al-Kutub waʾl-Asfar, or the bibliography of Shiʿa literature (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1935), p. 24. 61 Al-Īḍāḥ/Tehran, p. 6. 62 See Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā (al-Najaf: al-Ḥaydarīyah Publications, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 106–128. 63 With the full name of Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ fī al-radd ʿalā sāʾir al-firaq (Book of Elucidation Concerning the Refutation of the Other Sects). On this note, also see Bayhom-Daou, ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī’, in EI3. 64 Ahmad Pakatchi, ‘Ibn Shādhān, Abū Muḥammad’, in Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī, https://www​.cgie​.org​.ir​/fa​/article​/222952/​%D8​%A7​%D8​%A8​%D9​%86-​ %D8​%B4​%D8​%A7​%D8​%B0​%D8​%A7​%D9​%86​%D8​%8C-​%D8​%A7​%D8​%A8​ %D9​%88​%D9​%85​%D8​%AD​%D9​%85​%D8​%AF (consulted online on 23 December 2019). 65 Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 47–213; Al-Īḍāḥ/Tehran, pp. 93–503. 66 Also see Bayhom-Daou, ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī’, in EI3. 67 Considering the content of al-Īḍāḥ, one can divide the themes of this text into three parts. The first part, called ‘Sharḥ Aqāwīl’, deals mainly with classification of the theological views of different groups, mainly the Jahmiyya, the Muʿtazila, the Jabriyya (al-Īḍāḥ, p. 7), the aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth (al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 6–8), the Murjiʿa (al-Īḍāḥ, p. 20), and the Khawārij (al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 21–22), as sub-sects of the ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa. Basically, this part of Faḍl’s writing contains his disagreements and criticism of the creeds of other Muslim sects. The ahl al-sunna waʾl jamāʿa is perceived as constituting one of the two main parties in Islam, the other being the Shiʿi. In the second part, the main adversaries are referred to as the Murjiʿa which he equates with ahl al-sunna. The Murjiʿa/ahl al-sunna is mainly criticized for their keenness to recognize the other sects, but not the Shiʿis. The Murjiʿa’s concept of jamāʿa is challenged by Faḍl stressing on the disagreement and inconsistency in their legal doctrines and traditions and in many of the views, which they hold in opposition to the Shiʿis. Faḍl also criticizes the acts of the first three caliphs of Islam, especially condemning the acts of the second Caliph, ʿUmar. This last part, which is a shorter section of al-Īḍāḥ, deals with the disagreement of ahl al-ʿIrāq and ahl-Ḥijāz on many Islamic laws which actually reflects the differences in the Shiʿi and the Sunni approaches to the Islamic law, such as divorce, marriage, adultery, and alms. 68 Abū Muḥammad Hishām b. al-Ḥakam was the most prominent representative of imāmī theology in the time of the Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq and Mūsā al-Kāẓim. Of Hishām’s many writings listed in the al-Fihrist of al-Nadīm none is extant. Hishām’s discussions with many theologians and heretics are frequently quoted in both Sunnī and Shiʿi works. For more information, see W. Madelung, ‘Hishām b. al-Ḥakam’, in EI2, vol. viii, pp. 497–498. 69 Tamima Bayhom-Daou, The Imāmī Shiʿi Conception of the Knowledge of the Imām and the Sources of Religious Doctrine in the Formative Period: from Hishām b. Ḥakam (d.179 AH) to Kulīnī (d. 329 AH), PhD Thesis (London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1996), pp. 137–166. 70 See Bayhom-Daou, The Imāmī Shiʿi Conception of the Knowledge of the Imām, pp. 151–152. 71 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 6 and Bayhom-Daou, ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī’, in EI3. 72 Raʾy, Arabic verb for seeing with the eye, also means ‘opinion’. Raʾy more often refers to the body of such opinions alleged by a particular jurist (e.g., the raʾy of Abū Ḥanīfa) and to the interpretation used to derive such opinions. It is also used in the sense of the intellectual faculties that lie beneath such legal interpretation. Although the legal

66  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

73

74 75 76 77 78 79

80 81 82 83 84

85

86 87

usage of raʾy is the most important historically, raʾy was also used for adherence to a body of a theological doctrine (i.e., raʾy al-Jahmiyya). The ‘ahl al-raʾy’ were able to achieve significant success in their competition with the ‘ahl al-ḥadīth’ and to attract talented students of ḥadīth to their camp. The competition between the proponents of raʾy and their opponents ended with obvious triumph of the ahl al-raʾy. Islamic law, as it can be found in the massive literature of the Sunni schools, is mainly the product of raʾy; the books of fiqh are the books of raʾy. For more information, see Jeanette Wakin and A. Zysow, ‘Raʾy’, in EI2, vol. xii, pp. 688–690. To read about the comprehensive classifications of raʾy by the ʿUlamāʾ, see M.H. Kamali, ‘The Approved and Disapproved varieties of Raʾy (personal opinion) in Islam’, in American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, vii (1990), pp. 39–63. Also see Modarressi Tabatabai’s analysis on the development of Shiʿi jurisprudence in early Islam in Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai, ‘Rationalism and traditionalism in Shīʿī Jurisprudence: A Preliminary Survey’, in Studia Islamica, No. 59 (1984), pp. 141–158. The issue of ilhām and how it was accepted within later Shiʿi scholarly tradition will be discussed in the next chapter. Ilhām literally means ‘to cause to swallow or gulp down’. Broadly speaking, God reveals Himself in two ways: to men individually by knowledge cast into their minds, and to men generally by messages sent through the Prophets. The first, and individual, revelation is ilhām; the second, and general, is waḥy. Ilhām, thus, is defined as the communication of God’s knowledge and will, warning and promise to humanity in a direct way whereas the term waḥy refers to a mediated, rather than direct, communication between man and God. See D.B. MacDonald, ‘Ilhām’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 1120 and Daniel A. Madigan, ‘Revelation and Inspiration’, in EQ, vol. 4, pp. 438–440. Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 206. Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 52–53. Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 205–207. Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 205–206. Bayhom-Daou, ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan’, p. 193. A ṣaḥīfa could be a leaf on which was transcribed the text of a pact or treaty, meant to be read out to the people and fixed on the wall of the Kaʿba or public place, whilst the expression ṣuḥuf muṭahhara/mukarrama could mean the leaves on which the Divine Revelation was written, i.e., the Qurʾan. To read more, see A. Ghédira, ‘Ṣaḥīfa’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 835. Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 206. Also see Bayhom-Daou, ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan’, p. 193. Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 62–65. Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 119. For more information regarding this, see Bayhom-Daou, ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan’, pp. 195–197. Let not the believers take disbelievers for their awliyāʾ in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allāh unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allāh biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allāh is the journeying (Q 3:28 quoted in al-Īḍāḥ, p. 51). And unto each We have appointed heir (mawālī) of that which parents and near kindred leave; and as for those with whom your right hands have made a covenant, give them their due. Lo! Allah is ever Witness over all things. (Q 4:33 quoted in al-Īḍāḥ, p. 51). Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allāh; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions (awliyāʾ) of the devil. Lo! the devil’s strategy is ever weak (Q 4:76 quoted in al-Īḍāḥ, p. 51). Your guardian (walī) can be only Allāh; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer) (Q 5:55 quoted in al-Īḍāḥ, p. 104).

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  67 88 And whoso taketh Allāh and His messenger and those who believe for guardian (yatawalla) (will know that), lo! the party of Allāh, they are the victorious (Q 5:56 quoted in al-Īḍāḥ, p. 104). 89 (Saying): Follow that which is sent down unto you from your Lord and follow no awliyāʾ beside Him. Little do ye recollect! (Q 7:3 quoted in al-Īḍāḥ, p. 108). 90 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 71. 91 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 97 92 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 75. 93 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 76. 94 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 128. 95 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 128. 96 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 129. 97 Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 136–138. 98 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 153. 99 This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honour, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter (Q 5:5) and, Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters, and your father’s sisters, and your mother’s sisters, and your brother’s daughters and your sister’s daughters, and your foster-mothers, and your foster-sisters, and your mothers-in-law, and your step-daughters who are under your protection (born) of your women unto whom ye have gone in - but if ye have not gone in unto them, then it is no sin for you (to marry their daughters) - and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins. And (it is forbidden unto you) that ye should have two sisters together, except what hath already happened (of that nature) in the past. Lo! Allāh is ever Forgiving, Merciful. And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allāh for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allāh is ever Knower, Wise (Q 4:23–24). 100 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 157. 101 For more information on this, see Roy Vilozny, Construction a Worldview: al-Barqī’s Role in the Making of Early Shiʿi Faith (Turnhout: Brepols, 2017). Also see Roy Vilozny, ‘A Shiʿi Life Cycle according to al-Barqī’s Kitāb al-Maḥāsin’, in Arabica, T. 54, Fasc. 3 (July 2007), p. 366. 102 Ch. Pellat, ‘al-Barḳī’, in EI2, vol. xii, pp. 127–128. Also see G. R. Hawting, ‘al-Thaḳafī’, p. 432. 103 See Pellat, ‘al-Barḳī’, p. 127. 104 Pellat, ‘al-Barḳī’, p. 127. Also see E. Kohlberg, A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work, Ibn Ṭāwūs and His Library (Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 88, 273 and 308. 105 Al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 153. Pellat and Hussein Farhang Ansari both find this claim by al-Ṭūsī problematic since it cannot be convincingly shown whether Kitāb al-Maḥāsin is authored by Aḥmad or his father. See Pellat, ‘al-Barḳī’, p. 128. Also see Hussein Farhang Ansari, ‘al-Barqī’, in Encyclopaedia Islamica, tr. Rahim Gholami, vol. 4, pp. 457–459. 106 Thiqa (pl. thiqāt) is the ‘qualification used in the science of ḥadīth to describe a transmitter as trustworthy, reliable’. For more information, see G.H.A. Juynboll, ‘thiḳa’, in EI2, vol. x, p. 446. Thiqa referred to financial trustworthiness where the individuals

68  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

107 108 109 110 111

112

113 114 115 116 117 118

119 120 121 122

123 124 125 126

were agents of the imāms (Modarressi Tabatabai, Crisis and Consolidation, p. 15, n. 73). Newman argues that there is no suggestion that al-Barqī, while a companion of several imāms, was ever the financial representative or agent of any. Therefore, Newman suggests that the term thiqa refers to al-Barqī’s reliability as a traditionalist (Newman, The Formative Period, p. 61, n. 6). This is despite his reliance on weak transmitters (ḍuʿafā). For this, see al-Najāshī, al-Rijāl, ed. Muḥammad Jawād al-Nāʾīnī (Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1988), vol. 1, pp. 204–205. Also, al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist. pp. 37–40. Al-Najāshī, al-Rijāl, pp. 335, 376; al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 148. Vilozny’s, ‘A Shiʿi Life Cycle’, p. 365. Vilozny’s, ‘A Shiʿi Life Cycle’, p. 365. Ibn Nadīm lists 80 works by Muḥammad b. Khālid, mentioning only three works by his son Aḥmad, which are the Kitāb al-Iḥtijāj, Kitāb al-Safar, and Kitāb al-Buldān, and interestingly attributes a first version of the Kitāb al-Maḥāsin to Muḥammad b. Khālid and not to Aḥmad. See Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist, pp. 309–310. Also see Hussein Farhang Ansari, ‘al-Barqī’, pp. 457–459. Newman, Formative Period, pp. 59–60. Andrew Newman examines al-Maḥāsin’s traditions in all 11 extant books in detail. See Newman, Formative Period, pp. 53–59. Also see Etan Kohlberg, ‘Al-ʿUsūl al-Arbaʿumia’, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 10 (1978), pp. 128–129. See al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, pp. 20–21 and al-Najāshī, al-Rijāl, pp. 76–77. Pellat, ‘al-Barḳī’, pp. 127–128. Newman. Formative Period, pp. 53–60. For the lack of number 12 in the identification of the imāms, see Newman, The Formative Period, p. 20, pp. 59–60 and p. 66, n. 51. Pellat, ‘al-Barḳī’, pp. 127–128. According to Newman, there appear to have been 83 other books, for a total of 94 in original. Here is a brief outline of existing al-Maḥāsin: Book one, Associated Affairs and Connections (al-Ashkāl waʾl-Qarāʾin). Book two, Reward for Actions (Thawāb al-aʿmāl). Book three, Punishment for Actions (ʿIqāb al-ʿAmal). Book four, The Choicest, the Light and the Mercy (al-Ṣafwa wa al-Nūr wa al-Raḥma). Book five, Lights of Darkness (Maṣābiḥ al-Ẓulum). Book six, Causes (al-ʿIlal). Book seven, On Travel (al-Safar). Book eight, On Food (al-Maʾākil). Book nine, On Water (al-Māʾ). Book ten, Beneficial Uses (al-Manāfīʿ). Book eleven, Conveniences (al-Marāfiq). For more details, see Newman, The Formative Period, p. 53. References in this study are from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Barqī, Kitāb al-Maḥāsin, ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī (Muḥaddith) (Qum: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyah, 1331 Sh./1952). Al-Maḥāsin, p. 142. ‘Save him who repenteth and believeth and doth righteous work; as for such, Allāh will change their evil deeds to good deeds. Allāh is ever Forgiving, Merciful’ (Q 25:70). We find the idea of pre-existence of the imāms in Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt of al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī too, who was contemporary of al-Barqī. For a detailed account of preexistence of the imāms in Shiʿi sources, including Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, see AmirMoezzi, Divine Guide, pp. 29–59. Al-Maḥāsin, pp. 131–132. Al-Maḥāsin, p. 89. Al-Maḥāsin, pp. 131–132. Nay, but the record of the righteous is in ʿilliyīn, Ah, what will convey unto thee what ʿilliyīn is! A written record, attested by those who are brought near (unto their Lord) (Q 83: 18–21).

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  69 127 For a discussion on the Shiʿi mythology surrounding the pre-eternal ‘world of shadows’, see Meir M. Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imāmī Shiʿism (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 130–132. Also Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, pp. 32–33. 128 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 135. 129 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 136. 130 The root of the word ʿillīyūn is ʿ-l-w, connotes the idea of elevation, of height and domination. 131 ‘Nay, but the record of the righteous is in ʿilliyīn; And what will explain to thee what ʿilliyūn is?’ (Q 83: 18–19). In the Qurʾan, ʿilliyūn is contrasted with the term Sijjīn (Q 83:7) which was commonly thought to be a rock in the lowest earth. See Christian Lange, ‘Hell’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_23502 (consulted online on 13 October 2020). 132 T. H. Weir, ‘ʿIlliyyūn’, in EI1, vol. iii, p. 496. Also see E. M. Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qurʾan: Comprising Sale’s Translation and Preliminary Discourse, volume 4 (Routledge: 2013), p. 228. 133 Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, p. 39. 134 See Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, pp. 33–34. According to Amir-Moezzi, almost all Muslim commentators apply the term mīthāq to the pact of faith between God and man in a ‘pre-existential time’ before their birth based on Q 7:172 (Sūra al-Aʿrāf). Also see Gerhard Böwering, ‘Covenant’, in EQ, vol. 1, p. 464. 135 This word has occurred in the Qurʾan 25 times. 136 What aileth you that ye believe not in Allāh, when the messenger calleth you to believe in your Lord, and He hath already made a covenant with you, if ye are believers? 137 When Allāh made (His) covenant with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden (which I lay upon you) in this (matter)? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. 138 And when We exacted (Picktal translates “akhadha” in this this verse as “exacted” but “took” seems a better translation. However, for consistency of using Picktal’s translation of the Qurʾan, I left it as “exacted”) a covenant from the prophets, and from thee (O Muhammad) and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus son of Mary. We took from them a solemn covenant. 139 And (remember, O Children of Israel) when We made a covenant with you and caused the mount to tower above you, (saying): Hold fast that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein, that ye may ward off (evil). 140 And (remember) when We made a covenant with the Children of Israel, (saying): Worship none save Allāh (only), and be good to parents and to kindred and to orphans and the needy, and speak kindly to mankind; and establish worship and pay the poordue. Then, after that, ye slid back, save a few of you, being averse. 141 And with those who say: Lo! we are Christians, We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore, We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allāh will inform them of their handiwork. 142 Dharr is a term denoting in the Qurʾan the tiniest palpable quantity, interpreted by the commentators of the Qurʾan as: ‘dust which remains clinging to the hand after the rest has been blown off, or weightless dust, seen when sunlight shines through a window; the weight of the head of a red ant, the hundredth part of a grain of barley or atom’. See L. Gardeth, ‘Dharr’, in EI2, vol. ii, pp. 219–220. 143 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 150. 144 Al-Maḥāsin, pp. 89–93.

70  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism 145 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 89. 146 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 150. 147 Newman, Formative Period, p. 59. For reference in al-Maḥāsin, see al-Maḥāsin pp. 332–333. Al-Barqī includes at least one tradition which mentions al-qāʾim. Newman writes that this tradition was transmitted via Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā al-Ashʿarī who was a contemporary of al-Barqī (Newman, Formative Period, p. 60. Also see Modarressi Tabatabai, Crisis and Consolidation, p. 95). This tradition indicates that even though a decade after al-Barqī’s death the idea that the 11th  imām’s  son was the al-qāʾim was widely accepted, the assumption of the return of al-qāʾim around the turn of the century is apparent at the time of al-Barqī and the beginning of the Minor Occultation. Also see al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, vol. 1, pp. 563–567. Also see Kohlberg, ‘From Imāmīyya to Ithnāʿasharīyya’, p. 523. 148 Wilfered Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_islam​_SIM​_4495 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). 149 It is not clear how and where (if at all) al-Kulaynī heard his traditions from Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Nisābūrī. See Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2. 150 Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2. 151 Al-Ṭūsī, al-Fihrist, p. 326–327. Al-Ṭūsī, al-Rijāl, p. 495. 152 Al-Najāshī, al-Rijāl, p. 292. 153 Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2. 154 Kohlberg explains that the imāmī Shiʿi theory of the imāma developed gradually during the first Islamic century and was given a definitive form in the middle of the second/eighth century by Hishām b. al-Ḥakam (for Hishām, see the article by W. Madelung, ‘Hishām b. al-Ḥakam’, in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 497–497). For the next 100 years or so, until the death of the 11th imām, al-Ḥasan al-ʿAskarī, in 260/874, no noteworthy changes seem to have been introduced. Only in the mid-fourth/tenth century, a major addition appears in the form of a doctrine of ghayba (occultation) and the return of qāʾim. The culmination of this process, Kohlberg argues, was al-Kulaynī. See Etan Kohlberg, ‘From Imāmīyya to Ithnāʿasharīyya’, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 39, no. 3 (1976), p. 523. 155 Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2. 156 This information is from Newman, The Formative Period, pp. 94–96. 157 Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2. 158 He was a prominent imāmī theologian, grammarian, writer, and poet. He was born and died in Baghdad (355–436/967–1044). He was a direct descendant of ʿAlī. His predominance in imāmī circles earned him the titles of Dhuʾl-Majdayn and ʿAlam al-Hudā. He was the elder brother of al-Sharīf al-Raḍī, who is said to be the compiler of Nahj al-Balāgha. For more information, see C. Brockelmann, ‘al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā’, in EI2, vol. vii, p. 634. 159 See ʿAlī Ḥusayn Maḥfūẓ, ‘Introduction’, in al-Kāfī, ed. Akbar al-Ghaffārī (Beirut: Dār al Aḍwā, 1405/1985), pp. 25–26. 160 Madelung, ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad’, in EI2. For this study, I have used the following copy: Abū Jaʻfar Muḥammad ibn Yaʻqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, al-Uṣūl min al-Kāfī, ed. ʻAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī (Tehran, 1375 Sh./1955). 161 Newman, The Formative Period, pp. 97–98. 162 In imāmī legal theory, the akhbār of the imāms form one of the material sources of law, alongside the Qurʾan and prophetic ḥadīths. For more information on akhbār tradition, see Robert Gleave, ‘Between Ḥadīth and Fiqh: The Canonical Imāmī Collections of Akhbārīs in Islamic Law and Society’, in Ḥadīth and Fiqh, vol. 8, No. 3 (2001), pp. 350–382.

Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  71 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

170

171 172 173 174 175 176

177 178 179 180 181 182 183

See Gleave, ‘Between Ḥadīth and Fiqh’, pp. 350–382. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 92–109. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 106. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 140. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 106. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 96. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 159. Also see Amir-Moezzi’s recent book on al-Kulaynī, Mohammed Ali Amir-Moezzi, La preuve de Dieu. La mystique shi’ite à travers l’oeuvre de Kulaynî (Paris: Islam nouvelles approaches, 2018). This work is inspired by the al-Kulaynī’s Kitāb al-Ḥujja. Ḥujja, in the Shiʿi terminology, as Amir-Moezzi presents, is one of the central qualifications of the person of the imām, the initiator guide to the mystical aspect of Shiʿism and the ultimate model of fidelity. AmirMoezzi demonstrates that Shiʿism, by definition, is not merely the religiopolitical ideology of its ‘clergy’, but it is a religion, in the most complex sense of the term, which plays a significant role in the Muslim thinking and their understanding of spirituality. ʿIṣma, as a theological term, means ‘immunity from error and sin’. Sunnis accredit ʿiṣma to the prophets and Shiʿis also to the imāms. Even though the term ʿiṣma and the concept of it do not occur in the Qurʾan or in canonical Sunni ḥadīth, the imāmī Shiʿis were the first to use the term. From at least the first half of the second/eighth century, the imāmī Shiʿis maintained that the imām as the divinely appointed and guided leader of the community must be immune (maʿṣum) from error and sin. ‘While the early imāmī theologian Hishām b. al-Ḥakam (d. 179/795–796) restricted this impeccability to the imāms, holding that prophets might disobey the commands of God and then would be criticized by a revelation, later imāmī doctrine always ascribed it equally to prophets and imāms’. ʿIṣma also denotes infallibility, in the ‘total knowledge of the meaning of the revelation and its prescriptions and, consequently, in absolute authority for instruction’. For more information, see W. Madelung and E. Tyan, ‘ʿIṣma’, in EI2, vol. iv, p. 183. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 92. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 93. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 94. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 98. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 121. The Qurʾan calls some messengers uluʾl-ʿazm (gifted with determination) but these are not named, ‘Then have patience (O Muhammad) even as the stout of heart among the messengers (of old) had patience and seek not to hasten on (the doom) for them. On the day when they see that which they are promised (it will seem to them) as though they had tarried but an hour of daylight. A clear message. Shall any be destroyed save evil-living folk?’ (Q 46:35). Later Qurʾanic commentators of the Qurʾan consider uluʾl-ʿazm to mean exalted messengers. For more information, see Uri Rubin, ‘Prophets and Prophethood’, in EQ, vol. 4, pp. 289–306. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl1, pp. 160–162. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 102. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 96. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 95–96. For more information on this, see Etan Kohlberg, Belief and Law in Imāmī Shiʿism (Aldershot: Variorum; Brookfield, Vt: Gower Publication Co., 1991), p. 26. For more information regarding the difference between ilhām and waḥy, see MacDonald, ‘Ilhām’, p. 1120. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 155. Robert Gleave has criticized this belief as a socalled extremist (ghālī) belief. He writes that later commentators on al-Kāfī, such as Astarābādī, do not challenge the authenticity of such ḥadīths which talk of imāms

72  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

184 185 186 187 188 189 190

being addressed directly by angels. To read more about this, see Robert Gleave, Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shiʻi school (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007), pp. 115–117. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 158–159. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 120. For more information regarding this, see Amir-Moezzi, ‘Notes on Imāmī Walāya’, in The spirituality of Shiʿi Islam: beliefs and practices (London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2011), pp. 241–242. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 2, p. 22; al-Barqī, al-Maḥāsin, p. 286. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 3, p. 29 and p. 35. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 3, pp. 30–32. Al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl 3, p. 33.

2

Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism

It was only after the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 that the Shiʿi Studies as a discipline and, subsequently, understanding of authority in Shiʿism gained considerable attention in Western universities.1 Many academic studies concerning the concept of authority within Shiʿism are, as a result of the initial political interest, concerned with the nature of clerical authority in general and walāyat al-faqīh in particular. Most of the scholarly works dealing with the history of early Shiʿism in general and the subject of walāya in particular focus on developments in the third and fourth centuries of Islam, when the Shiʿi imāmī and Ismaʿili doctrine already became formalized to some extent. There are very few scholarly works which deal with early sources, prior to the third century of Islam.2 Whereas the last chapter dealt with a consecutive view of walāya in the formative Shiʿism, this chapter focuses on the major themes emerging within the Shiʿi primary sources discussed earlier, namely Kitāb Sulaym of Sulaym b. Qays (d. 385/995), al-Īḍāḥ of Faḍl ibn Shādhān (d. ca. 260/873–874), al-Maḥāsin of Aḥmad al-Barqī (d. ca. 280/849), and Uṣūl al-Kāfī of Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939–940 or 329/940–941). Five thematic areas emerging from the last chapter are as follows:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Walāya as political authority; Walāya and knowledge; Walāya, covenant and pre-existence; Walāya and the elect community; Walāya as religious duty and pillar of Islam.

Walāya as Political Authority The examination of texts under this study shows that the Shiʿi discussion regarding the notion of walāya started its life with the recognition of ʿAlī as the legitimate political authority over the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet. This discussion, however, started with walāya in conjunction with another term, namely waṣī to the Prophet and continued with proximity of the term waṣī with the term walī. Dakake has pointed out that there is enough evidence in the context of the First Civil War,3 particularly from the period of Ṣiffīn4 onwards, that DOI:  10.4324/9781003366416-3

74  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism ʿAlī’s supporters started to refer to him as the waṣī or legatee of the Prophet, and several references in the form of poetry from the Battle of Ṣiffīn refer to ʿAlī in this way.5 Waṣiyya by its definition refers to the ‘spiritual testament of the dying man sanctified by religion which is to hand on obligations and secure the continuity of tradition’.6 In this sense, according to the Shiʿis, ʿAlī is the waṣī of the Prophet and every imām is the waṣī of his predecessor. It is believed among Shiʿis that ‘ʿAlī held in trust the last will and testimony of the Prophet, as delivered to his daughter Fāṭima on his deathbed and written down by ʿAlī at her dictation’.7 Based on the concept of waṣiyya received by ʿAlī, the Shiʿis then maintained that he received special knowledge of the Prophet’s will for his community, and hence, he is the rightful authority to the leadership of Muslim community after the Prophet’s death.8 The Ghadīr Khumm tradition, important as it was for recognizing ʿAlī’s immediate political succession, was not openly invoked by Shiʿis as a clear proof of ʿAlī’s right to the caliphate.9 It is only through ʿAlī’s excellence and his designation as a waṣī that a case is made for his walāya in relation to the tradition of Ghadīr Khumm. The proximity of waṣī to walī has a specific significance at this early stage in history. ʿAlī as walī/waṣī both inherited the authority of the Prophet and was appointed the executor and guardian of the Prophet’s will and testament.10 In this sense, not only ʿAlī is in charge of the worldly authority of the Prophet, holding the position as the trustee of his bequest, i.e. waṣī, but also he held in himself the spiritual legacy of Muḥammad, i.e. walī. This trend is noticeable in Kitāb Sulaym. Therefore, walāya in Sulaym has a direct sense of kinship and inheritance. It should be noted that there is a subtle omission in Kitāb Sulaym which is important. In all the traditions quoted and explained by Sulaym regarding the event of Ghadīr Khumm concerned with establishing the walāya towards ʿAlī, there is no explicit evidence to indicate that this announcement was a fulfilment of a divine command, i.e. a revelation to the Prophet. It is rather presented as a prophetic declaration. Sulaym also does not say whether the disobedience towards ʿAlī’s walāya is in turn disobedience towards God, i.e. kufr. Sulaym, therefore, constitutes walāya towards ʿAlī as a religious duty for the Muslims but he does not present it as a divine command as it would appear in later imāmī writings, such as al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī.11 Rather, Sulaym, interprets the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm through the Qurʾanic verses, namely Q 5:3 and Q 5:67, to give it a divine provenance or approval. Based on these two verses, Sulaym represents the announcement at Ghadīr Khumm as a political and spiritual—only insofar as divine approval of the Prophet’s deed—appointment for ʿAlī as leader of the community after the death of the Prophet. Although Sulaym accuses Abū Bakr and ʿUmar for usurping the right of ʿAlī as the leader of the community, he does not go on as far as to accuse them of kufr.12 Sulaym leaves no doubt that in his view the announcement at Ghadīr Khumm represented a political appointment for ʿAlī as the legitimate leader of the Muslim community.13 Walāya in Kitāb Sulaym is the duty of a believer to recognize the walāya of the imam—not yet divine but certainly sanctioned by the divine.

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  75 Walāya for Faḍl, is also interpreted as proof of ʿAlī’s political right to lead the Muslim community after the Prophet. Just like Sulaym, by using the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm, Faḍl argues, ʿAlī had the designated walāya from the Prophet and there is no doubt in misleading the community by ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa. He condemns ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa for not understanding and recognizing the walāya of ʿAlī as the community’s political authority. While both Sulaym and Faḍl recognize walāya as the legitimacy of ʿAlī’s political authority after the death of the Prophet (based on the Qurʾan and the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm), there is a difference in their approaches. For Sulaym, ʿAlī’s position as a declared waṣī is enough justification to proceed with bestowing walāya upon him, whereas, for Faḍl, the justification for walāya must be based upon the foundation of divine knowledge.14 Faḍl challenges the decisions made by shūrā in choosing Abū Bakr and then ʿUmar over ʿAlī and the illegitimacy of the former individuals as political leaders of the Muslim community. The main concern for al-Īḍāḥ of Faḍl is to demonstrate to his opponents, the ahl al-sunna wa al-jamāʿa, a sound basis for walāya of the imāms. Such intellectual developments are not without political upheavals. The ninth century is marked by the crucial event of miḥna.15 The miḥna refers to the inquisition first instituted by the Abbasid Caliph al-Maʾmūn in 218/833 in which religious scholars were punished, imprisoned, or even killed unless they conceded the doctrine of the created nature of the Qurʾan. The policy continued through the reigns of al-Maʾmūn’s immediate successors, al-Muʿtasim, al-Wāthiq, and two years of al-Mutawakkil who reversed the policy in 234/848 (or possibly in 237/851). What al-Maʾmūn in fact appears to have been doing is espousing a form of Ḥanafī thinking which was cautious about ḥadīth and held to the doctrine of the created Qurʾan with the early Muʿtazilī insistence that the Qurʾan be the only basis for their system of religious doctrine which led them to the rejection of most traditions and, by implication, of legal doctrines based on traditions. Many scholars of the field have argued that what al-Maʾmūn was trying to achieve by the miḥna was part of an overall effort to reinstate the religious authority of the caliphate.16 The principal consequences of the failure of the miḥna brought to a decisive end any notion of a caliphal role in the definition of Islam. It was now unquestionably the ʿulamāʾ, rather than the caliphs, who were ‘the legatees of the prophets (warathat al-anbiyāʾ) and hence it would be they who, armed with this spiritual authority, and at a distance from those who held temporal power, elaborated classical Islam’.17 It was in the post miḥna environment that Shiʿism faced the Minor Occultation which ended in 329/941. As the Shiʿi community advanced in both size and internal organization and as events served to highlight ideological and political differences among the Muslim community in general and members of the Shiʿi community in particular, a certain spiritual hierarchy seems to have developed within the Shiʿi community itself. There is a growing emergence of an intellectual and scholarly class of Shiʿis which made possible the early development of precise and systematic theological boundaries of the Shiʿi identity and catered to the growing institutionalization and organization of the Shiʿi community as

76  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism an established and definable minority within the Islamic umma. From our texts under the study, it is evidently noticeable that after the occurrence of the Minor Occultation within the writings of al-Barqī and later al-Kulaynī, the debates concerning walāya are diverted from the explicit political discussions regarding ʿAlī as the chosen leader of the community and lean towards theological discussions with religious and metaphysical dimensions. Perhaps, it can be said that by the time of al-Barqī and eventually al-Kulaynī, two fluxes running simultaneously shaped the debates concerning the political dimension of walāya. First, perhaps, there was no need to engage in polemical debates concerning the political legitimacy of the imāms any longer. That role has already been firmly established within the Shiʿi milieu. Second, al-Barqī’s al-Maḥāsin was compiled in Qum around the time when under al-Maʾmūn’s Miḥna. In such hostile environment, the Shiʿi scholars such as al-Barqī, fleeing from the Abbasid centre in Baghdad to Qum, perhaps, were already disappointed having a Shiʿi imām as the political leader of the Muslim community and lifted the initial earthly dimension of walāya as the political leader of the community to a cosmological realm where the Shiʿis could participate in the primordial covenant to accept the walāya of the imāms.

Walāya and Knowledge As examined in the last chapter, while Sulaym’s approach is to refer to the first part of the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm to say that the walāya of ʿAlī was legitimate after the death of the Prophet based on the notion of waṣṣīyya, Faḍl builds his argument emphasizing the second part of the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm, famous as ḥadīth al-thaqalayn (two weighty things),18 and the Qurʾanic idea of ‘perfection of the religion’ to say it is the divine knowledge that is the basis for the legitimacy of ʿAlī’s walāya.19 Such a move from a very worldly notion of waṣṣīyya to an abstract notion of knowledge (ʿilm) can be understood by considering the historical situation of the community around the time of Faḍl. The broad theoretical discussion concerning the relationship of walāya and imāma was opened by the crisis of the caliphate beginning with the rebellion against ʿUthmān. It was in the time of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) that basic conceptions of imām such as imām’s walāya and his being completely knowledgeable to act as an authoritative teacher in religion were formulated. Although the imām was entitled to political leadership as much as to religious authority, his imāma did not depend on his actual rule. At the time of the death of the eighth Shiʿi imām, ‘Alī al-Riḍā’ (d. 203/818), his seven-year-old son, Muḥammad al-Jawād (d. 220/835), was designated to be the imām. This was the first time in the history of the imāmī Shiʿism that a minor was being given the office of the imāma. This appointment must surely have raised questions about the eligibility of a minor to become the imām.20 That is, how can a minor be said to have received the knowledge which was accessible or present for the imām before? Hence, by the time of Faḍl, i.e. well before the Minor Occultation, the idea of knowledge becomes so central to the Shiʿi discussion that it has to be

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  77 aligned with the discussion of the walāya of the imām. The debate continued regarding the ways that imām’s divine knowledge is received. There is a report in Kitāb Sulaym where Sulaym states the circumstances in which ʿAlī is said to have acquired perfect knowledge of the revelation to the Prophet.21 This explanation is presented as Sulaym’s answer to those who believed the perfect knowledge was only in the possession of the Prophet. Sulaym argues that ʿAlī was the recipient of special and comprehensive knowledge transmitted to him directly from the Prophet and thus he was the only person who was authorized to transmit his legacy. ʿAlī was given access to a perfect and complete version of the revelation. The content of such teaching is clearly stated as teachings of the Qurʾan and its interpretation. Even references to a complete knowledge of all matters that ‘has been or will be until the Day of Judgement’ may be taken as a reference to the Qurʾan and its interpretation. Faḍl expands on the idea of the Qurʾan being the manifestation of the perfected religion, declared within the second part of the tradition of Ghadīr Khumm, containing the correlated perfected knowledge. The crux of Faḍl’s idea, as already discussed in the last chapter, is that the imām/walī does not receive the divine knowledge through either ilhām or waḥy. The perfected knowledge was transferred to ʿAlī as the Prophet’s walī in such a way that ʿAlī acquired a very special and unique interpretive access (tafsīr) to it in the form of a ṣaḥīfa. Whether this ṣaḥīfa is physical or abstract is not clear in Faḍl’s writing. However, Faḍl is certain that it is this ṣaḥīfa and consequently the interpretive access, which is transferred from one imām to the other, refuting the doctrine of ilhām (inspiration) and insisting that the imām’s inherited knowledge of the Qurʾan and its interpretation is the only source of imāmī doctrine. It is not surprising then that Faḍl continues with the polemical discussion of the completeness of ʿAlī’s Qurʾanic codex against the ʿUthmānic codex. Al-Īḍāḥ is one of the earliest surviving texts in which this controversy is documented—that the ʿUthmānic codex is a censured and a falsified version of the original revelation received by Muḥammad. This much more voluminous version is recorded in the recession by ʿAlī and remains in the procession of the imāms. For Faḍl, the idea of the complete Qurʾan being with the imāms also serves to attack the juristic practices and theories of ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa. He maintains that if there cannot be established any link between the imāms’ teachings and the Qurʾan, this is because the teachings are indeed based on the complete revelation known only to the imāms, defending the belief that the imāms are no more than true transmitters of the Prophet’s legacy. In sum, it can be said that during the period before Minor Occultation, the discussions about walāya were linked to the imām’s knowledge and ways of acquiring it. By this time, already the notion of walāya moves from a mere political notion and finds another dimension which is the divine knowledge. The subject of divine knowledge, in Faḍl’s view, gained through imām’s walāya, takes place through a unique ability to interpret the Qurʾan—the embodiment of the perfect and inherited knowledge, bestowed by the Prophet upon ʿAlī and his progeny who are also keepers of a complete text of the Qurʾan.

78  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism While al-Barqī does not delve into the subject of imām’s knowledge during the period of Minor Occultation and narrates mainly from Faḍl’s choices of traditions, al-Kulaynī, on the other hand, discusses the subject of knowledge in detail which gives a first-hand information about the Shiʿi understanding of the subject of imām’s knowledge during the first years of Major Occultation. By now, it seems there is no doubt about the idea of imām’s perfect knowledge, but certainly the debates continue regarding ways imām possess this knowledge. In al-ʿUṣūl, al-Kulaynī seems to favour the idea of ilhām, refuted strongly by Faḍl as a valid source of imām’s knowledge along with the Qurʾan and the Sunna of the Prophet.22 It is clear that before al-Kulaynī, the Shiʿi theory regarded the Qurʾan as a sufficient source and the idea of imām’s knowledge was based entirely on a special transmission from the Prophet. Knowledge was in this case said to have consisted of and restricted to the Qurʾan and its interpretation. This is very clear in Faḍl where he goes at length to show that the perfection of religion was achieved with God and his Prophet. In al-Kulaynī, however, this perfection of religion cannot just be achieved with God and his Prophet alone—it has to involve the walāya of the imām.23 There is a consensus that imāms do not acquire their knowledge through waḥy. However, while Faḍl strongly refutes the idea of ilhām as a source of imām’s knowledge, for al-Kulaynī, the imām’s mode of communication with the divine is ilhām, albeit this ilhām instituted precariously near waḥy. Thus, the recognition of ilhām as an additional source of religious doctrine and legislation apart from the Qurʾan comes about as a later development during the early years of Major Occultation. What followed were issues which imāmī Shiʿi scholars encountered in their attempt to justify the doctrine of ilhām. Since the imāmī Shiʿis accepted that waḥy came to an end with the Prophet Muḥammad, a distinction had to be made between the manner in which inspired knowledge passed to the imām in contrast to the manner in which it was received by the Prophet. It seems that the adoption by imāmī Shiʿis of the idea of the ‘muḥaddath’ provided a solution to the problem of adhering to the principle that Muḥammad was the seal of the revelation (waḥy) and at the same time believing in the inspiration (ilhām) of the imām’s.24 According to the Shiʿi traditions, it was imām al-Bāqir who for the first time described the imām as a ‘muḥaddath’ meaning ‘spoken to by the angel of revelation’.25 The term ‘muḥaddath’ was taken from a variant reading of the Qurʾanic verse, Q 22:52,26 and was interpreted to provide an understanding of a form of revelation ranking below the kind reserved for prophets.27 The imām is spoken to (muḥaddath) and informed (mufahham) by an angel, yet unlike prophets, an imām never sees the agent of revelation.28 The problem in al-Kulaynī is that we find expressions supporting both the idea of the transmission of knowledge (as was the case with Faḍl) and the idea that ilhām of the imāms supplements the prophetic revelation. In the Kitāb al-Ḥujja, few reports indicate that the imām’s ʿilm was entirely transmitted from the Prophet and may be regarded as consistent with the Faḍl’s view that the Qurʾan is the only source of imāmī doctrine.29 At the same time in a section entitled ‘Concerning Extraordinary [aḥādīth] and Those which Bring together the Eminence of the

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  79 Imām and his Qualities’ (nādir Jāmiʿ fī Faḍl al-imām wa ṣifātihī), al-Kulaynī accepts the imām’s ilhām as an additional source of knowledge.30 This begs the question how al-Kulaynī reconciles these two points of view. Al-Kulaynī does not explicitly reconcile his position, but his interpretation of laylat al-qadr points in this direction.31 Al-Kulaynī states that the Prophet’s knowledge was not restricted to the revelation alone and further knowledge was ‘sent’ to him on the occasion of laylat al-qadr. For al-Kulaynī, the imāms (who are, since the time of Faḍl, regarded as ‘uluʾl amr’) are also the recipients of this knowledge sent down on this particular night. He emphasizes that the Qurʾan needs an interpreter, which is why the Prophet had transmitted that special role to ʿAlī. However, in a given situation in which the Qurʾan, the Sunna of the Prophet, and the knowledge of the previous imāms do not offer any suggestion, the present imām resolves to laylat al-qadr for access to knowledge accumulated through the esteemed night each year.32 As a whole, the theory of knowledge which al-Kulaynī provides seems to suggest a kind of increase in knowledge through accumulation among the prophets, which through time becomes perfected till it is handed over to Prophet Muḥammad and then to the imāms after him.33 Such an elaborate theory of knowledge indeed raised questions, criticisms, and further discussions about the nature and scope of imām’s knowledge.34 For instance, does the incremental accumulation of knowledge imply a superiority of successive imāms over the former? Is the knowledge of every imām identical with the knowledge of the Prophet? Is the imām believed to add in any way to the message and the law revealed to the Prophet, or rather maintain it in its integrity through his divinely granted authority? How does the imām receive the perfect knowledge from his predecessor? There are some scholarly works which discuss in great detail the problem of knowledge in later Shiʿi writings.35 At present it is enough to note the relationship between the idea of knowledge and walāya and consequently the position of walāya over against nubuwwa. It is clear, by showing that imām’s ilhām (including a derivative form of waḥy) acts as a source that complements knowledge acquired by transmission, al-Kulaynī incorporates a wide range of attitudes and ideas that are not reconcilable at this stage in history. They reflect the tensions and problems involved in justifying the doctrine of inspiration, and as such afford an understanding of the arguments used in the epistemological debates of the time.

Walāya and Primordial Covenant As examined in the previous chapter, al-Barqī links the concept of walāya to the idea of pre-eternal existence of the imāms as well as with the story of creation through pre-eternal covenant (mīthāq). At the time of Sulaym and Faḍl, walāya still comprises this-worldly dimensions and has not been seen as attached to the cosmic realm of creation. This is al-Barqī who treats walāya within a primordial realm systematically. First, al-Barqī talks about the pre-eternal entities of the imāms in the form of particles (dharr). The faithful Shiʿis also exist as pre-eternal entities in the form of dharr. These pre-eternal Shiʿis pledged their walāya for

80  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism the imāms in the realm of pre-existence. Only after taking this pre-eternal pledge between Shiʿis and their imāms, God proceeds with His creation, beginning with the creation of the spirits, the hearts, and the bodies of the imāms out of clay from an exalted place called ‘ʿillīyūn’ (or ʿillīyīn). After creating the imāms God creates the hearts of the faithful Shiʿis from the same exalted clay. Only the believer’s bodies are made of clay which is not from ‘ʿillīyūn’, yet not far from it and may even be from the gardens of Paradise. Such an elaborate process of creation clearly marks the Shiʿis distinguished from the rest of humanity. Al-Kulaynī also writes about the pre-eternal covenant, but this subject is not his major concern. On the other hand, al-Barqī seems to be quite committed to providing the details of the pre-eternal existence of the Shiʿis. The notion of mīthāq, or the primordial covenant between God and the prophets and between God and mankind, has a firm Qurʾanic basis. In the Qurʾan, two types of mīthāq are mentioned. Both al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī begin their interpretation with the second and third verses quoted as follows: When Allāh made [His] mīthāq (covenant) with the prophets, (He said): Behold that which I have given you of the Scripture and knowledge. And afterward there will come unto you a messenger, confirming that which ye possess. Ye shall believe in him and ye shall help him. He said: Do ye agree, and will ye take up My burden [which I lay upon you] in this [matter]? They answered: We agree. He said: Then bear ye witness. I will be a witness with you. (Q 3:81) And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], “Am I not your Lord?” They said, “Yes, we have testified.” [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, Indeed, we were of this unaware. (Q 7:172) Remember my favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil my (part of the) covenant (awfū bi-ʿahdī) and fear Me. (Q 2:40) The first mīthāq was taken by God from the prophets particularly for their acknowledgement and support of Muḥammad, who would come to confirm the preceding scriptures. The second mīthāq was taken from the sons of Adam, exclusively for the recognition of God’s authority.36 The Shiʿi tradition, however, adds the element of walāya or the recognition of ʿAlī’s authority on top of this narrative. Al-Barqī’s contribution to this discussion is among the earliest within the extant Shiʿi sources. The idea of pre-eternal covenant in al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī should be distinguished from the primordial covenant mentioned in the Qurʾan. The pre-eternal

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  81 covenant of the Shiʿis is shown to take place prior to the primordial covenant of the Qurʾan—and indeed prior to the creation itself. This pre-eternal pact provides the basis for the initiation of the Shiʿis into their faith regarding the walāya of the imāms as well as marks them as distinguished from the rest of humanity at large. As it can be seen in the Qurʾanic verses quoted above, there is no mention of the pre-eternal pact of the Shiʿis—it only deals with the mīthāq of the sons of Adam. Al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī interpret this verse in order to provide a connection between walāya and the mīthāq in the pre-eternal/primordial realm. This link between mīthāq and walāya leads us to two major discussions within the works of al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī: first, to the way mīthāq is implied within the walāya of ʿAlī and, second, to the idea that the Shiʿis are different and distinguished from the rest of the creation.37 There are three different sets of traditions within al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī showing this double-folded link: 1. Both al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī report traditions that suggest that the special bond with ʿAlī was established only for the Shiʿis at the time of the preeternal pact. Such traditions are more explicit in al-Maḥāsin. For instance, in one tradition we read: Verily God, blessed and exalted is He, took the mīthāq from our Shiʿi for walāya toward us when they were particles (dharr) on the day when He took the mīthāq of the particles to affirm Himself, as Lord, and Muḥammad as Prophet.38 This tradition shows that only Shiʿis are granted such distinction in pre-eternity. 2. The second group of traditions in both al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī are those which posit the same pre-eternal pact as taken not just from the Shiʿis but from all of mankind; however, it was only the Shiʿis who accepted it unreservedly and pledged to remain true to it in the course of their earthly life. For instance, verily our ḥadīth are difficult (ṣaʿb mustaṣʿab), none can bear them save enlightened breasts or sincere hearts or virtuous characters; verily God took the mīthāq from our Shiʿis, just as He took [an oath] from the children of Adam, ‘Am I not your Lord? (a-lastu bi-rabbikum)’39 whoever is true to us, God is true to him in [granting him] Paradise; and whoever hates us, and does not grant us our right, [he is] in Hell, eternally.40 3. There are also traditions which suggest that the primordial pact for the recognition of the walāya of ʿAlī was taken from all mankind together with the pact for the Lordship of God and the prophecy of Muḥammad. In this sense, the pre-eternal pact is not contrasted with the primordial pact; rather, they are merged together as one. Such traditions are explicit in the writings of al-Kulaynī rather than al-Barqī. For instance, al-Kulaynī interprets the verse Q 7:172 in one tradition saying that,

82  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism God took mīthāq from His creation for His own Lordship (rubūbiyya) and for obedience (ṭāʿa) and walāya toward Muḥammad and his progeny, and the walāya of the ahl al-bayt which was therefore established in pre-existence.41 Regardless of whether the pre-eternal pact took place before or along with the primordial pact, it is clear in both al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī that Shiʿis as a community have a particular cosmological origin. These mīthāq traditions help us to understand how Shiʿis identified themselves as distinguished not just from the rest of the Muslims but also from the rest of mankind. As mentioned in the last chapter, there are two types of traditions in the writings of al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī, in which the details of such differences are specified. First, the difference between the Shiʿis and the rest of the creation in the pre-eternal realm lies in the type of clay God used to create the Shiʿis and the rest of humanity. Al-Barqī’s version of the story of creation, as already noted, involves the creation of the hearts of the Shiʿis from the same exalted source, ʿillīyūn, which was used to make the heart, spirit, and bodies of the imāms and the prophets.42 This common exalted source emphasizes, on the one hand, the similarity of the roles of the imāma and prophecy and, on the other, provides a distinct identity to the Shiʿis.43 There are two points worth considering here. First, such a discussion of creation lends itself to a kind of dualism, a division of nature at the very beginning of the cosmos. This aspect of duality in early Shiʿi thought will be considered later in this chapter. Second, whether an individual becomes a Shiʿi or non-Shiʿi is an absolute determination which was made in pre-eternity based on the walāya of ʿAlī. This issue begs the question of predestination and predetermination within Shiʿi theology. Is it the case that the early Shiʿi thought is involved with the theological question of whether walāya is predetermined (jabr)? Both al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī devote independent chapters to the discussion of free will and predestination, in which, as doctrinal principle, they favour neither free will nor predetermination. They both take rather a midway between the two. This midway is not known to anyone, except the imām and the one who is taught and guided by him.44 As we have seen in al-Maḥāsin, al-Barqī takes a drastic predestinarian position regarding membership of the Shiʿi community and walāya. Walāya for al-Barqī is hardly a voluntary expression of an individual’s devotion to ʿAlī and the ahl al-bayt. It is already determined by the will of God, before an individual’s this-worldly existence. For al-Kulaynī too, the presence of predestinarian idea of walāya is particularly evident with regard to the notion of the Shiʿi community as a spiritual elect or khāṣṣa and the rest of the Muslim community as ʿāmma or commoners from the time of pre-existence. The Shiʿis are elected elites by God. It should be noted, however, that this Shiʿi predestinarian understanding of walāya in the formative period within the writings of al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī will be challenged by later rationalist and Muʿtazilī-leaning Shiʿis in the fourth and fifth centuries such as Shaykh al-Mufīd.45

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  83

Walāya and the Elect Community One major strategy that the Shiʿi writers have used to claim their rightness in believing in the walāya towards ʿAlī is to base their arguments on a prophetic ḥadīth in which he condemns the majority and gives the right to the minority. In Kitāb Sulaym and al-Īḍāḥ, the term ‘ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamāʿa’ is applied consistently to the majority which partook in the acceptance of the appointment of Abū Bakr as successor to the Prophet.46 It has been pointed out that the idea that awliyāʾ are few goes back to the Shiʿi reading of the event of Saqīfa and when Shiʿis found themselves as minority.47 After the Prophet’s death, the hidden tensions between the Meccan immigrants, the muhājirūn, and the Medinan converts, the anṣār, threatened to break out and split the Umma. The anṣār, the leaders of the tribes of Medina, met in a hall or house called Saqīfa to discuss whom they would support as their new leader. Accounts of this meeting vary greatly. All agree, however, that during the meeting ʿUmar declared that Abū Bakr should be the new leader, and declared his allegiance to Abū Bakr, followed by Abū ʿUbayda ibn al-Jarrāḥ,48 and thus Abū Bakr became the first Caliph, who was given the title Khalīfat al-Rasūl (Successor of the messenger of God).49 However, the early Shiʿis, identifying themselves as the minority, maintained that the majority is condemned because it is always wrong and the few are praised because those who are right are always in minority.50 It seems the earliest encounter of the ‘praise of the few’ is in Kitāb Sulaym.51 This account is based on a meeting which is said to have taken place in Medina between Muʿāwiya ibn Abū Sufyān and members of Banī ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, including al-Ḥasan, al-Ḥusayn, and ʿAlī’s nephew, ʿAbd Allāh Jaʿfar ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. ca. 80/699). Muʿāwiya in response to the claim of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās, that it has been an injustice towards the ahl al-bayt, says that if this was the case, then the entire community had forsaken Islam and would perish, with the sole exception of the ahl al-bayt and their supporters. ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAbbās then responded: God says in His Book: And few of My servants are grateful,52 and He said: And though thou try much, most men will not believe,53 and He says: save such as believe and do good works, and they are few,54 and He says about Noah: And but a few were they who believed with him.55 Ibn ʿAbbās then goes on to refer to the Israelites, all of whom worshipped the golden calf with the exception of Aaron, his sons, and a small group from among his household (nafar qalīl min ahl baytihī), much similar to ʿAlī who enjoyed the support of only a small group of believers.56 There appears a similar theme in the al-Īḍāḥ. At one point the author criticizes the Murjiʿī, for thinking that since they are the majority (ahl al-kathra waʾl jamāʿa), right must be on their side, by responding that: ‘we have found that great numbers are condemned in various places of God’s Book, while small numbers are praised’.57 However, it was later within the formative Shiʿism that walāya came to be represented as a special pact that God made only with His chosen Shiʿi community since pre-existence. In al-Maḥāsin, the discussions related to the primordial

84  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism covenant and creation show how the Shiʿis tried to distinguish themselves from the rest of mankind. As shown previously, one of the differences between the Shiʿis and the rest of the creation lies in the material used to create the Shiʿi believers. It is apparent from al-Maḥāsin that Shiʿi exceptionalism became an important part of the Shiʿi ḥadīth discourse. Based on the primordial pact taken for walāya of the imāms, it is predetermined whether an individual becomes a Shiʿi or non-Shiʿi. However, by the time of al-Kulaynī in the face of internal and external challenges at the beginning of Major Occultation, it seems that the Shiʿi community left without the presence of the imām, aimed for a position of least confrontation in their choice of ideas to define themselves as believers within the Muslim society. Unlike al-Maḥāsin, in which there is a clear sense of distinction between the Shiʿis as an elect community, al-Kāfī includes narrations that serve to define the Shiʿi community without targeting the non-Shiʿis.58 By stressing the link between walāya and faith (īmān), al-Kulaynī is able to hide the sectarian claims of the Shiʿi community in the face of the powerful Sunni majority.59 The terms ʿāmma and khāṣṣa in al-Kulaynī’s writing are thus non-sectarian, depending on the individual faith rather than membership of a distinct community. Following the onset of the Greater Occultation (al-ghayba al-kubrā) in 329/941, the motif of dhamm al-kathra wa madḥ al-qilla (condemnation of the majority and praising the few) started losing much of its appeal. Among several factors combined to bring this about, it is clear once the imāmīs acquired the backing of the Buyid rulers (r. 320–454/932–1062), they stopped considering themselves as a minority.60 The changes in the political fortunes of Shiʿism from the mid-fourth/ tenth century and the gradual abandonment of the esoteric tradition caused the theme in question to be largely discarded. This theme, however, did not disappear. It was kept alive and brought back by the Akhbārīs61 in the context of their struggle against consensus (ijmāʿ).62

Walāya as Faith and a Pillar of Islam Apart from considering walāya towards ʿAlī and subsequent imāms, the opposition and hostility towards ʿAlī have been recognized from the very beginning as barāʾa (dissociation) or ʿadāwa (enmity). Although it was Ṭabarī who records the earliest use of the term,63 Dakake claims that the juxtaposition of walāya with barāʿa originated in the context of the Battle of Ṣiffīn, the arbitration, and its aftermath. The term was utilized among the most radical of ʿAlī’s supporters including the Khārijīs (before and after the secession) who associated walāya and barāʿa as a mandatory religious duty (farḍ).64 In the hands of the Khārijīs, barāʾa underwent an extreme reinterpretation. Once they chose to dissociate from ʿUthmān, ʿAlī, and Muʿāwiya and their supporters, they considered such dissociation (barāʾa) not only as a mandatory requirement for membership within their community, but they also extended the obligation to the rest of the Muslim community. Thus, a sentence of excommunication on their part was enough to mark anyone in the Muslim community as an unbeliever (kāfir)—which, as we know from history, resulted in widespread violence on part of the Khārijīs.65 There is a

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  85 minute remnant of such a doctrinal view of barāʾa in Kitāb Sulaym. As mentioned before, in declaring walāya as a duty, Kitāb Sulaym does not posit it as divinely sanctioned in such a way that not accepting ʿAlī’s walāya results in unbelief. Yet in one instance barāʾa is claimed to lead to unbelief. The one who establishes enmity (ʿadāwa) towards us and keeps away (barāʾa) from us and curses us and considers our blood to be permissible and fights against our rights and makes it to be a religion to keep away (barāʾa) from us … is an infidel (kāfir), a polytheist (mushrik) and an accursed.66 Disregarding this one particular instance of the use of barāʾa in Kitāb Sulaym, on the whole, the issue of walāya/barāʾa in early Shiʿism is consistent with Kohlberg’s analysis.67 Kohlberg argues that the Shiʿi use of the notion of barāʾa was initially a non-doctrinal term concerning simply the political hostility between ʿAlī and his opponents.68 Only with al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī the term barāʾa surfaces once again as a doctrinal aspect, this time firmly associated with the aspect of faith, yet milder in tone as compared to the Khārijīs earlier. In a tradition going back to al-Bāqir in al-Maḥāsin, walāya and barāʾa are listed equally along with other religious duties as a prerequisite for a believer to enter Paradise: (It has been narrated) from Abū Jaʿfar having said: ‘ten [matters], the one who has [these ten qualities] would enter the Paradise, [they are] the testimony that there is no God except Allāh and that Muḥammad is the Prophet and the acceptance with [the claim that] he was sent by and from God; and the establishment of the prayer; and giving of the alms; and fasting in the month of Ramaḍān, and pilgrimage to the House (Kʿaba); and the walāya of the awliyāʾ Allāh; and the dissociation (barāʾa) from the enemies of God and the keeping away from every intoxicant’.69 A probable reason for such a move can be the emergence of a succession crisis following the death of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq. Various factions and splinter groups emerging from this crisis, such as the Ismāʿīliyya, Fatḥiyya, and Wāqifīs,70 proclaiming their respective allegiance, may also have given rise to intense doctrinal and theological debates among the emerging Shiʿi communities. In such a situation, the idea of barāʾa and its association with faith (īmān) could have provided a way to either discourage a tendency to dissociate (barāʾa) from their community or seek excommunication from the fellow Shiʿis with whom they had theological differences. Whatever the historical condition at the time of al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī, the juxtaposition of walāya and barāʾa is played out with the context of love (ḥubb) for the family of the Prophet. Just like walāya is regarded as a foundation of belief, al-Barqī reports in a tradition ascribed to Jʿafar al-Ṣādiq that love for the family of the Prophet is regarded as the foundation of Islam:

86  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism Everything has its foundation and the foundation of Islam is loving us, the family of the Prophet.71 By proclaiming that ‘loving us is belief and hating us is unbelief’, Muḥammad al-Bāqir turns love of the Prophet’s descendants into a basic condition of faith. Thus, the mark of a true believer is love for the imām and consequently, hatred for his enemies. With love and hatred, the Shiʿi worldview is once again divided into opposite poles. A similar division of nature at the level of ontology between Shiʿis and non-Shiʿis was evident in the story of creation. Thus, walāya, associated with the story of creation, as well as the idea of love and hatred, lends itself to a kind of dualist view of the world and its history. Amir-Moezzi captures this dualist notion quite well. He writes: Given the fundamental role of knowledge in the Shiʿi vision of the world, to fervently adhere or belong to the forces of initiation is inextricably linked to hostility towards those who are ‘anti-initiation’ … therefore, walāya/tawallī is inseparable from its opposite namely barāʾa/tabarrī-tabarrā.72 Barāʾa like its inseparable walāya, is also as ancient as the world. This pair of opposing concepts is at the heart of the Shiʿi dualist vision of the world, a vision that may be illustrated by an entire series of contrasting terms typifying the dialectic of Good/Knowledge and Evil/Ignorance.73 In this context, walāya can be taken as a synonym for ‘love’. Furthermore, the idea of love and hatred (tawallā and tabarrā) also creates a hierarchy of and levels or degrees of faith even within the Shiʿi community. Both the notion of the dualist world view and the degree of faith are visible in a tradition ascribed to the Prophet within both al-Maḥāsin and al-Kāfī: In paradise, there are three levels and in the fire there are three abysses. The highest level of the paradise is for those who love (ḥubb) us by heart and help (naṣr) us by tongue and hands. The second level is for those who love us by heart and help us by tongue. The third level is for those who love us by heart. In the lowest level of the abyss of the fire is for those who hate (bughḍ) us by heart and oppose (aʿān ʿalayna) us by tongue and hands. The second lowest level of the abyss of the fire is for those who hate us by heart and oppose us by tongue. And the third lowest abyss of the fire is for those who hate us by heart.74 Since faith, as defined in numerous traditions from al-Ṣādiq, was dependent upon knowing and obeying the imām of one’s time and recognizing the correct sequence of previous imām, in both al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī’s writings, we see a number of traditions explaining the degrees and grades of faith within the Shiʿi community.75 However, al-Kulaynī goes one step further and recognizes traditions that make walāya not just a duty but the most fundamental duty. He considers walāya as a pillar (daʿāʾim) of Islam, and according to some tradition,

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  87 the most important pillar of Islam. While al-Barqī reports fragments of such an understanding of walāya, al-Kulaynī dedicates a whole chapter to ‘daʿāʾim’ in his al-Uṣūl.76 He reports many traditions going back to the fifth and the sixth imāms in which walāya is expressed exclusively as one of the five pillars, i.e. canonical prayers, alms, the fast, pilgrimage to Mecca, and walāya.77 The most common formulation of the Shiʿi daʿāʾim tradition is attributed primarily to al-Bāqir which is cited in both al-Maḥāsin and al-Kāfī. In its simplest form, the tradition declares: Islam is built upon five [pillars]: prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage and walāya; and not one of them was proclaimed, the way walāya was proclaimed.78 This version is most likely the earliest version of daʿāʾim traditions.79 It has been noted earlier that the idea of walāya as a religious duty (farīḍa) was present in the writings of Sulaym as well. The narrations in Kitāb Sulaym regarding the event of Ghadīr Khumm are concerned with showing that walāya towards ʿAlī has been declared by the Prophet and approved by God as an obligatory religious duty (farīḍa). However, there is no indication within Kitāb Sulaym that this announcement is a divine command and the disobedience towards ʿAlī’s walāya counts as disobedience towards God (kufr). By the time of al-Kulaynī, however, walāya is considered as a divine command and as a pillar of Islam in such a way that rejecting it is regarded as kufr. In one tradition, we are told ‘the one who professes his religion through walāya to an unjust imām possesses no religion (dīn)’.80 In other versions of the daʿāʾim tradition, it is the ordinary people (nās) who practise the first four pillars, while only few profess the fifth and the final pillar, walāya, which is also the best (afḍal) of all five pillars and, in fact, the key (miftāḥ) to the other four.81 The inclusion of the walāya for ʿAlī in Shiʿi shahāda82 happens much later; however, such an inclusion would not have been possible without walāya becoming a pillar of Islam within the traditions of al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī.83 In other reports, al-Ṣādiq concludes the daʿāʾim tradition by defining walāya as a duty towards a specific imāms: ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī, al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, and Muḥammad b. ʿAlī.84 In this later tradition, since the line of the imāms within the ahl-bayt is listed, ‘walāya can be interpreted as synonymous with, and limited to, the doctrine of the naṣṣ85 imāmate, or the authority of a very specific line of ʿAlid descendants’.86 However, the earlier daʿāʾim traditions of al-Bāqir present no such restraint or explicit genealogy with respect to walāya. It is clear that certain changes in understanding and interpretation of the term walāya are taking place during the late Umayyad period and the early ʿAbbāsid period. The idea of naṣṣ and imāma, mentioned above, increasingly dominated the discussion of walāya. In this period of political turbulence, it seems the Shiʿi scholars found more comfort in interpreting the concept of walāya within a theological doctrine that could be reasonably discussed and debated with other non-Shiʿi Muslim theologians.87 This specifically happens within a shift from the concept of walāya to the concept of imāma. Whereas the trajectory of the discussion of walāya had come to a point where it had resulted in a dualist conception of

88  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism the world, the discussion of imāma remained within the less polemical confines of right guidance based on religious knowledge.88 Eventually, the concept of walāya is overshadowed by the concept of imāma, which may have provided a less confrontational and more intellectual approach within theological debates.89

Closing Remarks Chapters 1 and 2 investigated the notion of walāya in the writings of Sulaym b. Qays (d. 385/995), Faḍl ibn Shādhān (d. ca. 260/873–874), Aḥmad al-Barqī (d. ca. 280/849), and Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī (d. 328/939–940 or 329/940–941). As stated, Kitāb Sulaym is perhaps the earliest available source that mentions walāya. First, Sulaym builds his main argument in defence of ʿAlī’s right for the leadership of the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet, based on the event of Ghadīr Khumm, an event which henceforth becomes a founding marker for the conceptual development of walāya. Second, Sulaym represents the announcement at Ghadīr Khumm as an official appointment of ʿAlī, the direct heir and descendant of the Prophet, as the leader of the whole Muslim community. The term walāya in turn designates political authority rather than a religious doctrine. Faḍl ibn Shādhān can be regarded as one of the earliest authors in Shiʿism to infuse a spiritual colour to the earlier political notion of walāya. In al-Īḍāḥ, the idea of walāya is linked with the idea of imām’s inherited knowledge of the Qurʾan and its interpretation, justifying the legitimacy of ʿAlī’s spiritual and political superiority. With Aḥmad al-Barqī, the notion of walāya becomes part of religious cosmology when the traditions quoted in al-Maḥāsin link walāya with the pre-eternal covenant between God and Man. Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad al-Kulaynī’s Uṣūl al-Kāfī contributes further to the development of walāya. The traditions included by al-Kulaynī introduce walāya as one of the pillars of Islam. Therefore, it can be said that the notion of walāya in the formative Shiʿism starts its life as a designation of the political authority of ʿAlī after the Prophet. The discussions in the early stages of walāya within Shiʿism focus on ʿAlī’s personal virtues, apart from his designation as the waṣī of the Prophet in order to justify the claim to his political authority. In the early decades of the second century, a period that begins around the end of the imāma of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, the concept of walāya, especially in its connection with Ghadīr Khumm, continued to be reinterpreted. The second stage of walāya in early Shiʿism gives expression to ʿAlī’s spiritual as well as political authority. Walāya in this period is associated primarily with ʿAlī as an individual or with the ahl al-bayt collectively. It also denoted a state of absolute allegiance and devotion to the ahl al-bayt and recognition of their exclusive right to the legitimate leadership of the community and implied membership in a community that increasingly viewed itself as a spiritual elite. A variety of Shiʿi ḥadīth sources originating in the early second century in Kitāb Sulaym and al-Īḍāḥ suggest that, by this time, walāya had become an essential concept in the overall Shiʿi discussion. Despite this, before the Minor Occultation, it still lacks a precise doctrinal formulation.

Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  89 The development of walāya from the second stage onwards takes place after the occurrence of Minor Occultation. In this period a third stage of walāya emerges in which walāya is treated extensively along with the subject of knowledge of the imām. The concern here is not the personal and excellent virtues of the imām as was the case in the first stage. Rather, it is the divinely inspired knowledge together with the pre-eternal covenant in which the Shiʿis pledged their walāya for the imām that becomes central to the discussion. The fourth stage in the development of walāya that leads from the Minor to the Major Occultation is the emergence of the notion of imāma together with walāya. Nevertheless, walāya within al-Barqī and al-Kulaynī still retains its central importance. It is the concept of walāya that shapes the position of imām in the doctrine of the imāma. Walāya defines the sacred mission of the imāms. In the words of Amir-Moezzi, walāya by this stage denotes the ‘essential nature’ as well as the ‘ontological status’ of the figure of the imām.90 In al-Kulaynī’s work, Prophet Muḥammad becomes the archetype of nubuwwa and ʿAlī, the archetype of walāya par excellence.91 Walāya (or a walī) may not be declared superior to nubuwwa (or nabī), yet the cosmic aspect of walī/imām situated walāya at the highest and the most exalted realm. Thus, the imām’s role is to guide the believers after the Prophet’s death, and therefore, the walāya/imāma becomes the essential complement to prophethood (nubuwwa). According to this understanding, the Prophet (nabī) is the messenger of the letter of the Revelation for the masses (ʿāmma/ʿawāmm) that constitutes the majority of a given community. In the same way, the imām/walī, completing the Prophet’s mission, teaches the hidden spiritual meaning (taʾwīl) of the revelation to a minority (aqall) which constitutes the elite (khāṣṣa/khawāṣ) of this community.92 Without the teaching of the imām, the profound meaning of the revelation would remain unfathomed, just as a text interpreted in letter but not in spirit would remain forever poorly understood.

Notes 1 See Newman, Formative Period, p. 17. 2 S. Husain M. Jafri and Hamid Dabashi are among the first scholars in the West who touched upon the concept of walāya in Shiʿism, albeit briefly. In his book, Origins and Early Development of Shiʿa Islam (1977), Jafri focuses on the qualities of the family of the Prophet, namely the ahl al-bayt with an emphasis on ʿAlī and concludes their privileges to the leadership of the community after the Prophet. Walāya, thus, in the author’s view, is one of the special honours and qualities that God bestowed on the family of the Prophet to make them the ideal rulers through whose presence God’s grace is disseminated to all (see S.H.M. Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shiʿa Islam (London: Stacey International Publishing, 2007), pp. 181–182). Hamid Dabashi also touches upon the notion of authority and walāya in the early period of Islam from the time of the Prophet himself to the establishment of Umayyads in midseventh century. In his book, Authority in Islam: From The Rise of Muhammad to the Establishment of the Umayyads (1989), Dabashi examines the question of authority in Islam and draws a picture of the social system of Arab culture in pre-Islamic times to locate how the Prophet’s ‘charismatic movement’ operated, showing the continuity as well as the changes in the early Muslim society. Dabashi concludes that the term walāya is not precise or concrete enough to be applied as an equivalent of Prophet’s

90  Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism charismatic authority. However, later on, this term could refer to doctrines of the comprehensive and indispensable nature of the imām’s authority in Shiʿism. See Hamid Dabashi, Authority in Islam, From the Rise of Muhammad to the Establishment of the Umayyads (New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers, 1989), pp. 95–105. Maria Massi Dakake’s The Charismatic Community: Shiʿite Identity in Early Islam (2007) is one of those rare scholarly works that make an important contribution to the understanding of the early Shiʿism through the analysis of the concept of walāya within the early Shiʿi sources, particularly the period in between the event of Ghadīr Khumm and the First Civil War and its aftermath. This is the time in which walāya may not have carried much theological import. It proceeds to the time during which walāya serves as the basis of the notion of a community’s identity, defined by Dakake as ‘a charismatic community’. 3 The ‘battle of the camel’ in 36/656 was the first military conflict in the first Islamic civil war. All histories, whether Sunni or Shiʿi accounts, had to consider the central presence of ʿĀʾisha bint Abī Bakr (Prophet Muḥammad’s favourite wife, d. 58/678) in this conflict. Her opposition to ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and his followers was personal, political, and ultimately military. Her forces, led by her two male allies, were defeated by ʿAlī in his successful bid to defend his position as the fourth leader of the Muslim community after Muḥammad’s death. For more information, see Denise A. Spellberg, ‘ʿĀʾisha bint Abī Bakr’, in EQ Online, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1875​-3922​_q3​_ EQCOM​_00007 (consulted online on 14 December 2020); also see L. Gardet, ‘Fitna’, in EI2, vol. ii, p. 931. 4 A famous battle (37/657) or rather a series of duels and skirmishes between the Iraqis under the caliph, ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, and the Syrians under the governor of Syria, Muʿāwiya. See M. Lecker, ‘Ṣiffīn’, in EI2, vol. ix, pp. 553–555. 5 Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 58. Also see Abuʾl Ḥasan ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab wa maʿādin al-jawhar, ed. Muḥammad Muḥyi al-DīnʿAbd al-Ḥamīd (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Tijāriyyah al-Kubrā, 1948), vol. 3, p. 21. 6 For more details, see Joseph Schacht, ‘Waṣīya’, in EI1, vol. iii, pp. 1132–1133. 7 Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 58. 8 Al-Ṭabarī in his Taʾrīkh reports an account that the concept of ʿAlī as waṣī begins with the legendary figure of ʿAbd Allāh b. Sabāʾ (see al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh, p. 2942), but it was likely recognized by the ʿAlids since the time of the Prophet’s death. It is evident that this idea became prominent in poetry associated with the Battle of the Camel and was widespread by the time of the Battle of Ṣiffin. See Ibn Abiʾl-Ḥadīd, Sharḥ-i Nahj al-Balāgha, v. 1, pp. 143–150. Also see al-Masʿūdī, Murūj, vol. 3, p. 21 and Dakake’s discussion on the subject, Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 58–59. 9 As Dakake points out, within the Shiʿi discussion recorded in historical sources for the First Civil War, any direct reference to the Ghadīr Khumm tradition as an indication of ʿAlī’s ruling legitimacy is noticeably missing. See Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 59. 10 There is another crucial event in the early days of the history of Islam when the terms waṣi and walī come closer in terms of meaning and usage. This happened when Muʿāwiya b. Abū Sufyān claimed to be the walī of ʿUthmān upon ʿUthmān’s assassination. Muʿāwiya could claim to be the walī of ʿUthmān after his assassination because he was the cousin of ʿUthmān, which means being his closest kinsman and the one most entitled to execute blood revenge. Muʿāwiya ‘was able to justify his rebellion against ʿAlī and ultimately, his very right to the caliphate, based on his quest to bring the ʿUthmān’s assassins to justice’. Muʿāwiya employs the term walī not only in the sense of the closest relative or a waṣī, but to ‘broadening his authority’ to have right to political authority after ʿUthmān. See Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 54–55. Also see ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fiʾl Taʾrīkh (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1979), vol. 3, p. 331; also see Naṣr b. Muzāḥim al-Minqārī, Waqʿat Ṣiffīn,

Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  91 ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn (Cairo: al-Muʾassasa al-ʿArabiyya al-Ḥadītha, 1962), p. 32 and p. 81. 11 Al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 345–347. Also see an analysis on this matter in the next chapter: walāya after the Minor Occultation. 12 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 650. 13 Kitāb Sulaym, pp. 836–838. 14 Al-Īḍāḥ, pp. 205–209. 15 A term meaning in general usage a ‘testing’ or ‘trial’ whether by the accidents of fortune or the actions of men. 16 For a detailed account of the Inquisition, see Newman, The Formative Period, pp. 3-5. Also see P. Crone and M. Hinds, God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam (Cambridge 1986), Ch.v. 17 See M. Hinds, ‘Miḥna’, in EI2, vol. vii, p. 3. 18 ‘I am leaving among you the Two Weighty Things: the Book of Allāh and my ʿitra (progeny). So long as you (simultaneously) uphold both of them, you will never be misled after me; so, do not go ahead of them else you should perish, and do not lag behind them else you should perish; do not teach them, for they are more knowledgeable than you’. See Muslim, al-Ṣaḥīḥ, v. 15, pp. 174–175 and al-Kulaynī, al-Kāfī, v. 1, pp. 343–444. Also see Bar-Asher’s discussion of the use Shiʿis made of this particular Sunni version of the thaqalayn tradition in Scripture and Exegesis, pp. 93–95. 19 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 52. 20 Madelung has suggested that it was the succession of a minor, Muḥammad al-Jawād in 203/818, that raised the question of how the imām received his perfect knowledge. For more details, see W. Madelung, ‘Imāma’, in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 1164–1169. 21 ‘for there did not come down upon him any verse of the Qurʾan except that he instructed me in its reciting (aqraʾanīhā) and dictated it to me (amlāhā ʿalayya), so I wrote it down in my handwriting … and he prayed to God that He may make me understand it and memorise it. So, I did not forget any verse from the Book of God ever since I memorised it. And he taught me its taʾwīl, so I memorised it, and he dictated it to me, so I wrote it down. He did not leave anything that God had taught him of the permitted and the prohibited, of command and prohibition, or of obedience and disobedience, that has been or will be until the Day of Judgement, except that he taught it to me, so I memorised it and did not forget a single letter of it. He then put his hand on my chest and prayed to God to fill my heart with knowledge (ʿilm) and understanding (fahm), with comprehension (fiqh) and judgement (ḥukm) and light (nūr), and to teach me so that I would not be ignorant and make me memorise so that I would not forget. So, I said to him one day: O Prophet of God, since the day you prayed to God for me what you prayed, I have not forgotten anything of what you had taught me, so why do you dictate it to me and order me to write it down? Do you fear for me forgetfulness? He said: O my brother, I do not fear for you forgetfulness or ignorance … for God has informed me that He has answered (my prayer) concerning you and your successors (the imāms) who will come after you’. Kitāb Sulaym, pp. 58–60. 22 Al-Uṣūl 1, p. 8. 23 ‘The imām’s word (amr) is the completion of religion (tamām al-dīn)’, al-Uṣūl 1, p. 199 and p. 290. 24 See E. Kohlberg, ‘The Term Muḥaddath in Twelver Shiʿism’ in Studia Orientalia memoriae D.H. Baneth dedicata (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 39–47; also see Kohlberg, ‘Imām and Community’, p. 27. 25 W. Madelung, ‘Shiʿa’, in EI2, vol. ix, p. 423. 26 Never sent We a messenger or a prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allāh abolisheth that which Satan proposeth. Then Allāh establisheth His revelations. Allāh is Knower, Wise (Q 22:52).

92  Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism 27 We have not sent before you any Messenger of Prophet (Q 22:52). 28 According to al-Kulaynī, he only hears the angel’s voice. See Al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 174–177. On this subject, also see Madelung, ‘Imāma’, p. 423. 29 Al-Uṣūl 1, p. 221 and p. 263. 30 Al-Uṣūl 1, p. 390. 31 Laylat al-qadr is the night during the month of Ramaḍān when, according to classical exegesis, the Qurʾan was sent down. The phrase ‘laylat al-qadr’ (Night of Power) appears in Q 97:1 and lends itself to the name of the sūra (Sūra al-Qadr). To read more, see Roxanne D. Marcotte, ‘Night of Power’, in EQ, vol. 3, p. 538. 32 See al-Uṣūl 1, p. 161. 33 This is also contradictory to the idea of imām’s perfect knowledge. To this end, al-Kulaynī makes further suggestions. The knowledge revealed to the imām on the laylat al-qadr does not constitute new information; rather, the imāms receive the divine in this night to instruct them to act concerning the matters that are already known to them. See Al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 242–252. For more details on this point, also see, BayhomDaou, ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan’, pp. 187–189. 34 See Hossein Modarressi Tabatabai, An Introduction to Shiʿi Law: a bibliographical study (London: Ithaca Press, 1984), p. 27, where the idea that some of the imāms disciples refused to accept the doctrine of divine inspiration is implied in his statement that those disciples ‘did not accept that the imāms possessed divine qualities such as infallibility … but believed that they were pious learned men who had merely a scholarly authority’. 35 For example, see Modarressi Tabatabai, An Introduction to Shiʿi Law, pp. 27–29, and Kohlberg, ‘The Term Muḥaddath’, pp. 39–47. 36 Amir-Moezzi argues that within imāmī traditions which have a cosmogonic character, other developments have been expounded around the concept of mīthāq. The mīthāq (pact) takes place in the world of shadows or particles and that is why it is called ‘the world of the pact’ (ʿālam al mīthāq). It is with what Amir-Moezzi calls ‘pure beings’ in the form of particles or shadows made ‘conscious’ that God draws up the sacred pact based on a tradition in al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl, vol. 3, p. 19. This primordial pact entails a quadruple oath in the imāmī traditions which are (1) an oath of worship (ʿubūdiyya) of God, (2) an oath of walāya towards Muḥammad and his prophetic mission, (3) an oath of walāya towards the imāms and their sacred Cause, and (4) an oath of walāya towards the Mahdī as universal saviour at the end of the time. See al-Kulaynī, al-Uṣūl, vol. 3, pp. 12–13; Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, p. 34. 37 The Shiʿi discussion concerning the pre-eternal realm and subsequent mode of creation is no doubt the result of the ideas of creation circulating around the time of al-Barqī. Although the discussion on the mode of creation within the Shiʿi writings is shown to go back to the sayings of imāms al-Bāqir and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, it may not be farfetched to say that the seeds of these ideas are based on the mythic idea of the Prophet’s metaphysical being—particularly on the concept known as the ‘Light of Muḥammad’ (nūr Muḥammad), extensively discussed within the Sufi milieu. We will discuss this notion within early Sufism in Chapters 3 and 4 of this book. Also see Uri Rubin, ‘Pre-existence and Light: Aspects of the concept of Nūr Muḥammad’, in Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), pp. 62–119. 38 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 135. 39 See Q 7:172 quoted in the text above. 40 Al-Uṣūl 1, p. 467; al-Maḥāsin, p. 136. Also see Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 148. 41 Al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 182–183. 42 Al-Maḥāsin, pp. 131–133. This is mentioned in a tradition in al-Kāfī narrated from al-Bāqir stating: ‘The ahl al-bayt and the hearts of their Shiʿis were created from the best material, while the enemies of the ahl al-bayt (i.e. non-Shiʿis) were created

Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  93 from the basest material and the hearts of the Shiʿis incline toward [the ahl al-bayt] because they are created from that from which [God] created us, while the enemies of the ahl-al-bayt incline toward the base matter from which they were created’. Al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 6–7. 43 In some cases, two groups of mankind were created in pre-eternity from the same turāb (dust of the ground/earth) but from different water. The ones whom God created with sweet water are called ‘aṣḥāb al-yamīn’ (lit. people of the right) and the ones created with bitter water are called ‘aṣḥāb al-shimāl’ (lit. people of the left). Al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 9–10. Even though there is no suggestion in the above quotation that aṣḥāb al-yamīn represents Shiʿis exclusively, yet, in another tradition al-Kulaynī cites Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq stating: ‘God creates the believer, or the Shiʿi, from the sweet “clay of Paradise,” and creates the unbeliever, or the persecutor of the Shiʿis (nāṣib), from the “black and filthy clay,” the “clay of the Fire”’. Al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 5–8; al-Maḥāsin, pp. 133–135. For more information, see Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 150–153 and Kohlberg, ‘Imām and Community in the pre-Ghayba period’, in Authority and Political Culture in Shiʿism ed. Said Amir Arjomand (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988), p. 31. The mīthāq event is also sometimes associated with the division of mankind into two groups of believers and unbelievers in pre-eternity. A tradition to this effect is cited in Shiʿi sources in connection with the mīthāq of the sons of Adam in pre-eternity and in relation to the specific Qurʾanic verse 7:172. See Muḥammad b. Masʿūd al-ʿAyyāshī, Kitāb al-tafsīr, vol.2, ed. Hāshim al-Rasūlī al-Maḥallātī (Qum: ʿIlmiyya, 1961), pp. 39–40. 44 Chapter 25 ‘On Will and Decision’ in Book 5 of al-Maḥāsin and ‘The Book on Divine Unity’ in al-Uṣūl are dedicated to this issue. See al-Maḥāsin, p. 243 and al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 385–398. 45 For an example, see Martin J. McDermott, The theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022) (Beirut: Dār al-Mashriq éditeurs, 1978). 46 For more information on this event, see W. Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 28–37, and also G. Lecomte, ‘Saḳīfa’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 888. 47 To read a detailed account of this event, see Madelung, Succession to Muḥammad, chapter 1. Also see Lecomte, ‘Saḳīfa’, p. 888. 48 Athamina Khalil, ‘Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​ -3912​_ei3​_SIM​_0036 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). 49 W. Montgomery Watt, ‘Abū Bakr’, in EI2, vol. i, pp. 110–111. 50 For more details, see E. Kohlberg, ‘In praise of the few’, in Studies in Islamic and Middle Eastern texts and traditions in memory of Norman Calder, ed. G. R. Hawting, J. A. Mojaddedi and A. Samely (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 152. 51 Kitāb Sulaym, pp. 242–243. 52 They made for him what he willed: synagogues and statues, basins like wells and boilers built into the ground. Give thanks, O House of David! Few of My bondmen are thankful (Q 34: 13). 53 And though thou try much, most men will not believe (Q 12: 103). 54 (David) said: He hath wronged thee in demanding thine ewe in addition to his ewes, and lo! many partners oppress one another, save such as believe and do good works, and they are few. And David guessed that We had tried him, and he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he bowed himself and fell down prostrate and repented (Q 38: 24). 55 (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him (Q 11: 40). For the quote, see Kitāb Sulaym, p. 843. 56 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 843.

94  Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism 57 Al-Īḍāḥ, p. 55 and p. 125. Also see Kohlberg, ‘In praise of the few’, p. 155. 58 Traditions included by al-Barqī regarding the exalted status of the Shiʿis are quoted in the last chapter; more specifically see al-Maḥāsin, pp. 132–136. These traditions focus on the idea of ʿillīyūn and mīthāq to give a special status to Shiʿis against the nonShiʿis. As far as this research has been able to probe Al-Kulaynī’s al-Kāfī, the ideas of ʿillīyūn and mīthāq are not as conspicuous as in al-Maḥāsin. 59 On the understanding of the term al-muʾmin (the faithful believer) in the early Shiʿism, see Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, p. 146, n.43. In al-Kāfī, the term al-muʾmin refers to a true Shiʿi as distinguished from the term muslim which is a reference to a member of the Muslim community in whole. Al-Uṣul 3, pp. 39–42. 60 Kohlberg has made this point by relying on the ways in which the Shiʿis at the onset of the Major Occultation were arguing with their Ḥanbalī opponents. Instead of saying that God praises the few, the Shiʿis were arguing that truth lies with great numbers. For more information, see Kohlberg, ‘In praise of the few’, p. 155–156. 61 Akhbāriyya and Uṣūliyya are two schools of imāmī (Twelver) Shiʿi thought, sometimes translated as ‘traditionist’ and ‘rationalist’, respectively. Imāmī writers usually trace the beginning of this dispute to the work of the Iranian scholar Muḥammad Amīn al-Astarābādī (d. 1036/1627). For a discussion on these two schools, see Robert M. Gleave, ‘Akhbāriyya and Uṣūliyya’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​ _ei3​_COM​_0029 (consulted online on 13 December 2020). Also see Robert Gleave, Inevitable Doubt, Two Theories of Shiʿi Jurisprudence (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2000); Devin J. Stewart, Islamic Legal Orthodoxy, Twelver Shiite Responses to the Sunni Legal System (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998); and Andrew J. Newman, ‘The nature of The Akhbārī/Uṣūlī dispute in late Ṣafawid Iran’, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 55 (1992), pp. 250–261. 62 Ijmāʿ (consensus) is a technical term in Islamic jurisprudence (uṣūl al-fiqh). Opposed to khilāf (dissent, disagreement), ijmāʿ is defined by most jurists as the unanimous agreement of authoritative Muslim jurists on a given point of the law. To read more about ijmāʿ, see Devin J. Stewart, ‘Ejmāʿ’, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 8, Fasc. 3, pp. 275–278. The opinions of the jurists concerning the role played by ijmāʿ are diverse. For instance, for al-Ghazālī, all religious questions could be decided based on ijmāʿ. There are, however, religious questions which are not subject to a legal ruling and on which ijmāʿ cannot provide a decision, because they depend directly upon the revelation which provides the basis for ijmāʿ. For al-Juwaynī, ijmāʿ is agreement on a ḥukm sharʿī. In brief, the role of ijmāʿ is to decide in juridical questions of theory or practice concerning the behaviour of the believer, in so far as he is subject to the rules of conduct laid down by God and His Prophet. However, ijtihād (jurisprudence) and raʾy (opinion) are only required in special cases. In these cases, it falls to the mujtahid (jurist) to settle the matter. For more information, see M. Bernand, ‘Idjmāʿ’, in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 1023–1026. The akhbārīs held that the only valid ijmāʿ was that which incorporated the views of the imāms as laid down in ḥadīth. To read more about this, see Stewart, Islamic Legal Orthodoxy, pp. 175–208. Also see McDermott, The theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022), pp. 287–288; Kohlberg, ‘In praise of the few’, p. 156. 63 Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh, vol. iii, p. 139. 64 Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 65. 65 For a detailed discussion on the khārijīs’ usage of the term based mainly on mentioned primary sources, see Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 65–67. Also see al-Masʿūdī, Murūj, vol. v. 2, p. 405, where the author notes that it was after the arbitration that members of the community began to mutually dissociate from one another. Also see al-Minqarī, Waqʿāt Ṣiffīn, pp. 201–202. Al-Kashshī, al-Rijāl, p. 64, for a report that Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr gave the bayʿa to ʿAlī while dissociating from his own father. 66 Kitāb Sulaym, p. 848

Development of Walāya in Formative Shiʿism  95 67 In Kitāb Sulaym the notion of walāya is associated with the notion of barāʾa as well as ʿadāwa. Several traditions appear in Kitāb Sulaym to establish this association without treating it as a matter of belief or unbelief. For instance, in reference to one’s behaviour with ahl al-bayt, the Prophet is quoted to have said: ‘You are not to be inimical to them and do not keep away (barāʾa) from them, and do not establish enmity (ʿadāwa) towards them, for you are ignorant of what the people of Grace and walāya are like’, Kitāb Sulaym, p. 928. Several such traditions appear in Kitāb Sulaym. Also see Kitāb Sulaym, p. 858. 68 The imāms made barāʾa/ʿadāwa for various reasons, an article of faith. The barāʾa/ʿadāwa was also expressed as a wrong against the Companions, sabb al-ṣaḥāba, which was aimed especially at Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān. See E. Kohlberg, ‘Some Imāmī Shiʿi views on the Ṣaḥāba’, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 5 (1984), p. 145. Also see his article ‘Barāʾa in Shiʿi Doctrine’, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 7 (1986), pp. 139–175. 69 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 13. 70 These are the names of the groups of the followers after the succession crisis following the death of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765). See E. Kohlberg, ‘Mūsā al-Kāẓim’, in EI2, vol. vii, pp. 646–648. 71 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 150. 72 Amir-Moezzi, ‘Notes on Imāmī Walāya’, p. 265. 73 Amir-Moezzi. ‘Notes on Imāmī Walāya’, p. 267. 74 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 153. The word ‘bughḍ’ is also used along with barāʾa/ʿadāwa. Also see al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 246–247. 75 Dakake provides a detailed discussion on the relationship between faith and the concepts of walāya and its degrees. She shows that from the time of al-Ṣādiq onwards, there appear traditions that convey the elite identification of Shiʿis with the true believers (muʾminūn), indicating walāya towards ʿAlī and the ahl al-bayt as the essential parameter of īmān (faith). But it is notable that once this identification was established, the concept of walāya was shadowed by that of īmān as the chief signifier of Shiʿi identity. It can be said that there developed two types of walāya: (1) walāya which referred to a simple and general attachment to the ahl al-bayt and (2) walāya which referred to the absolute obedience to both the individual person and the precise doctrinal positions of the imām. This resulted in the development of an internal hierarchy among the Shiʿis. This hierarchy among Shiʿis themselves and recognition of degrees between simple attachment to the ahl al-bayt and true Shiʿi belief resulted in transition from walāya to īmān as the primary term relating to membership in the Shiʿi community. Refer to Dakake, Charismatic Community, ch. 10. 76 Al-Maḥāsin, p. 286; al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 22–24; Kohlberg, ‘Some Imāmi Shiʿi Views on the Ṣaḥāba’, p. 81, n. 4. 77 Al-Uṣūl 3, pp. 29–38. 78 Al-Uṣūl 2, p. 22; al-Maḥāsin, p. 286. 79 Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 114. 80 Al-Uṣūl 1, pp. 437–438. 81 Al-Kulaynī reports a tradition from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, indicating the connection between the Ghadīr Khumm and daʿāʾim traditions saying: ‘Verily God required five religious duties of His creatures, He sent an easement for four of them, but not for one of them’ (al-Uṣūl 2, p. 26). Similar theme is reported by al-Mufīd. He reports a tradition from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who was one of the major transmitters of the Ghadīr Khumm, saying: ‘people were commanded to perform five obligatory acts, of which they perform four [ṣalāt, zakāt, ṣawm and ḥajj] and neglect one [walāya]’. See al-Mufīd, Taṣḥīh al-Iʿtiqād, p. 102; also see al-Maḥāsin, p. 286 and Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 114. 82 Shahāda, literally means ‘to be present (somewhere) as opposed to ghāba (be absent), see with one’s own eyes, be witness, bear witness, attest, certify’. In the religious sense,

96  Development of  Walāya in Formative Shiʿism shahāda refers to the Islamic profession of faith, the act of declaring ‘There is no god but God, and Muḥammad is the Messenger of God’. Sometimes, one speaks in this case of shahādatayn (the two shahādas). See D. Gimaret, ‘Shahāda’, in EI2, vol. ix, p. 201. 83 The most remarkable feature of traditions regarding the pillars of Islam is the absence of shahādatayn, which had been recognized as the first pillar of Islam in both Sunni and Shiʿi doctrinal formulations. Majlisī raised this concern about this exclusion in his Biḥār al-Anwār and gave three probable explanations for the exclusion of the shahādatayn in the daʿāʾim traditions and concluded that those five elements, i.e. prayer, almsgiving, fasting, pilgrimage, and walāya, are themselves pillars of the shahāda. See Muḥammad Bāqir Majlisī, Biḥār al-Anwār (Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyya, 1957–1973), vol. 27, p. 134, and vol. 68, pp. 329–330. It is perhaps not surprising, given that Majlisī was one of the major Shiʿi authorities of the Safavid period, during which the walāya of ʿAlī was actively endorsed as a third tenet of the Shiʿi shahāda and was included in the Shiʿi adhān, or call to prayer, as part of the Ṣafawid dynasty’s attempt to establish Shiʿism as the official religion of their empire. For detailed discussion on this, see Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 115–118. 84 Al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 24–25; Dakake writes that it was al-Ṣādiq’s habit to avoid openly acknowledging that he was the imām. Therefore, he does not mention his own name in this tradition. See Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 117. For the primary references, see al-Kāfī, al-Uṣūl 2, pp. 24–25 and al-ʿAyyāshī, Tafsīr, vol. 1, p. 252. 85 Naṣṣ is ‘a religio-legal term. The meaning of the root appears to be “to raise,” especially “to elevate a thing so that it is visible to all.” The word does not occur with this sense in either Qurʾan or ḥadīth, but it may be etymologically connected with naṣaba. In the technical vocabulary of uṣūl al-fiqh, the term refers to a text whose presence in either Qurʾan or ḥadīth must be demonstrated to justify an alleged ruling … To be noted also is the labelling of the Shiʿi principle that the Prophet had designated ʿAlī to be his successor as naṣṣ wa-taʿyīn’. See this quote in A.J. Wensinck and J. Burton, ‘Naṣṣ’, in EI2 (Leiden and New York: Brill, 1993), vol. vii, p. 1029. 86 Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 117. 87 For more details, see Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 118. 88 With this idea of imāma, Dakake writes: ‘The sectarian division between Shiʿis and other theological schools could be more or less limited to the parameters within which one defined the imāmate, such as: the necessary qualities the imām should possess, the extent and source of his religious knowledge, and the degree to which obedience to him was absolute or conditional’. Dakake thinks that this idea of ʿadāwa or barāʾa fitted very well with ‘the heroic period of Shiʿi-inspired anti-Umayyad rebellion that reached its climax in the third decade of the second century and culminated in the Abbasid revolution’. See Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 118. Also see Jafri, The Origins and Early Development of Shiʿa Islam, p. 293. 89 Dakake, Charismatic Community, p. 118. 90 The walī/imām in the ultimate reality of his being ‘is the locus for the manifestation of God (maẓhar, majlā), the vehicle of the divine Names and Attributes (al-asmāʾ waʾl ṣifāt)’. ‘By God, imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq is said to have declared, we (the imāms) are the Most Beautiful Names (of God)’. See Al-Uṣūl 1, p. 296; Amir-Moezzi, ‘Notes on Imāmī Walāya’, p. 249 and p. 254. 91 Amir-Moezzi, ‘Notes on Imāmī Walāya’, p. 248. 92 See Kohlberg, ‘In Praise of the Few’, pp. 149–162.

3

Walāya in Formative Sufism

Western scholarship on the concept of walāya in the field of Sufism hitherto has mostly focused on the teaching of Ibn ʿArabī, in particular his theory of the hierarchy of awliyāʾ Allāh. There is a wide range of studies on the concept of walāya within the field of Sufi hermeneutics with scholars, such as Paul Nwyia,1 Gerhard Böwering,2 Pierre Lory,3 and Annabel Keeler,4 writing on the Sufi commentaries of the Qurʾan. For the earlier period, which is the main concern of this study, the concept of walāya is treated to some extent within the writings of Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī. Less attention has been paid to other writers of the formative period, such as al-Tustarī and al-Kharrāz. Overall, there are only a handful of studies focusing exclusively on the subject of walāya within the formative period of Sufism. Radtke dismisses the common view that the rise of the awliyāʾ and the origins of Islamic teachings concerning the concept of the awliyāʾ Allāh are ‘an outgrowth of a so-called folk Islam’.5 In order to provide a better historical account of such development, Radtke distinguishes three periods or phases in the emergence of Islamic sources that deal with early Sufism. The first phase consists in the production of collections containing the lists of the names of pious personalities as well as anecdotes about their life, i.e., the genre of writing tadhkirat al-awliyāʾs. The second phase includes separate dicta and personal views classified according to particular themes, for instance, the writings of Ibn Abī Dunyā (d. 281/894). According to Radtke, Ibn Abī Dunyā put together the earliest surviving compilation which deals with the subject of awliyāʾ Allāh in his Kitāb al-Awliyāʾ. This process continued throughout the third/ninth century. Compilations such as the one of Ibn Abī Dunyā’s Kitāb al-Awliyāʾ were incorporated into extensive collections such as the Ḥilyat al-Awlīyaʾ (Ornaments of the Saints) of Abu Nuʿaym during the fourth/tenth and fifth/eleventh centuries. He explains that the early compilations of this kind do not appear to employ a structured discourse or clear principle for ordering the materials they present and do not project a coherent picture.6 The situation changed with the preserved texts of al-Kharrāz, al-Tustarī, and al-Tirmidhī by the second half of the third/ninth century. Similar to the exercise in Chapter 1, this chapter examines the concept of walāya in the earliest Sufi works. Within the scope of this research there are three major texts concerned with the subject of walāya: Kitāb al-Ṣidq7 by Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz DOI:  10.4324/9781003366416-4

98  Walāya in Formative Sufism (d. 286/899), Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-ʿaẓīm8 by Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), and al-Tirmidhī’s (d. 295–300/907–912) Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ.9 The earliest extant work which deals with the subject of awliyāʾ is Kitāb al-Awliyāʾ by Ibn Abī Dunyā (d. 281/894).10 Ibn Abī Dunyā’s Kitāb al-Awliyāʾ is mainly concerned with the life of those regarded as awliyāʾ, rather than providing an exposition of the ideas associated with the concept of walāya. For this reason, this work is not considered within the scope of this research. Ibn Abī Dunyā’s work gives an indication that the aspects related to the concepts of walāya were already being discussed and transmitted among the Sufis during his lifetime. However, the work doesn’t put these ideas together to form a coherent picture.11 Another candidate for an early Sufi work is al-Muḥāsibī (d. 243/857) whose extant work Kitāb al-Riʿāya li-Ḥuqūq Allāh is considered as one of the earliest works on moral psychology.12 Important as it is, the work does not deal directly with the subject of walāya. Al-Muḥāsibī’s concern is rather the servitude of the carnal soul and calling to account the stations and moments of egoism and arrogance. To this end, he discusses hypocrisy (riyāʾ), pride (kibr), vanity (ʿujb), and self-delusion (ghirra), among other moral evils, and the place for fear of God (taqwā), repentance (tawba), and hope (rajā).13 A dedicated discussion related to walāya within Sufism starts with the work of al-Kharrāz (d. ca. 286/899) and Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896).14 Another author contemporary to both al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī was the famous Baghdadi Sufi al-Junayd (d. 298/910).15 But, although pivotal in the history of Sufism, he was not a very prolific writer. Only a limited number of short treatises and letters by him are extant, which remarkably touch upon the social and spiritual functions of awliyāʾ and what constitutes the criteria of being a walī. His thoughts will not be considered in this book for two main reasons: first, what al-Junayd says in his small treatises and letters is almost identical to the thoughts of al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī, and second, the concept of walāya in his writings has already been explored and analyzed by Ahmet Karamustafa.16 The next major step was taken by Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī. His main contribution is to treat the notion of prophecy and the status of walī in relation to each other. The ideas and issues he identified, arguably, set the parameters for all later Sufi mystical speculation. The formulation of khātam al-awliyāʾ (seal of the awliyāʾ) appears for the first time in al-Tirmidhī’s work, Sīrat al-awliyāʾ (also known as Khātam al-awliyāʾ). The ‘seal’ (khātam) of awliyāʾ is taken by al-Tirmidhī almost at the same level as the Prophet Muḥammad, who is considered as the seal (khātam) or the ultimate perfecter (khātim) of prophecy. This notion of the ‘seal’ was taken later by Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240) towards the eventual formulation of the concept of the ‘perfect man’ (insān kāmil).17 This chapter focuses on the texts identified above to see how the terminology associated with the concept of walāya is explained in order to get an understanding of the walāya in early Sufi history.

The Concept of Walāya according to Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā al-Kharrāz Abū Saʿīd Aḥmad b. ʿĪsā al-Kharrāz was one of the best known mystics of the School of Baghdad in the third/ninth century.18 He was the disciple of Dhū al-Nūn

Walāya in Formative Sufism  99 al-Miṣrī19 in Egypt and was associated with Sarī al-Saqaṭī, Bishr al-Ḥāfī, and other Sufi Shaykhs (masters).20 It is with al-Kharrāz that we have the earliest extant documentation of the important Sufi terms of fanāʾ (annihilation) and baqāʾ (remaining) as fundamental concepts within Sufism to explain the disappearance and subsistence of all consciousness and its finitude. These terms appear as fundamental in his work and designate the highest stage of the mystic beyond which no created being can reach.21 Al-Kharrāz was the author of several books, but most of his writings are lost. Nevertheless, a considerable number of his sayings and passages from his writings are preserved in various Sufi compendia. As is the case of many of his Sufi contemporaries, very little is known about al-Kharrāz’s life. He was probably born in the early third/ninth century in Baghdad.22 He seems to have practised the trade of cobbling, as he is said to have mended shoes of the poor pilgrims during his pilgrimage to Mecca. At least, his nisba (title), ‘kharrāz’, the cobbler, suggests this. It is said that al-Kharrāz was condemned in Baghdad for his teachings.23 According to Madelung, al-Kharrāz strove to merge ecstatic mysticism with orthodox religious law to affirm that any esoteric (bāṭin) doctrine that contradicts the apparent meaning (ẓāhir) of the law is false.24 He left Baghdad, probably linked with the wave of persecution of the Sufis during the reign of al-Muwaffaq (r. 257–278/871–891), first to Bukhārā and then to Egypt where he lived for the rest of his life.25 The date of his death is uncertain. Arberry accepts the year 286/899, whereas Madelung accepts 289/902.26 Although al-Kharrāz was mentioned by later authors including the names of his pupils, he never established a distinctive school. His contributions to the later development of Sufism, and particularly to the school of Baghdad, are shown by the ample quotations reported from him in the Kitāb al-Lumaʿ of al-Sarrāj27 al-Taʿaruf of al-Kalābādhī (d. 380/990 or 384/994).28 Kitāb al-Ṣidq Arberry writes that Kitāb al-Ṣidq is the only surviving work by al-Kharrāz. The rest of his writings have been lost.29 There is little doubt that al-Kharrāz had studied the work of his great predecessor al-Muḥāsibī and was under his influence.30 The importance of Kitāb al-Ṣidq, apart from the quotations from al-Muḥāsibī, lies in the fact that it is the earliest organized presentation enumerating the distinguishing manners of the Sufis across a wide range of activities written by a practising Sufi.31 The authenticity of the text has been endorsed by L. Massignon who was the first to study it; Arberry too considers it authentic. Arberry mentions that even though the text has not been mentioned by name in any of the Sufi or bibliographical authority and that there is only one copy of the work which has survived by the hand of Ibn ʿArabī’s pupil, Ismāʿīl ibn Sawdakīn al-Nūrī (d. 646/1248), one can take it ‘as permissible to conjecture that the book was a guarded secret of the Sufis, who communicated it to one another privately, without divulging its contents to the general public’. According to Arberry, there are spelling errors in the text that Ismāʿīl ibn Sawdakīn was doubtlessly conscious of but did not attempt

100  Walāya in Formative Sufism to correct, most probably in an attempt to keep true to the archetype from which he copied the text. Arberry admires the clear and unambiguous style of this text which he thinks contrasts favourably with the obscure style of al-Junayd in his letters (and for that matter the terse manner of al-Muḥāsibī).32 Walāya in Kitāb al-Ṣidq The term walāya itself is not mentioned in the text, but there are few occurrences of its cognate terms, awliyāʾ and mawlāʾ. However, this text is important since Kitāb al-Ṣidq provides an early systematic discussion of the stations and states of the Sufi path till a wayfarer reaches the status of ‘nearness to God’ (qurba), including the experience of prophecy and the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ. Al-Kharrāz begins with the idea of sincerity (ṣidq) as a cornerstone of mystical self-discipline within the context of devotion (ikhlāṣ) and patience (ṣabr). The author defines ṣidq as the complete agreement between one’s inner convictions and outward acts, claiming it to be an indispensable condition of the true worship of God and a hallmark of being a genuine Sufi. He constantly refers to the life of the prophets and the men of piety, particularly to the life of Prophet Muḥammad, which for him provides an example of suffering and a model for Sufi spiritual life.33 Stations for the Awliyāʾ To begin, al-Kharrāz divides human beings into four levels: 1. The first group is those whose hearts God has veiled because they prefer this world over the next world. Consequently, they die in a state of sorrow and regret. 2. The second group is those people who fulfil their religious duties but are veiled from God because they submit to Him not entirely out of love for Him, but, rather, out of hope for His rewards. They too leave the world in grief and sorrow for having wasted their lives away. 3. The third group is those who are sincere in worshipping God and those who obtain various spiritual virtues along the way. Even though they yearn to see God, they are still veiled from Him and do not reach the status of proximity to Him. That is because they cannot look beyond their spiritual virtues which preoccupies them and hinders them from acquiring the true knowledge of God. 4. The final group is that of the awliyāʾ Allāh. ‘God gives them knowledge of His kingdom (mulk)’ in order to prepare them so that they may withstand the onslaught of His majesty. This station of proximity to God (maqām al-qurb) bestowed upon His awliyāʾ is only possible when God gazes upon them and is therefore proximate to them through some type of intermediary or veil (hijāb). In other words, a veil

Walāya in Formative Sufism  101 must exist between God and His awliyāʾ, without which the latter will simply perish because their souls will not be able to sustain the weight of the Divine Presence.34 Then he goes to describe a station which will bring a man near to God. Those include stations of fear, hope, trust, love, shame, intimacy, longing, etc. which he explains each in detail. According to al-Kharrāz, if a man is sincere in all stations, he will attain the highest position which is ‘nearness to God’ (qurba) and an exalted rank.35 Al-Kharrāz begins with a premise that all believers are governed by two internal functions: a desire for God’s reward and fear of His wrath and punishment. If the believers are sincere, they are among ‘learned men’ and God implants in their hearts a sure faith.36 Thereafter, the travails of the path begin. Al-Kharrāz identifies main stages/stations that awliyāʾ should pass through before reaching the stage of proximity with God. The scene that al-Kharrāz sets begins with God setting a trial for the wayfarer: God makes beginning with blessing, favour and gift giving him repentance, making him to love penitence and making obedience easy to him. So, God makes beginning with abundant favours. Then when joy is fixed in his heart, and he finds pleasure in performing good acts, thereafter God lays upon him affliction and trial, calamities and hardship, difficulty and stress. Yes, and the sweetness, which formerly he tasted, and the joy in piety, these are taken from him: obedience becomes burdensome to him, though formerly it was easy, and he experiences bitterness after sweetness, sloth after alacrity, dullness after clarity: all this is by reason of the affliction and the trial. Then weariness comes upon him. But if now he is steadfast and patient and endures this unpleasantness, he afterwards comes to the bound of ease and attainment, and this grace is increased manifold, both outward and inward.37 At the beginning of the journey, after going through obedience and performing good acts, when the wayfarer reaches a certain level of joy, God takes this pleasure from him and abandons all his favours until the wayfarer goes through the stages of hardship, difficulty, and stress to such an extent that obedience becomes burdensome to him. Now if the wayfarer is steadfast and patient and endures this unpleasantness, he is rewarded with the grace of God. If all through this stage, the wayfarer maintains truthfulness, only then God’s grace comes to him at the next stage: He makes beginning with truthfulness and good acts and all the characteristics of truthfulness, then he practices therein as God wills: and thereafter grace comes to him, and God gives him what he had never hoped for or reckoned with. So it is with the majority of distinguished awliyāʾ: signs and graces come not upon them, until they have practiced, to the utmost of their power: when God makes beginning with them, He does not then accord them the greater part of what they had never reckoned with.38

102  Walāya in Formative Sufism Therefore, if a wayfarer enjoins truthfulness and passes through all the stations with piety and finds joy therein, and God sees him that he is striving after God to the utmost of his capabilities, only then he is blessed with grace that can give the wayfarer the chance to claim the proximity to God.39 All the stations of godliness—abstinence, patience, trust, fear, hope, respect, shame, love, yearning, intimacy, truthfulness, and sincerity—are the stations which lead to the final station which is proximity with God and are characteristics of the awliyāʾ: Godliness, abstinence, patience, sincerity, truthfulness, trust, confidence, love, yearning, intimacy, all fine characteristics, all the characteristics of theirs which cannot be described together with that piety and generosity which they have made their abode. All this is with them, dwelling in their natures, hidden in their souls: nothing else finds them good, for this is their food and their habitude. This, they imposed on themselves as a duty, and therein practiced, until they become familiar with it: after they had attained, they no longer felt the performance and practice of this to be a labour, since it dwells [in them] at every time and in every state - for this was their food - even as in the discharge of their religious duties they experienced neither heaviness nor exertion: so overwhelmed were their hearts by God’s preference and nearness. To practice this was no burden to them and it entailed no preoccupation with outward acts: for service and outward acts only affect the outward members. Understand well this point. Thereafter their hearts were wholly oblivious – nay, they were wholly occupied with God: for God’s nearness overmastered them and His love, the yearning after Him and the fear of Him, reverence for Him, and respect.40 In sum, al-Kharrāz believes that there are two ways, or rather two levels, to go through this journey. One way is for a wayfarer to become familiar with God’s decrees so that he can perform the duties required of him based on God’s command. There are benefits of following the path in this manner, but it has shortcomings too. Such a wayfarer for al-Kharrāz is unstable in his comportment. Sometimes he is patient, sometimes he is not, sometimes he is pleased, and at other times he is angry. This kind of journey does indeed bring God’s reward and mercy but only with trouble, hardship, and labour.41 The second manner of making this journey for the wayfarer is to become familiar with God’s decrees and find pleasure in His affliction, being satisfied with His temperament and choice, utterly and without reverse. For the wayfarer is now familiar with God and in his recollection of God, he loves (ḥubb) Him, cherishes Him, and is content with Him.42 This is still not the end of the journey. There is another step still remaining. According to al-Kharrāz, the most important step to take is to gain knowledge of God.43 If the wayfarer has come no more to seek after truthfulness and like matters, because God’s nearness is so real to him and his existence is wholly occupied with Him, then this is the stage where he possesses the gnosis of God. He has reached his Lord.44 He is a distinguished walī.

Walāya in Formative Sufism  103 Awliyāʾ, Knowledge, and Hierarchy Al-Kharrāz, as seen above, starts his argument on the basis of the psychological states of desire/hope and fear.45 Also, there is a sort of ranking hierarchy among the awliyāʾ in this treatise. Despite his vagueness, this treatise conveys a sort of hierarchy among the awliyāʾ based on the knowledge of God: Another man has unending grace in the reward of God, and bliss in Paradise. Another has unending grace in God Himself and an increase of His goodness and regard. It is a true story of the Prophet that he said: “Of the people of Paradise he is least in rank who looks about his kingdom two thousand years, to see it from end to end”. Another man looks upon the face of God twice in every day. Now it is absurd [to say] that all these are equal, or that their knowledge of God in this world was equal. God says: “And We did prefer some of the prophets over others”. Surprisingly, among men accords only with superiority in their knowledge and gnosis of God; according to their degree in these men differ from one another in this world and the next. God is [our] help.46 Another noticeable component of al-Kharrāz’s understanding of awliyāʾ’s hierarchy is that throughout his discussion of knowledge as the highest stage obtained by the awliyāʾ, he does not talk about revelation. He does not discuss the manner in which God reveals knowledge of Himself, His will, and His divine providence to the wayfarer. For al-Kharrāz, the achievement of gnosis is a human process, and a truthful wayfarer is capable of achieving it. Gnosis is available and can be attained by any man. The final status of nearness to God comes not from divine knowledge, but rather from the human understanding of God and prophecy through attentiveness, understanding, and comprehension. He writes: And I will mention to thee yet another station: wherefore turn thyself attentively thereto, and any other man though seest refereeing to gnosis and knowledge and repose in God. If thou hast drunk the cup of the gnosis of God, if God has given thee to realize, through pure faith, what was already in eternity laid up for thee with Him,… then now within thee gratitude is stirred for all his favours, now love cleaves to thy heart for all his favours. Him thou prefferest and in Him thy spirit is rejoiced, and with His nearness thou are familiar. Now thou comest unto Him taking refuge, and dwelling in nearness to Him: henceforward He will not be absent from thee, and thou wilt not lose Him, whether going or coming, standing or sitting, walking or sleeping, in every state.47 Know that the prophets and the learned and pious men who came after them, were the trustees of God’s secret in His earth, and of His commandment, prohibition and knowledge: they were His depositaries, and for His sake counselled those whom He created and made. For they understood God’s commandment and prohibition, and comprehended why He created

104  Walāya in Formative Sufism them, what he desired of them, and to what He called them. They were agreeable to His desire and entered into every matter according to His will. So, they stood in the station of intelligent servants, accepting [the word] of God, and preserving His testament. They hearkened unto Him with the ears of their understandings attentive, and their hearts pure, and fell not short of His calling. For they heard God saying: ‘believe in God and His Apostle and expend of that wherein He hath made you to be successors.’ God also says: ‘then made We you their successors in the earth after them, that We may see how ye will act’.48 God indeed bestows grace and guidance, but He does not bestow knowledge. Even though it is ultimately through God’s Will that the wayfarer/walī gains nearness to God, the requirement of following through all the stations in truthfulness and making oneself capable of realizing and knowing God is the task of man and within his capability. Whatever man possesses is from God, even the capability of comprehension; nevertheless, the task of comprehension is man’s own. How glorious then is thy occupation, O man, and how splendid thy engagement! For the Master, noble, great exalted, rich, praiseworthy, has recollected thee again and again: thee He singled out, to shower on thee His amplest bounty, when He guided thee to love Him, so that thou didst prefer Him, and He became thy ambition and desire, and the object of thy yearning. Nothing that thou possessed is due to men, for all that thou hast is a gift [from God].49 This will bring him in this fleeting world to a high station, and a knowledge of God, and a noble station, so that he will pass on to joy, ease, and in bliss in the gnosis of God, having attained nearness to God, and reached a noble rank too fine to be described and certain man who knew God said: ‘God bestows on the awliyāʾ a grace which [His] servants cannot comprehend, either in this world or in the world to come’. Hast thou not heard the word of God? ‘No soul knoweth what delight is kept secret for them’.50 The other theme regarding the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ is the similarity of ranks between the awliyāʾ and prophets. Al-Kharrāz quotes from the Qurʾan that God did prefer some of the prophets over others (Q 17:57)51 and upon this verse, he claims that supremacy among men accords only with supremacy in their knowledge of God, and therefore, according to their degree in this knowledge, men differ from one another in this world and the next. As it was for prophets, so it is for all men. Hast thou not heard what is related of the prophet? He said: ‘Mine eyes sleep, but my heart does not sleep’. So it is with all believers, according to their degrees.52 By juxtaposing decrees concerning prophets with those of the awliyāʾ, al-Kharrāz gives a sense of resemblance between prophets and the awliyāʾ:

Walāya in Formative Sufism  105 Then it is that truthfulness and its characteristics become part of his nature: nothing but this finds he good, and with this only he associates for he is content with naught else. Then he is clothed with his Lord’s protection: then the strategy of his enemy loses its power, and is overthrown, for his false incitements perish, and all his armour, when evil desire dies, and the carnal soul is fettered, so that it puts on the character of those on whom God has had mercy. God says, in the story of Joseph: ‘For the soul is very urgent to evil, save as my Lord has mercy’. The souls of the prophets and true believers were under God’s mercy and protection, and so is every believer, according to the power of his faith.53 It is not difficult to conclude that in al-Kharrāz’s view the awliyāʾ’s journey to proximity with God follows the footpaths of the prophets. It seems in his view that neither prophethood nor walāya is superior to one another.54 Now the confirmation of this is to be found in the Book and the Prophetic Practice. God says: ‘But those who labour for Us, We will surely guide them in our paths, and verily God is with the righteous doers Again’, God says: ‘God promises those of you who believe and do right that he will give them the succession in the earth, as he did with those before them, and He will surely establish for them their religion which He has approved for them’ … God says further: ‘And we appointed among them leaders to guide at our bidding, for that they were patient’ in the loss of this world. We only desired to prove that a man must strive with his soul and labour his utmost to be truthful; and that after this, help comes from God. The proof of this is to be found in the Prophet’s own practices.55 In sum, it can be said that in this treatise when al-Kharrāz speaks of the awliyāʾ and ‘nearness to God’, he is talking about two themes: firstly, the station of nearness to God is the highest station which is clearly open to all mankind and not restricted to the prophets. Secondly, al-Kharrāz analyzes this status of nearness to God in a manner that leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader that the possibility of walāya is open for everyone, provided they are wayfarers on the path of truth. If the wayfarer is sincere and passes through all stations which are set for him by God successfully, he can attain the status of awliyāʾ Allāh.

The Concept of Walāya according to Sahl al-Tustarī Abū Muḥammad Sahl b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Yūnus b. ʿĪsā b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Rafīʿ was an influential Sufi in the third/ninth century. A native of the town Tustar (pronounced as Shūshtar in Persian)56 in southwest Iran, he was one of the prominent personalities in Islamic history.57 He founded the Sālimiyya theological school, which was named after his disciple Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Sālim (d. 356/967).58 Al-Tustarī is most famous for his controversial claim that ‘I am the Proof of God for the created beings and I am a proof for the saints (awliyāʾ) of my time’59 and for his Tafsīr, a commentary on certain verses of the Qurʾan.60

106  Walāya in Formative Sufism The year of al-Tustarī’s birth in the fortress of Tustar near Ahwāz in Khūzistān province in Southern Iran cannot be established with precision, but most sources agree on a date between 200/818 and 203/818.61 Al-Tustarī spent about 20 years in his hometown, where he emerged with a teaching of his own by the time of Dhuʾl-Nūn al-Miṣrī’s death in 245/860. He gathered a group of disciples around him, and the most prominent of them were Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Sālim al-Baṣrī (d. 297/909) and al-Ḥallāj (d. 309/922). He was sent to exile from his hometown for political or doctrinal reasons and thereafter resided in Basra. In some sources, it is mentioned that he settled in Basra in early 263/877,62 whereas other sources suggest that he had settled there as early as 258/871.63 In Basra, al-Tustarī was welcomed by Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī64 (d. 275/889) but because of his claim to be ‘the proof of God’ (ḥujjat Allāh), became involved in religious controversy with Abū Yaḥyā Zakariyyāʾ al-Sājī (d. 307/909) and also with Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Zubayrī (d. 317/929), two leading Shāfiʿī scholars of the city.65 Al-Tustarī spent the rest of his life in Basra and died in 283/896.66 His grave in Basra seems to have survived for many centuries and was witnessed by travellers such as Ibn Baṭṭuṭa (d. 770/1368)67 and historians such as Muḥammad al-Maqqarī (d. 1041/1632),68 who have mentioned al-Tustarī’s grave inside the old wall of Basra.69 There are a number of works attributed to al-Tustarī in the Islamic bibliographical literature, most of which are not extant. Numerous excerpts from these works have been integrated into later Sufi sources. Böwering has shown that a major part of his works that has come down to us remains authentic. He demonstrates that al-Tustarī’s main writings were compiled by his disciples. He shows that these writings rest on al-Tustarī’s oral teachings and thus, the ‘al-Tustarī tradition’ should be considered largely authentic, even if substantial parts of it were collected and compiled by his close associates.70 Two of his surviving works are Kitāb Faḥm al-Qurʾan, also known as Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm, and a collection of al-Tustarī’s sayings in three parts with the commentary of Abuʾl-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṣiqillī (d. ca. 386/996).71 These sources provide a fragmentary yet substantive picture of al-Tustarī’s mystical theory and practice. Al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm The Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm of al-Tustarī is a remarkable text. It is among the earliest extant Sufi commentaries on the Qurʾan ascribed to a single author. This book does not contain interpretations of every single verse of the Qurʾan. Instead, amounting to around 1,000 verses in total, it provides comments on a selection of verses or parts of verses from all the sūras of the Qurʾan.72 The authenticity of the Tafsīr has been examined by Böwering in detail, which this research relies on. He observes three layers in the Tafsīr: the first layer is al-Tustarī’s comments on the Qurʾanic verses; the second layer is sayings and idioms on mystical subjects along with literature taken from the stories of the prophets; and the third layer embodies further additions into the text by later copyist and editors with extra exegetical material from the Qurʾan and the prophetic

Walāya in Formative Sufism  107 traditions, poems, and stories from the life of al-Tustarī himself. By studying both the external and internal evidence for judging the authenticity of the work,73 Böwering confirms the first two layers as genuinely authored by al-Tustarī and considered as authentic.74 Walāya in al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr In his Tafsīr, al-Tustarī is concerned about the status of the mystic in this world as well as in an archetypal world and attempts to establish who the awliyāʾ are and how one can reach to the status of a walī.75 Aspect of Creation and Emanation One of the major discussions in Tafsīr regarding the ontology and epistemology of the awliyāʾ is the story of creation. Al-Tustarī merges the idea of divine light as mentioned in the Qurʾan with the Qurʾanic story of creation to say how the awliyāʾ came into being. The first to be created was the Prophet Muḥammad who was created from God’s own Light (nūr). For al-Tustarī, this light (nūr Muḥammadī) is the primal source of mankind. To frame this archetypal and rather complicated world, al-Tustarī starts with God Himself. To explain the nature of God, he focuses on the interpretation of the following Qurʾanic verse: Allāh is the Light (nūr) of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light (mathalu nūrihī) is as a niche (mishkāt) wherein is a lamp (miṣbāḥ). The lamp is in a glass (zujāja). The glass is as it were a shining star (kawkab durrīyun). (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree (shajara mubāraka), an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil (zayt) would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allāh guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allāh speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allāh is Knower of all things. (Q 24:35) In al-Tustarī’s interpretation of the verse quoted above, God, in His absolute oneness and transcendent reality, is the ‘inaccessible mystery of divine light’. From His light, God creates the light of Muḥammad (nūr Muḥammad)76 which is created in the ‘likeness’ of God’s Light.77 The foundation of nūr Muḥammad in preexistence is depicted as a shining mass (zuqāq) of primordial admiration in the presence of God which takes the shape of a column (ʿamūd) of divine light and constitutes Muḥammad as the prime expression of God. Al-Tustarī says: The seed (dhurriyya) includes three [parts], a first, second and third: the first is Muḥammad, for when God, Lofty is He, wanted to create Muḥammad, He made appear (aẓhara) a light from His light, and when it reached the veil of divine majesty (ʿaẓama) it prostrated before God, and from that prostration God created an massive crystal-like column of light, that was inwardly

108  Walāya in Formative Sufism (ẓāhir) and outwardly (bāṭin) translucent, and within it was the essence of Muḥammad.78 The crystal-like column of divine light in al-Tustarī’s imaginary cosmos represents Muḥammad as the first creation in the pre-existent world. Al-Tustarī describes Muḥammad’s primordial contemplation of God as an act in which he absorbs the divine attributes within the very nature of his heart: Then it [crystal-like column of light] stood in service before the Lord of the Worlds for a million years with the vital characteristics of faith.79 The Prophet in his essential nature as ‘light’ was the primal archetypal origin of mankind. He absorbed the Light of God like a crystal and projected it eternally onto the rest of creation. After Muḥammad stood as a column of light before God in pre-eternal admiration, God created Adam from the light of Muḥammad.80 Not only Adam is created from Muḥammad’s light, but the entire creation participates in this emanation of light. The light of the prophets (nūr al-anbiyāʾ) is from Muḥammad’s light including the exalted archetypal awliyāʾ, as well as the light of the heavenly kingdom (malakūt), the lower world (dunyā), and the world to come (ākhira).81 The spiritual masters and divinely desired (murādūn) and spiritual disciples (murīdūn) also take part in this emanation, although the murādūn directly emanate from Muḥammad’s light, whereas murīdūn issue from Adam’s light (nūr Ādam). The children of Adam proceed from the seeds or specks (dhurrīya) of Adam.82 Aspect of Primordial Covenant Once man is sent to the lower world he is put into a trial. The mystic must face this trial and pass through the mystical stations and experience the struggles within his soul. On the final stage of this journey towards God, man is to live in the eternal life with God as one of His awliyāʾ. It appears that in al-Tustarī’s mystical perspective, the course of man’s existence is drawn out between two fundamental events antecedent and subsequent to his life in the world of creation, i.e., between the Day of Covenant (yawm al-mīthāq) and the Day of Resurrection (yawm al-qiyāma) in which al-Tustarī allocated special places for the prophets and the awliyāʾ Allāh. Al-Tustarī establishes his idea of covenant based on the famous Qurʾanic verse, namely Q 7:172.83 On the day of primordial covenant (yawm al-mīthāq), which al-Tustarī also calls ‘the day of the specks’ (yawm aldharr), God took the covenant (mīthāq) from the prophets (anbiyāʾ). From this covenant, God established His command (amr) and prohibition (nahy) before His prophets and summoned them all to profess His Lordship (rubūbīyya). Then, upon their profession of God’s lordship, God instructed the prophets to preach His command (amr) and prohibition (nahy), to support one another and to believe in Muḥammad. After this, God summoned the whole of mankind from the loins of their primordial prophets:84

Walāya in Formative Sufism  109 Then He returned them to the loins of Adam, and subsequently He sent the prophets to remind them of His Pact and Covenant.85 This ultimate task, the launch of prophethood in pre-existence, concluded with the creation of man and with it a definition of the mission of prophecy. In al-Tustarī’s view, man’s perfection lies in remembering and fulfilling his primordial covenant with God, and the prophets and the awliyāʾ are tasked with the mission to remind man of his primordial perfection.86 Aspect of Gnosis and Knowledge Apart from the light of Muḥammad, there is another central element that plays a crucial role in the story of creation as well as the destiny of the world. That is the heart of Muḥammad (qalb Muḥammad). This element for al-Tustarī is the seat and foundation of sacred and mystical union: He made the gushing forth of the wellsprings of the heart (qalb) of Muḥammad with the lights of knowledge of different kinds a [sign of] mercy for his nation … For the light of the prophets is from his [Muḥammad’s] light, the light of the heavenly dominions is from his light and the light of this world and the Hereafter is from his light.87 There are numerous references in Tafsīr to the notion of Muḥammad’s heart. His heart, full of divine love and knowledge becomes the wellspring for the illumination of the hearts of men.88 In the introductory chapters of the Tafsīr, al-Tustarī demonstrates this fundamental function of Muḥammad’s heart by his interpretation of the Qurʾanic verses, namely Q 11:40,89 Q 7: 157,90 and Q 26:193.91 Based on these verses, al-Tustarī, on the one hand, interprets Muḥammad’s heart as the organ of spiritual vision which absorbs the divine manifestation92 and the source of man’s mystical union with the divine reality, and on the other hand, as the ‘wellspring of divine knowledge’.93 Al-Tustarī perceives Muḥammad’s heart as a pre-figuration of the perfection of man’s destiny: the union of the mystic with the divine reality made manifest, filled with the realities of divine knowledge and love, it becomes the source of elucidation and saturation for the mystic.94 After elaborating how man is created ‘from the clay of Might (ṭīn al-ʿizza) originated in the light of Muḥammad’, al-Tustarī continues to introduce the notion of human soul (nafs): He created Adam from the clay of might consisting of the light of Muḥammad, and He informed him that his self which incites evil (al-nafs al-ammāra biʾlsūʾ) would be his worst enemy, and that He had created it so that he conduct it [on the path] to Him, according to his knowledge of it, regarding notions (khawāṭir) and impulses (himam) [which arise in it], and that he [Adam] conduct it in such a way as to remain utterly dependent on Him, seeking refuge in Him.95

110  Walāya in Formative Sufism The above passage shows that al-Tustarī understands nafs as the locus of intimate dialogue between God and man and the secret that God entrusted to man. Based on the Qurʾanic verse ‘and who preserves their trust (amānat) and their covenant (ʿahd)’,96 al-Tustarī suggests that this secret was enshrined in man from the Day of Covenant in pre-existence. For al-Tustarī, man is capable of being aware of the secret of the nafs, but not all men realize the full extent of their own intrinsic nature. Al-Tustarī gives examples of Firʿaun (Pharaoh) and Balʿam as representing those who have failed to attain the full awareness of man’s inmost secret. In his view, Pharaoh speaks a hidden truth but for the wrong reason, or, as Böwering puts it, Firʿaun is … the prototype of a man who, in his claim to divinity, gives expression to the secret of thee, but confuses the human ego with the divine, and thus fails to realize the faith in God to which he is summoned by the prophetic speech and symbolic actions of Mūsa.97 The mystic, on the Day of Covenant, receives maʿrifa and through the vision of this maʿrifa, the mystic not only perceives mystical knowledge but also recognizes and confesses his fundamental state as a creature before God’s sovereignty.98 Gnosis (maʿrifa), which Al-Tustarī interprets as the inner secret and obedience as its outward form, is a two-fold portion of God’s mercy that He will give to His believers.99 By virtue of God’s blessing (niʿma) and primordial gift (mawhiba) of the intellect, man is capable of the act of gnosis.100 Al-Tustarī describes that man, in his mystical journey, experiences his soul as a struggle between two tendencies within himself: the God-centred direction of his heart (qalb) and the challenge and opposition of his heart by the self-centred tendency of his lower self (nafs). In his primordial state of a particle of light, man exists as a pure spirit or pure intellect, or in al-Tustarī’s words, as ‘specks possessed of intellects’ (al-dharr lahum ʿuqūl). In his final state, man lives in the eternal life with God as one of His awliyāʾ. To express this in another way, the intellect (ʿaql) becomes servant (ʿabd) and aspires to be walī. However, such an aspiration is not merely a possibility, but something with is assured to the mystic in the primordial realm, and exists within the spiritual constitution of the mystic.101 Aspect of Spiritual Hierarchy Both prophets and awliyāʾ emanate from the primordial column of Muḥammad’s light; however, they penetrate into God’s realm in varying degrees. Al-Tustarī writes: The aspirations (himam) of mystics reach the veils, where they stop and knock and are given admission. They enter and offer greetings, upon which He confers upon them His support (taʾyīd), and [a list] of exemptions are written for them on a parchment. However, the aspirations of the prophets circle around the Throne and are bedecked with lights. Their ranks are raised

Walāya in Formative Sufism  111 and they are connected with the Compeller (al-Jabbār) who erases their own portions (ḥuẓūẓ) removes their will and makes them [entirely] at His disposal and for Him.102 Al-Tustarī recognizes two types of mystics (murīds):103 the murīd, who desires God’s countenance and the murīd whom God desires. Al-Tustarī uses the terms khuṣūs (the elect) and ʿumūm (common people), awliyāʾ and ʿibād (servants of God), ṣiddīqūn (the sincere ones), and muʾminūn (the believing ones) as denoting different levels of spiritual men. However, Tafsīr does not provide a detailed discussion on the distinction between these types. The distinction merely serves to establish a hierarchy of perfection that sets the mystic, at different stages of spiritual gradation, apart from other believers.104 Al-Tustarī discerns a graduation of perfection among the awliyāʾ Allāh, who as ‘substitutes (abdāl)’ are in constant progress towards perfection and as mainstay (awtād) have accomplished their spiritual achievement. When he was asked why the substitutes are called substitutes (abdāl), al-Tustarī replied: It is because they substitute their spiritual states (aḥwāl) [one for another]. They have submitted their bodies to the vigour (ḥīl) in their innermost secrets (asrār). Then they move from state (ḥāl) to state, and from knowledge (ʿilm) to knowledge, so that they are constantly increasing in the knowledge of that which is between them and their Lord.105 As noted earlier, the hierarchy is not explained but merely outlined. The hierarchy starts with the mainstay (awtād), passes through the substitutes (abdāl) and the sincere ones (ṣiddīq), and culminates eventually at the pole (qutb), the highest station among the awliyāʾ: He was asked, ‘Who are more excellent, the Mainstays (awtād) or the Substitutes (abdāl)?’ He answered, ‘The mainstays’. Then he was asked, ‘And how is that?’ He replied: It is because the Mainstays have already arrived and their principles (arkān) are well established, whereas the Substitutes move from state to state. [On this subject] Sahl also said: I have met with one thousand five hundred veracious [servants of God] (ṣiddīq) among whom were forty Substitutes (abdāl) and seven Mainstays (awtād).106 Truly God filled his [Sahl’s] heart with light and invested his speech with wisdom. He was among the best of Substitutes, and if we include him among the Mainstays, he was the Axis (quṭb) around which the millstone [of the world] revolves.107 It was against this background that some, perhaps including al-Tustarī himself, understood the statement ‘I am the proof of God’ to mean that the mystic can claim to be the spiritual axis of the world, that is, the pole (quṭb) at the summit of the saintly hierarchy.

112  Walāya in Formative Sufism It is pertinent here to ask, is there any difference between the prophets and the awliyāʾ? There are few passages in the Tafsīr in which al-Tustarī provides the criteria on the basis of which a distinction can be made between the prophets (anbiyāʾ) and the awliyāʾ: God sent the prophets (anbiyāʾ) in order to remind them (mankind) of His pact (ʿahd) and His covenant (mīthāq).108 Truly God, Exalted is He, placed on the shoulders of His awliyāʾ the duty of reminding His servants, just as He placed upon the shoulders of the prophets (may God’s blessings be upon them all) the duty of conveying [the Message]. Thus, it is incumbent upon the awliyāʾ Allāh to guide [people] to Him.109 These quotations allude to the difference in spiritual function of the prophets and the awliyāʾ. The prophets have the duty of propagating the faith while the awliyāʾ are charged with reminding people about God and His Covenant.110 In one statement al-Tustarī clearly states that one of the highest states among the awliyāʾ ends where the states of the prophethood begin. The endmost ranks of the veracious (ṣiddīqūn) are the initial states of the prophets.111 The awliyāʾ are also the recipients of the signs (āyāt) of God:112 God, Exalted is He, has made His signs (āyāt) manifest to His awliyāʾ, and He has made happy those among His servants who believe in them, [affirming the truth of] their charismatic gifts (karāmāt).113 The awliyāʾ also receive another reward by being summoned directly to the Paradise ‘without having them account for their actions on the Day of Reckoning (yawm al-ḥisāb)’.114 This implies that the awliyāʾ will not be in the need of intercession (shafāʿa):115 For indeed there are among this nation (umma) those who are gathered up from their graves [and taken] directly to Paradise, who do not attend the reckoning (ḥisāb), or experience any of the horrors [of the day].116 Here the difference between prophets and the awliyāʾ is highlighted based on what is bestowed upon each from God. The prophets are bestowed with the gift of miracles (muʿjizāt), whereas the awliyāʾ are the recipients of charismatic gifts (karāmāt), the signs of God and the privilege of being summoned directly into the Paradise without being questioned or having a need for intercession. The significant difference between prophethood and walāya is based on the idea of knowledge discussed earlier. According to al-Tustarī, one of the prominent gifts which God confers upon His awliyāʾ is the mystical understanding of the Qurʾan (fahm al-Qurʾan).

Walāya in Formative Sufism  113 It is to them that God has granted the understanding of the Qurʾan. They are the elect of God (khāṣṣat Allāh) and His awliyāʾ.117 Al-Tustarī views this understanding of the Qurʾan achieved by the awliyāʾ as an act of God’s opening up insights into the divine word before the hearts of His awliyāʾ. He writes: All that can be comprehended of His speech is as much as He opens to the hearts of awliyāʾ Allāh.118 Apart from comprehension and understanding (fahm) of the word of God, the awliyāʾ also exercise inspiration (ilhām). According to al-Tustarī, the spirits of the believers are sent inspiration (ilhām), so that they can differentiate between truth (ḥaqq) and falsehood (bāṭil): This is the revelation (waḥy) through inspiration (ilhām) which the spiritual self (nafs al-rūḥ) the intellect (ʿaql) and the heart (qalb) cast upon the natural self (nafs al-tabʿ), and this is the hidden form of remembrance (dhikr al-khafī).119 It seems that al-Tustarī takes revelation (waḥy) to have two forms: an outer form which happens to the prophets in the form of messages delivered to the prophets by the angel resulting in revealed books, and a hidden (khafī) revelation which he labels as inspiration (ilhām) that happens internally within the spiritual faculties of the mystic. He displays the same understanding of revelation and inspiration in his interpretation of Q 16:68, which says, ‘And your Lord revealed it to the bee’. Al-Tustarī takes this revelation to mean inspiration. In any case, the awliyāʾ differ from the prophets in the manner in which God’s word is revealed to each. In the case of the prophets, it is revelation through divine communication via an angel, whereas, in the case of the awliyāʾ, revelation takes place through inspiration. When al-Tustarī does not mention inspiration, he introduces the aspect of comprehension or disclosure through understanding (fahm). Furthermore, Prophet Muḥammad enjoys a privileged position in al-Tustarī’s hierarchy. He is the walī of the walī of God (yuwālā). That is, since the Prophet is the walī of the believers, he is bound to be the walī of the walī of God. The walāyat Allāh is [His] choosing (ikhtiyār) for whomever He has taken under His patronage (istawlāhu). Then He informed the Messenger that He is the walī of the believers (muʾminīn). Thus it became incumbent upon him to be a walī of those who had allied (yuwālā) themselves to God, Exalted is He, and those who believed.120 Thus, al-Tustarī views the spiritual establishment of the mystic (murīd) on three essential points: (1) the mystic participates in the primordial emanation of light; (2) he is divinely elected as an intimate walī, as established in the process of creation and emanation; and (3) he is granted divinely infused charismatic gifts.

114  Walāya in Formative Sufism It is clear that in al-Tustarī’s world, the prophets and the awliyāʾ occupy a special place: they are the spiritual elect, the objects of God’s desire (murād) while the rest of humankind characterized as murīd are engaged in a quest for God’s countenance. The elect never forget their pact with God on the Day of Covenant, while the common people suffer forgetfulness. The elect awliyāʾ, chosen by God, enjoy special privileges: they are granted entry into Paradise without having to account for their actions on earth; they receive signs as manifestation of God and they are endowed with the gift of understanding (fahm) and even inspiration (ilhām). The sign of prophets is the bestowal of miracles (muʿjizāt) and the sign of the awliyāʾ is their charismatic gifts or token of honour (karāmāt).

The Concept of Walāya according to Ḥakīm al-Tirimidhī Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ḥasan b. Bishr b. Hārūn al-Tirmidhī, often referred to as Ḥakīm al-Trimidhī and sometimes as Imām al-Tirmidhī, was a Muslim scholar and a hadīth collector.121 His theory of the hierarchy of awliyāʾ with the ‘Seal’ (khātam) at its apex has become highly influential, especially after the writings of Ibn ʿArabī (d. 638/1240).122 He provides the earliest systematic formulation of the classical understanding of awliyāʾ and their hierarchies.123 Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ is considered as the most influential work of al-Tirmidhī which projects the author’s own religious experience onto Islamic mysticism in general, presenting a type of trajectory that traces the ideal inner life of the Muslim mystic.124 Despite his influence, very little is known today about the life and activities of al-Tirmidhī.125 The relevant sources do not specify his birth or death dates. The little that is known of his life is mostly derived from his spiritual autobiography ‘Badʾ Shaʾn’.126 He was born in Tirmidh, a town on the northern bank of the River Oxus, in today’s southernmost part of the Uzbekistan Republic.127 At the age of 27 or 28, he travelled in the western part of the Islamic lands and studied ḥadīth in Baghdad and Basra among other places and started collecting ḥadīth while travelling.128 After returning home, al-Tirmidhī dedicated himself to a life of intensive ascetic practices. Gradually, a group of students and disciples formed around him. However, not long after he was accused of speaking about love and claiming prophecy. Eventually he was charged with heresy and exiled to the neighbouring city of Balkh. After spending several years in Balkh, al-Tirmidhī returned to his native town and established himself as a religious authority.129 According to Radtke, al-Tirmidhī died sometime between 295/905 and 300/910.130 Geneviève Gobillot’s suggestion is 298/910.131 Y. Marquet, however, puts the most plausible date for his death as between 318/936 and 320/938.132 Annemarie Schimmel mentions that he died in the ‘early 4th/10th century’ but she does not propose any particular date.133 His tomb was lavishly erected in the Timūrīd period in his native town, Tirmidh, and remains an important pilgrimage place.134

Walāya in Formative Sufism  115 Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ135 has become an important work of Islamic theosophy and mysticism.136 Investigating many manuscripts, Bernd Radtke and John O’Kane have annotated, edited, and translated Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ into English and provided us with a critical edition of this work.137 As the word ‘sīra’ suggests, the work presents an archetypal biography of the mystic in general. Instead of Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, the text is commonly known in the Sufi tradition as Khātam al-Awliyāʾ. Radtke, on the contrary, thinks that Khātam al-Awliyāʾ may not have been the original title assigned to this work since it is not mentioned at the beginning of this work. He thinks that the concept of the Seal (khātam) of the awliyāʾ forms only a small part of this work and therefore it is more feasible to call the work Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ—which correctly represents the subject matter of the book as the archetypal biography of a mystic.138 Landolt, however, does not agree with Radtke’s suggestion saying that Radtke’s arguments are not strong enough to legitimize a change of title which has been accepted within the Sufi tradition for about a thousand years.139 Since there is no certainty about the naming of the book, it makes sense to keep the traditional title to avoid bibliographical confusion. However, this research uses Radtke and O’Kane’s translation extensively, and hence, at present will go along with Radtke’s chosen title, Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ.140 Even though Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ was widely known and read, attested by the amount of quotations from this work in later authors, such as ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī;141 ʿAmmār al-Bidlisī,142 the teacher of Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā;143 and Ibn Taymiyya,144 none of these authors mention Al-Tirmidhī by name.145 The impact of the book on later authors is due to Ibn al-ʿArabī’s commentary on parts of Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ in his Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya.146 It must be emphasized in this context that Ibn ʿArabī’s commentary does not explain anything of al-Tirmidhī’s text—for Ibn ʿArabī to develop and explain his own system of thinking.147 Walāya in Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ In his Kitāb Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, al-Tirmidhī classifies different types of awliyāʾ and based on that classification, he presents a detailed hierarchy of them that deals with their knowledge of God. I will discuss these various aspects below. Awliyāʾ Allāh vs. awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh Al-Tirmidhī starts by making a clear differentiation between the two kinds of awliyāʾ, namely awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh and awliyāʾ Allāh: In our view the walī Allāh [translated as ‘friend of God’] is of two kinds: one kind are the awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh [translated as ’friends of what is due to God’], and the other kind are the awliyāʾ Allāh [translated as ‘friends of God Himself’]. However, both these kinds may be referred to as the awliyāʾ Allāh.148

116  Walāya in Formative Sufism Al-Tirmidhī attempts to give a thorough description of the kind of virtues (or lack of them) that makes one type of awliyāʾ stand out from the other. In a passage, he briefly describes the awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh as those who arrive at the place of divine closeness but they reside there with their heart through their carnal souls (nafs al-ʾammāra). Hence, their ‘remaining faults’ are still with them and their works are not free of ‘self-aggrandizement and hypocrisy’.149 Next, he describes in much more detail his idea of awliyāʾ Allāh: But to turn now to the walī Allāh, he is a man who stands firm in his rank and lives up to the condition set by God, just as he lived up to sincerity [towards God] while journeying to God, as well as sincerity at the point where he could go no further and was bewildered. He practices the religious prescriptions and pays heed to the legal punishment, and he adheres to his rank until he becomes upright, is refined, educated, purified, cleansed, rendered sweet smelling, broadened, developed, nourished, promoted and made accustomed. Thus, his walāyat Allāh is brought to perfection through these ten qualities. Then he is transferred from his rank to the possessor of sovereignty (mālik al-mulk) and he is assigned a place before God, and his intimate converse (najwā) with God takes place face to face.150 As the above passages show, for al-Tirmidhī, there are two types of awliyāʾ who are clearly distinguished from one another by the notion of ḥaqq which determines their position in the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ. Al-ḥaqq, traditionally, is one of the 99 beautiful names of God (al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnāʾ). The meaning and applications of this divine name in al-Tirmidhī’s writings have been investigated by Sara Sviri. ‘Alongside the abstract metaphysical sense of Truth and Reality, ḥaqq has also an ethical-legalistic connotation. The verbal root ḥ-q-q is intrinsically associated with legal and moral religious concepts such as judgement, justice and moral conduct’.151 For both, becoming of a walī ḥaqq Allāh or a walī Allāh, the virtue of ṣidq is the most common denominator; however, the first kind of the awliyāʾ are called ṣādiqūn, and the second he calls them ṣiddīqūn in their path to God. The typology of ṣiddīqūn is portrayed as Abū Bakr (Abū Bakr al-ṣiddīq).152 Ṣidq is considered as the most intensive inner commitment the mystic is able to produce out of his own powers. However, since ṣidq is only a product of the self, the mystic is confronted within himself, i.e., the lower soul (nafs).153 Here, al-Tirmidhī explains the dilemma (idhṭirār) that the mystic is confronted with. On the one hand, he has to fulfil the demands of both ḥaqq and ṣidq, and on the other, this is precisely the main impediment in gaining nearness to God.154 It is important to note that the spiritual path of the walī ḥaqq Allāh comes to an end at the edge of the created cosmos. This is called the Throne of God (ʿarsh) or nearness to God (qurba).155 Therefore, although walī ḥaqq Allāh comes close to God, he does not and cannot reach closer. The walī Allāh, however, reaches extreme proximity to God. This privilege is not just through the mystic’s own enterprise and effort but made possible by

Walāya in Formative Sufism  117 the blessing of God. Walī Allāh reaches even beyond the Throne of God. His worship, al-Tirmidhī writes, ‘is too pure to be contaminated by the deficiencies of the nafs’.156 He passes through the kingdoms of light which surround the implausible mysterious divine Essence and reaches God’s Essence, and he is eventually annihilated in God’s Essence. His nafs is extinguished. In this status, he is in God’s hand (fī qabdhatihī) in such a way that if he acts, it is God who acts through him. Sviri observes that, in his Kitāb al Furūq (The Book of Semantic Differences), al-Tirmidhī distinguishes the worship of awliyāʾ Allāh and awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh by two terms, namely ʿubūda and ʿibāda, respectively. ʿUbūda, that is, the worship of the awliyāʾ Allāh, is defined as ‘the worship of the heart’, free from self, whereas ʿibāda, that is, the worship of the awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh, remains bound to body and nafs. Thus, in al-Tirmidhī’s own words, ‘the first is God’s servant ‘(ʿabd Allāh), while the second is the servant of God’s ḥaqq (ʿabd ḥaqq Allāh); the first is free, while the second is a slave, held in bondage by his nafs.157 Aspect of Creation and Prophethood Commenting on the Qurʾanic verse: ‘The Originator of the heavens and the earth! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is’ (Q 2:117), al-Tirmidhī offers an elaborate scene of creation in which Muḥammad appears in God’s thought for the very first time. What follows is al-Tirmidhī’s list of honours accorded to the Prophet on the Day of Resurrection. After dealing with the matter of divine thought, knowledge, and willing, al-Tirmidhī continues with the idea of the Prophet’s pre-existence, which, according to Böwering, is the earliest known systematic treatment of the subject of creation:158 God existed and there was nothing with Him … The first thing which God thought was the thought of Muḥammad. Then there appeared in God’s knowledge, knowledge of Muḥammad and then in God’s Will willing Muḥammad. And then he was the first in the divine decrees of destiny (maqādīr). Then he was the first on the [well-guarded] Tablet (lawḥ). Then he was the first in the covenant with God (mīthāq). And he will the first whom the earth renders up. He will be the first to whom God speaks (khaṭāb). He will be the first to go before God (wifāḍa) and the first to practice intercession (shafāʿa). He will be the first to cross over [the bridge] (jawāz) and the first to enter [God’s] house (dukhūl al-dār). He will be the first to be visited by God (ziyāra).159 It is impossible not to notice the similarity in the creation of Muḥammad and the creation of khātam al-awliyāʾ: This walī was what God thought of first in the primal beginning, and he was the first in His thinking (dhikr)160 and the first in His knowledge (ʿilm). Then he was the first in God’s willing (mashīʾa) and then the first in His decrees of

118  Walāya in Formative Sufism destiny (maqādīr). Then he was the first on the [well-guarded] Tablet (lawḥ). Then he was the first in the covenant with God (mīthāq). And he will the first on the Day of Congregation [of the dead] (yawm al-maḥshar), then the first address (khaṭāb), then the first to go before God (wifāda) and the first to undertake intercession (shafāʿa). Then he will be the first to cross over [the bridge] (jawāz) and the first to enter [God’s] house (dukhūl al-dār), and the first to be visited by God (ziyāra). Indeed, he is everywhere the first of the awliyāʾ, as Muḥammad was the first of the prophets.161 Just as God contemplated Muḥammad, so too He contemplated the highest walī; he was first in God’s willing just as Muḥammad was also first in His willing (mashīʾa). Both the walī and Muḥammad were the first in God’s decree of destiny (maqādīr) as well as the first to be mentioned in the guarded Tablet (lawḥ). The difference between the two begins with the moment of God’s covenant. The process of establishing the covenant is exactly the same, it is only in the subsequent result of the covenant that a difference is created between the function of the prophethood and walāya.162 The difference between prophethood and walāya is based on the same criteria that were earlier chosen by al-Tustarī and al-Kharrāz. The distinction between prophecy and walāya is based on the difference in the process of the acquisition of knowledge.163 Prophecy acquires speech (kalām) that comes from God in the form of revelation (waḥy) accompanied by a spirit (rūḥ).164 Once the divine speech is accompanied by a spirit, the prophet accepts it or confirms it (taṣdīq) as true.165 The same divine speech (kalām) reaches the walī Allāh not as revelation (waḥy) but as supernatural speech in his ear (ḥadīth) and leads to the walī’s peace of mind (sakīna). In the above quotation, the terms kalām, waḥy, and rūh, for the prophet, correspond to walī’s kalām, ḥadīth, and sakīna.166 In other passages al-Tirmidhī says that supernatural speech comes to the walī in several ways. It can take the form of a vision sent to a walī. Al-Tirmidhī cites a prophetic ḥadīth: ‘take heed of the clairvoyance (firāsa)167 of the true believer, for he sees with the light of God’. It can also enter the heart when it is awake by way of sakīna (divine peace) which remains in the heart to strengthen its confidence.168 And finally, it can be received in consequence of ilhām (inspiration).169 Al-Tirmidhī acknowledges that he has borrowed the idea of the connection between the prophet and ‘the man who hears supernatural speech’ from Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/686–688),170 based on which al-Tirmidhī is able to differentiate between messenger (rasūl), prophet (nabī), and walī Allāh: God has concluded a separate covenant between each one of them: the covenant with the messenger concerns His mission as a messenger (risāla) and the covenant with the prophet concerns his prophethood and the covenant with the person who hears supernatural speech concerns his walāya with God … the messenger is required to achieve his mission by [establishing] the Holy Law, while the prophet is [only] required to preach about God and whoever rejects these two persons is an infidel (kāfir). As for the man who hears the

Walāya in Formative Sufism  119 supernatural speech, the supernatural speech he hears is divine support and an increase of awareness with regard to the Holy Law of the messenger.171 Two points are important in the above quotation: first, the supernatural speech originates from a divine act of will, and second, unlike rejecting waḥy, rejecting the supernatural speech does not constitute unbelief (kufr) but rather brings misfortune. Al-Tirmidhī uses the term ‘ʿaqd al-nubuwwa’ to represent the covenant with respect to revelation and ‘ʿaqd al-walāya’ for the covenant man makes for the sake of the awliyāʾ. The term ʿaqd refers to the Day of Covenant (yawm al-mīthāq) when God concluded with each human soul a covenant concerning his duties.172 Al-Tirmidhī completes his story of creation by explaining how ‘God’s community’ is to be constituted in the period between the demise of the Prophet Muḥammad and the end of the world. He declares that the leadership of the community is to be bestowed upon 40173 chosen men whom he calls ṣiddīqūn or awliyāʾ Allāh. Whenever one of them dies, another will take his place, and this substitution will continue until the Day of Judgment. By definition, the characteristic of these 40 men is not nubuwwa but walāya. Quite appropriately, al-Tirmidhī’s student raises another question: ‘what are the external signs of the awliyāʾ Allāh?’, that is to say, how these caretakers of walāya can be recognized? Al-Tirmidhī lists seven qualities or virtues of awliyāʾ Allāh:

1. When they are seen, these awliyāʾ Allāh cause people to think of God; 2. They possess the power which is due to them (Sulṭān al-ḥaqq); 3. They are endowed with clairvoyance (firāsa); 4. They receive divine inspiration (ilhām); 5. Whoever opposes them is cast down and comes to an evil end; 6. All agree in praising them, except for those who are afflicted with jealousy; 7. Their prayers are answered, and they are manifestly capable of ‘miracles’ (āyāt).174

There are two more qualities of the awliyāʾ crucial to the enterprise of al-Tirmidhī as follows: First, al-Tirmidhī’s elaboration on the notion of ahl al-bayt. In his Sīrat, al-Tirmidhī writes: Now these forty are ever the people of God’s house, but I do not mean this in terms of kinship. Rather, they are the family members of the recollection of God (ahl al-bayt al-dhikr).175 The above remark has distinctive anti-Shiʿi implications. Al-Tirmidhī is also famous for his short treatise titled al-Radd ʿalā al-Rāfiḍa (The Refutation of the Shiʿis), where he responds to the claim of the Shiʿis that the caliphate of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib was obligatory upon all Muslims to follow just as prayer and almsgiving were obligatory. In his Nawādir al-Uṣūl, al-Tirmidhī directly addresses the Shiʿis refuting their claims of the exceptional status of the ʿAlid line as the only

120  Walāya in Formative Sufism legitimate successors of the Prophet. He condemns the Shiʿis for fabricating ḥadīth about the family of the Prophet, specifying it to the ʿAlī, the daughter of the Prophet, Fāṭima and their two sons, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn. He also strongly objects to the Shiʿi claim that the ahl al-bayt are infallible (maʿṣūm) by arguing that the status of infallibility applies to the prophets only. For al-Tirmidhī, ahl al-bayt means the awliyāʾ Allāh, the 40 abdāls.176 Second, the question of awareness of walāya. How does a walī know that he is indeed a walī? Also, how does a walī know at which level on the hierarchy he is situated? That is to say, are the awliyāʾ conscious of their own walāya? Since the prophets were aware of their prophecy and were sent to give to people the message of God, al-Tirmidhī opened up a detailed discussion about the awliyāʾ’s awareness of their walāya and whether they recognize their duty to invite the masses towards God. The issue of a walī’s awareness of his walāya and its resulting acts is discussed in detail in al-Tirmidhī’s Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ. The awliyāʾ for al-Tirmidhī are conscious of their walāya and do not need to hide it. Al-Tirmidhī bases his arguments on the Prophet’s ḥadīth, which says that the ‘the heart of a believer is a shining emptiness’ and so is ‘the purified heart of a pious man in which there is no sin, nor aggression, nor ill will, nor spite’. Al-Tirmidhī describes this chosen group as those to whom God bestows His grace and His Light which illuminates their hearts and enables them to proceed to the highest place in the realm of malakūt. These special awliyāʾ have achieved such a status that their walāya is not hidden from others as well as themselves. These awliyāʾ are, moreover, the people of certainty (ahl al-yaqīn). The reason they have such certainty is because they receive good tidings (bushra) from God.177 In one instance, when the question was asked to al-Tirmidhī whether it was possible for a walī to receive bushra (good tidings) of the world to come, his answer was that the awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh had no such certainty, but the awliyāʾ Allāh who enter the place of proximity, and have nothing to fear and who believe and keep away from evil, shall receive bushra.178 Thus, this group of awliyāʾ might receive good tidings (bushra) and when receiving the bushra ‘they should believe them’, in accordance with the verse Q 10: 63–65.179 In support of this verse, al-Tirmidhī invokes the authority of the Prophet who allegedly said that ‘bushras are true dreams the servant of God beholds, or a true dream someone else has about him’. For al-Tirmidhī, the good tidings are not necessarily received in a dream. The awliyāʾ are already in God’s grasp. God has already unveiled his mysteries to them. He has already conveyed to walī what is due to him. Therefore, the awliyāʾ Allāh are certain about their walāya.180 Based on these virtues, al-Tirmidhī develops an amazingly imaginative and complex spiritual hierarchy of awliyāʾ Allāh. Hierarchy of the Awliyāʾ In developing his ranking of awliyāʾ Allāh, al-Tirmidhī follows the model of Prophet Muḥammad’s life. The prophetic revelation (waḥy) corresponds to the awliyāʾ

Walāya in Formative Sufism  121 Allāh’s inspiration (ilhām). The awliyāʾ Allāh receiving the divine speech through vision and hearing, as mentioned earlier, are also called ‘al-muḥaddathūn’.181 They are the chosen ones unlike the awliyāʾ of inferior rank and are situated underneath the Throne of God. Al-Tirmidhī provides an interesting and very detailed account of the stages and the realms that awliyāʾ Allāh gradually traverse to reach the highest place of proximity with God. He defines ten qualities that a walī Allāh must possess in order to traverse the ten realms within the divine presence.182 These are being upright (quwwima), refined (hudhdhiba), educated (uddiba), cleansed (ṭuhhira), rendered (nuqqiya), sweet-smelling (ṭuyyiba), broadened (wussiʿa), developed (rubbiyya), nourished (shujjiʿa), promoted and made accustomed (ʿuwwida). Al-Tirmidhī makes these qualities correspond to ten realms as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Mulk al-fardiyya (singleness) -> ʿuwwida (promoted); Mulk al-raḥma (mercy) -> shujjiʿa (nourished); Mulk al-hayba (awesomeness) -> rubbiya (developed); Mulk al-bahja (joy) -> wussiʿa (broadened); Mulk al-bahāʾ (splendour) -> ṭuyyiba (sweet smelling); Mulk al-ʿaẓama (majesty) -> ṭuhhira (cleansed); Mulk al-jamāl (beauty) -> nuqqiya (purified); Mulk al-jalāl (greatness) -> uddiba (educated); Mulk al-sultān (dominion) -> hudhdhiba (refined); Mulk al-jabarūt (compulsion) -> quwwima (upright).

Al-Tirmidhī does not explain why there is a need to create such an elaborate hierarchy of the awliyāʾ. It is understandable that he wants to create gradations even after the Throne of God and make the khātam al-awliyāʾ, who stands at the peak of this hierarchy, the most unique and the most favoured among God’s chosen ones. The primordial covenant with God establishes a hierarchy among the awliyāʾ. The covenant of the awliyāʾ is different from the covenant of the rest of mankind, labelled as ‘ʿaqd al-tawḥīd’. Among these men of earth (arḍiyyūn) are the ascetics (zuhhād), God-fearing men (muttaqūn), and men of sincere intentions (mukhliṣūn). The men of walāya, on the other hand, are not mere earthly beings, but celestial creatures called ‘ʿarshiyyūn’. This hierarchy becomes extremely complicated as al-Tirmidhī moves towards the concept of khātam al-awlīyaʾ, the seal of the walāyat Allāh: Then a student asks him: what is the seal of prophethood?, He replied: It is God’s proof against all mankind which is verified by these words of God, He is mighty and glorious: ‘To those who believe bear the glad tidings that they shall have a footstep of sincerity (qadam ṣidq) with their Lord’.183 Al-Tirmidhī interprets the spiritual rank of Prophet Muḥammad as khātam alnubuwwa, not to the effect that Muḥammad was the last of the prophets. He did

122  Walāya in Formative Sufism not deserve this rank only because he was the last in time. Muḥammad deserves this title because through him the prophethood was made perfect, or, as said in al-Tirmidhī’s words, it was sealed, and this seal is the completion of prophethood. Since Muḥammad had completed (sealed) prophethood, it is impossible that another prophet could take his place after him.184 If that is the case, then who can guide the umma after Prophet Muḥammad? Al-Tirmidhī gives his answer by describing the exalted place and the exalted role already accorded to the ‘seal’ of walāya: Then God will send a walī whom He has chosen and elected, whom He has drawn unto Him and made close, and He will bestow on him everything He bestowed upon the [other] awliyāʾ, but He will distinguish him with the seal of walāya (khātam al-awliyāʾ). And he will be God’s proof (ḥujjat Allāh) against all other awliyāʾ on the Day of Judgment.185 He categorizes three groups on the uppermost ranks of the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ located in the region between the loftiest regions (ʿilliyūn) and the seven heavens.186 These are in ascending order: al-budalāʾ, al-ṣiddīqūn (or al-umanāʾ), and al-muḥaddathūn, 1. Al-budalāʾ (the substitutes): They are 40 in number and they surround the Throne of God. Al-Tirmidhī says that they are among the ʿummal al-ṣidq (the workers of the Truth) who are in attendance at the place of proximity to God. Their assembly consists of those drawn unto God (majdhūbūn), that is to say, God’s chosen few and His advisors to mankind (nāṣiḥūn).187 2. Al-ṣiddīqūn (the sincere ones): Al-Tirmidhī describes them by such epithets as umanāʾ (the honest or trusted ones) and al-aqwiyā (the stronger ones). Having finally overcome the tyranny of the soul, they have freed themselves from its thrall. God takes them in His grasp and binds them through His intelligence and makes them His trusted ones (umanāʾ). The love of God controls them, and His magnificence fills their hearts so that there is no room left in them for this material world. This is why they merit the epithet ‘stronger’. Like al-budalāʾ, they are 40 in number. God made them after the Prophet's death to be the governors of the world. When one of them dies, another walī is promoted to the place.188 3. Al-muḥaddathūn: As mentioned earlier, the term is meant to describe those who hear or receive supernatural speech (ḥadīth). The dividing line between Al-Tirmidhī’s definition of the muḥaddathūn and the ṣiddiqūn is blurred. However, it can be inferred that the muḥaddathūn are higher in rank. Al-Tirmidhī terms them sādāt al-awliyāʾ (the masters of al-awliyāʾ). Each of them has been chosen from the beginning. It is through them that the earth exists. They are the people of His house and His family.189

Walāya in Formative Sufism  123 And at the topmost level of this hierarchy stands khātam al-awliyāʾ, whose function will become fully manifest at the end of the world: He will become the proof of God in the Day of resurrection in front of the rest of the awliyāʾ. Thanks to this seal, the sincerity of walāya will be found with him, in analogy of the sincerity of prophecy that was found with Muḥammad.190 Thus, there are two hierarchies parallel to each other: hierarchy of the prophets and the hierarchy of awliyāʾ. At the highest point in the hierarchy of the prophets stands Muḥammad as the seal of prophethood, whereas the seal of the awliyāʾ stands at the highest peak of walāya. Just like Muḥammad, the seal of awliyāʾ was in God’s contemplation in the primal beginning. He was the first in His remembrance (dhikr), His knowledge (ʿilm) and his name is the first on the Tablet (lawḥ). He will also be the first, like Muḥammad, whom God will address (khaṭāb): the first to go before God (wifāḍa), the first to undertake intercession (shafāʿa), and the first to cross the bridge (jawāz). Indeed, he is everywhere the first of the awliyāʾ Allāh, as Muḥammad was the first of the prophets. He is positioned at the ear of Muḥammad, whereas the other awliyāʾ Allāh are positioned at the back of Muḥammad’s neck. He is a servant whose position is before God in the realm of sovereignty (mulk al-mulk), and he converses there with God in the most magnificent assembly (al-majlis al-aʿẓam). He is in the grasp (qabḍa) of God, and the other awliyāʾ Allāh are behind him and below him, one rank after the other, while the waystations (manāzil) of the prophets are similarly ordered in front of him.191 There are similarities in the notions of khātam al-anbiyāʾ and khātam al-awliyāʾ. The seal and corresponding hierarchies are not the only similarities that al-Tirmidhī makes between the Seal of Prophets and Seal of the awliyāʾ. Similar to the Prophet Muḥammad who is given power to intercede on behalf of the believers in oneness of God (muwaḥḥidūn) which includes other prophets, the seal of the awliyāʾ is also given the power to intercede on behalf of the believers in oneness of God (muwaḥḥidūn) which includes other awliyāʾ: He would be their intercessor, the leader of the awliyāʾ (imam al-awliyāʾ), their lord (fa huwa sayyiduhum), he would lord over the awliyāʾ as Muḥammad lorded over the prophets.192 Having said this, the function of prophecy is different from that of walāya in Tirmidhī’s work. The difference between prophethood and walāyat Allāh is mainly due to the difference between revelation (waḥy) and inspiration (ilhām) as follows: Prophethood’s revelation consists of speech (kalām) accompanied by a spirit (rūḥ). God seals the revelation, and the spirit makes the prophet accept it. It is the duty of People to accept the revelation and its rejection equals infidelity.193

124  Walāya in Formative Sufism In turn, in the case of the one possessed of walāyat Allāh, God is in charge of the kalām. The walī hears supernatural speech.194 Furthermore, the prophets were sent to mankind by God, but awliyāʾ were not sent to mankind on a specific mission. A messenger or a prophet receives the Holy Law from God and calls people to pay heed to it, whereas the walī Allāh hears the call to God by means of this Holy Law and directs people to it. Rejecting the former is heresy, whereas rejecting supernatural speech results in loss of blessings.195 Just like the prophets, the awliyāʾ also possess the knowledge of the unseen (ʿilm alghayb).196 They do not bring a new sharīʿa to the people because the Law has already been revealed in its totality by Muḥammad.197 However, the awliyāʾ guarantee through their knowledge the perfect explanation and presentation of the revealed Law. This knowledge in possession of a walī is called ʿilm alBāṭin which at the highest level is al-ʿilm bi Allāh, ‘the knowledge of God’.198 Aspect of Knowledge Al-Tirmidhī divides knowledge into knowledge of God (maʿrifat Allāh), knowledge of God’s oneness (maʿrifat al-tawḥīd), and knowledge of divine favours (maʿrifat al-ālāʾ). At the beginning of the Sīrat, there is a passage of a somewhat polemical nature in which Al-Tirmidhī criticizes unnamed mystics or scholars on the issue of knowledge: Those who engage in this kind of talk [issues dealing with the question of walāyat Allāh] have no understanding of this matter whatsoever.199 He does not mention the name of the persons or groups whom he criticizes. However, it seems his polemic is directed against his former colleagues, the representatives of ‘external religious learning’.200 He substitutes this kind of learning with another word ‘maqāyīs’ (sing. miqyās), the inductive reasoning applied in the Islamic legal science.201 Al-Tirmidhī calls this knowledge of religious law (sharīʿa) exoteric knowledge (ʿilm al-ẓāhir)202 or the knowledge of the tongue.203 The role of exoteric knowledge is to educate the soul in matters of religion and direct it to the straight path. This exoteric knowledge is, however, insufficient, even if the man of exoteric knowledge is sincere and truthful (sidq). The real knowledge is esoteric knowledge (ʿilm al-bāṭin). If exoteric knowledge is the ‘knowledge of the tongue’, the esoteric knowledge, following al-Tustarī, is the ‘knowledge of the heart’.204 Walāya thus can be attained not through ‘ʿilm al-ẓāhir’ but through ‘ʿilm al-bāṭin’. Walāya is designated for a wayfarer whose spirit is pure, whose heart is illuminated by divine beauty and insight. For him God opens a path and provides a refreshing breeze (rawḥ al-ṭarīq).205 The knowledge as ‘maʿrifa’ is further divided by al-Tirmidhī into knowledge of God’s favours (maʿrifat al-ālāʾ) and knowledge of God’s oneness (maʿrifat al-tawḥīd). As with several other cases, al-Tirmidhī merely states this classification rather than explanation or elaboration on it.206 However, he introduces two separate processes by which awliyāʾ of God attain their knowledge. The first

Walāya in Formative Sufism  125 process takes place inside an individual and is focused on the heart, the seat of knowledge, as it was the case with al-Tustarī. The light of maʿrifa shines forth from its seat in the heart (qalb), is grasped by the intellect (ʿaql), and perceived by the ‘fuʾād’ which is conceived as the outer layer of the heart, situated within the breast (ṣadr).207 The second process is based on the interplay between an individual’s interior and the outside world. This latter process is explained by the way of senses, in particular sight and hearing. The perception of the outside world takes place by means of what al-Tirmidhī calls spirit (rūḥ), which resides in the awliyāʾ’s eyes. Although his description is detailed enough, al-Tirmidhī does not clearly explain how this perception of the outside world is transformed into knowledge while he tries to incorporate the Greek philosophical theory of vision into his theosophy.208 In terms of knowledge, apart from the complexity of detailed classifications, al-Tirmidhī is continuing the project of al-Tustarī. The spiritual physiology, as described in al-Tustarī, is very much relevant to the idea of knowledge in al-Tirmidhī. The triangle of heart, soul, and intellect in al-Tustarī is elaborated further by al-Tirmidhī but the purpose is still the same. It helps al-Tirmidhī to introduce certain virtues and characteristics of the awliyāʾ which are significant for later comparison with walāya in Shiʿism. Through the elaborate twoway process of acquisition of knowledge mentioned in the previous paragraph, al-Tirmidhī is able to say that the divine speech reaches not just the prophets but the walī as well. The divine speech reaches the walī not as a revelation (waḥy) but as a vision, in which case the walī can be recognized as clairvoyant (fārīs), or as supernatural speech when transported to his ear or his tongue, in which case the walī can be recognized as a ‘muḥaddath’: As for the possessed walāyat Allāh, God is in charge of the speech (ḥadīth) [he hears] from the celestial chambers, and God causes it to reach him. Thus, he receives supernatural speech … And the walī accepts supernatural speech and rests at peace in it.209 Overall, so far, we have seen that al-Kharrāz sets the tone for the discussion of stations and hierarchy of the awliyāʾ which remains a hallmark for almost all Sufi discussions on this subject. The discussion is entirely devoid of any political connotation and treats walāya as a spiritual mode of existence. What sets the wayfarer on the spiritual journey towards attaining nearness with God is the personal attentiveness, understanding, and comprehension rather than divine knowledge. To become one of the awliyāʾ Allāh, a wayfarer must be sincere and pass through the stations of truthfulness. Al-Tustarī’s commentary on the Qurʾan brings the aspects of creation, primordial covenant, and emanation to the discussion of walāya. He discusses the origin and importance of Muḥammad’s light. Al-Tirmidhī is perhaps the most notable of Sufi writers to have dedicated a considerable amount of his writing on the subject of walāya. He developed a complex hierarchy of the awliyāʾ and gave it as much a firm footing and rank in the spiritual hierarchy as is given to the notion of nubuwwa.

126  Walāya in Formative Sufism

Notes 1 Paul Nwyia, Exegese. 2 Böwering has written few books on the subject of Sufi hermeneutics in mediaeval Islam. In this book, the main reference to his works is Gerhard Böwering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qurʾanic Hermeneutics of the Ṣufī Sahl at-Tustarī (d. 283/896) (Berlin and New York, 1980). 3 Pierre Lory, Les commentaires ésotériques du Coran: d’après ʿAbd ar-Razzāq al-Qāshānī (Paris: Les Deux océans, 1980). 4 Shal b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Tustarī, Tafsīr al-Tustarī, tr. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler (Jordan-Ammān: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, 2011). 5 Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane. Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, tr. Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane as ‘The Way of Life the Friends of God’, in The Concept of Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism: Two works by Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (Richmond, Curzon Press: 1996), p. 7. 6 Bernard Radtke, ‘The Concept of Walāya in Early Sufism’, in The Heritage of Sufism (volume 1): Classical Persian Sufism: From its Origins to Rumi, ed. Leonard Lewisohn (London: Oneworld, 1999), p. 483. 7 The 1937 edition of Kitāb al-Ṣidq edited and translated by A. j. Arberry will be used in this research. Abū Saʿīd al-Kharrāz, Kitāb al-Ṣidq, ed. and tr. Arthur John Arberry as The Book of Truthfulness (London: Oxford University Press, 1937). This research will also refer to Rasāʾil al-Kharrāz, ed. Qāsim al-Sāmarrāʾī (Baghdad: al-Jamʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī Publications, 1967), abbreviated in the text as ‘al-Kharrāz, Rasāʾil’. 8 For the Tafsīr by Sahl al-Tustarī, the excellent translation by Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler has been considered and cross-referenced with that of Böwering’s in this research. Keeler’s translation is based on the 1483/2002 Beirut edition which, according to the translators, is a replication of the 1911 Cairo edition edited by Gamrāwī. Neither the Cairo nor the Beirut edition is critical. However, the translators have made use of three manuscripts to render as correct a translation as possible. The English translation will be abbreviated as ‘Tafsīr’ followed by the page number of the translated edition where necessary. The manuscripts of al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr are discussed extensively by Gerhard Böwering, whose work on al-Tustarī has also been used in this research. Gerhard Böwering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qurʾanic Hermeneutics of the Ṣufī Sahl at-Tustarī (d. 283/896) (Berlin and New York, 1980). It should be noted that both Böwering and Keeler have translated walāya as ‘friendship with God’, awliyāʾ as ‘friends of God’, and walī as a ‘friend’. As discussed thus far, the term walāya and its cognates convey more meanings than one. Therefore, in the present book, while using Böwering’s and Keeler’s translations, these terms will not be translated, and they will be left in their Arabic original. 9 The discussion will be based on the English translation of this work by Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane. Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, tr. Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane as “The Way of Life the Friends of God” in The Concept of Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism: Two works by Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (Richmond, Curzon Press: 1996), pp. 38–211. For reference purposes this work will be abbreviated as ‘Sīrat’ followed by the page number. The English translation of Tirmidhī’s autobiography has also been used for this research, which is also included in Radtke and Kane’s translation mentioned above, pp. 15–37. Brief reference has also been made to another Tirmidhī’s work called Nawādir al-uṣūl (Nawādir al-uṣūl fī maʿrifat aḥādīth al-Rasūl (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmīyah, 1992)). Any reference to Radtke and O’ Kane’s work outside of the two translations will be given as The Concept of Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism: Two works by Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (Richmond, Curzon Press: 1996) and abbreviated as ‘Radtke, Concept of Sainthood’. 10 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 1–9. Ibn Abī Dunyā (d.281/894) was a learned teacher and became the tutor of several Abbasid princes and in particular later caliphs,

Walāya in Formative Sufism  127 11 12

13

14

15

16

17 18 19 20

al-Muʿtaḍid and al-Muqtafī. ‘His writings belong for the most part to the field of edifying literature’; see A. Dietrich, ‘Ibn Abiʾl-Dunyā’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 684. See Radtke, ‘The Concept of Walāya in Early Sufism’, p. 483. Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ḥārith b. Asad al-ʿAnazī (d. 243/857), famous as ‘al-Muḥāsibī’ literally meaning ‘he who calculates his actions’, a name very well suited to his work which is marked by a strong attachment to moral values rather than a theological system. Not much is known about his life except that he mostly devoted his time to teaching, a fact attested by his surviving work which is written as a dialogue between a master and a student. He was born in Basra and he died in Baghdad during the lifetime of al-Tustarī and al-Kharrāz. His work Kitāb al-riʿāya li-ḥuqūq Allāh has been edited as The Book of Observance of the Rights of God. See Margaret Smith, An Early Mystic of Baghdad, a study of the life and teaching of Ḥārith b. Asad al-Muḥāsibī (London: 1935). Two other works by al-Muḥāsibī are available in translation: Andre Roman’s translation of Al-Muḥāsibī’s Kitāb al-Tawahhum (Andre Roman, Une Vision Humaine des Fins Dernieres-Le Kitäb al-Tawahhum d’al Muhäsibi, Études Arabes et Islamiques series (Paris, Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1978)), and Massignon’s translation of a selection of passages drawn from manuscripts of al-Muḥāsibī (Massignon, Essai) and its translation in English, Louis Massignon, Essay on the origins of the technical language of Islamic mysticism, tr. Benjamin Clark (Notre Dame and Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997). J. van Ess has also studied the intellectual climate in which al-Muḥāsibī lived, revealing in particular his relations with kalām. Al-Sarī al-Saqatī, the maternal uncle of the famous Sufi al-Junayd, was his pupil, and, through him, his teaching affected the nephew. Al-Ghazālī has also acknowledged the authority of al-Muḥāsibī. For further details about al-Muḥāsibī, see R. Arnaldez, ‘al-Muḥāsibī’, in EI2, vol. vii, p. 467 and L. Massignon, ‘Muḥāsibī’, in EI1, vol. vi, p. 699. For a brief summary of al-Muḥāsibī’s writing and overview of the text of Kitāb al-Riʿāya li-Ḥuqūq Allāh, see Micheal Anthony Sells (ed.), Early Islamic Mysticism: Sufi, Qurʾan, Miʿrāj, Poetic and Theological Writings (Paulist Press, 1996), pp. 171– 195. I am not sure why Bernd Radtke and John O’Kane do not mention Al-Tustarī’s work as a starting point for providing a coherent picture of Sufism based on the notion of on walāya. For Radtke and O’Kane, such a coherent picture begins with al-Kharrāz and eventually with al-Tirmidhī. See Radtke, The Concept of Sainthood, pp. 1–9. Along with al-Muḥāsibī noted earlier, al-Junayd is counted among the foremost proponents of what has come to be known as the Sufism of sobriety. He is known to have discussed mysticism with al-Muḥāsibī. Most of his work survives as private letters and short tractates on mystical themes. For more information, see A. J. Arberry, ‘alDjunayd’, in EI2, vol. ii, p. 600. Al-Junayd’s writings deal with similar ideas of the selection and making of the awliyāʾ, their spiritual and social functions, the idea of covenant (mīthāq) as signs of marks of being walī, in the similar way as seen in al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī’s writings. See Ahmet T. Karamustafa, ‘Walāya according to Junayd (d. 298/910)’, in Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, ed. Todd Lawson (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), pp. 64–70. Richard J. McGregor, ‘Friend of God’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​ _ei3​_COM​_27194 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). See W. Madelung, ‘al-Kharrāz’, in EI2, vol. iv, p. 1083. Alireza Ebrahim, ‘Dhū al-Nūn al-Miṣrī’, in Encyclopaedia Islamica. http://dx​.doi​.org​ /10​.1163​/1875​-9831​_isla​_COM​_036113 (consulted online on 23 November 2019). Dhū l-Nūn Abū l-Fayḍ Thawbān b. Ibrāhīm al-Miṣrī (d. ca. 245/859 or 248/862) was an early mystic master of Nubian origin, who is celebrated for his knowledge of a wide range of disciplines, ‘including medicine and alchemy. He was most commonly known by his laqab (honorific title) Dhūʾl-Nūn (lit., he of the fish, i.e., Jonah). DhūʾlNūn appears in the earliest accounts of Sufism as the leading figure of his generation,

128  Walāya in Formative Sufism

21

22 23 24 25 26

27

28

29

despite coming from Akhmīm, in Upper Egypt, a region which is under-represented in the Iraqi and Khurāsānian biography collections and manuals. He is traditionally identified as the Sufi master of Sahl al-Tustarī (d. 283/896)’. See Alireza Ebrahim, ‘Dhūʾl-Nūn Abūʾl-Fayḍ al-Miṣrī’, in Encyclopaedia Islamica, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​ .1163​/1875​-9831​_isla​_COM​_036113 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). Abuʾl-Ḥasan b. al-Mughallis Sarī al-Saqatī was an important Sufi of the second generation of Sufis in Baghdad (155–253/772–867) where, as a Sufi master, he attracted many pupils from Iraq and Khurāsān. See B. Reinert, ‘Sarī al-Saḳaṭī’, in EI2, vol. ix, pp. 57–58. Bishr b. al-Ḥārith, Abū Naṣr (d. 227/841 or 842), called al-Ḥāfī (the barefoot), ‘was an ascetic famous for his rejection of worldly endeavours, among which he included the study of ḥadīth. He was born in the vicinity of Marv, to an eminent Iranian family of early converts to Islam and supporters of the ʿAbbāsid revolution'. See Michael Cooperson, ‘Bishr al-Ḥāfī’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​ _ei3​_COM​_24019 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). For more information on Sufi personalities associated with al-Kharrāz, see Madelung, ‘al-Kharrāz’, p. 1083. Christopher Melchert claims that al-Kharrāz was the first to speak about fanāʾ and baqāʾ. See Christopher Melchert, ‘The Transition from Asceticism to Mysticism at the Middle of the Ninth Century’, in Studia Islamica, no. 83 (1996), pp. 59–60. Madelung, however, argues that this claim is not correct, because these concepts had been used by earlier Sufis and were commonplace among his contemporaries, Madelung, ‘al-Kharrāz’, p. 1083. Madelung, ‘al-Kharrāz’, p. 1083. W. Montgomery Watt, ‘Some Mystics of the Later Third/Ninth Century’, in Islamic Studies, vol. 7, no. 4 (December 1968), p. 314. Madelung, ‘al-Kharrāz’, p. 1083. Montgomery Watt, ‘Some Mystics of the Later Third/Ninth Century’, p. 314. Several dates are given for al-Kharrāz’s death in works such as al-Risāla al-Qushayrīya and al-Tabaqāt al-Kubrā. He gives credit to Abū Sʿad al-Milānī and accepts the year 286/899. For details, see Kitāb al-Ṣidq, Arberry’s introduction; for Madelung’s proposal, see Madelung, ‘al-Kharrāz’, p. 1038. Montgomery Watt, ‘Some Mystics of the Later Third/Ninth Century’, p. 315. Al-Sarrāj (d. 378/988) was a Sufi author originally from Ṭūs in Khurāsān and the writer of the famous book, Kitāb al-Lumaʿ (Book of Shafts of Light) (Abū Naṣr ʻAbd Allāh ibn ʻAlī al-Sarrāj, The Kitāb al-Lumaʻ fī Taṣawwuf, ed., Reynold Alleyne Nicholson (London: Luzac, 1963)) which later authors, like al-Qushayrī and Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī, found in it substantial bases of documentation of Sufism. For more information, see P. Lory, ‘al-Sarrādj’, in EI2, vol. ix, p. 66. Montgomery Watt, ‘Some Mystics of the Later Third/Ninth Century’, p. 315. Kalābādhī (d. 380/990 or 384/994) was the author of one of the most celebrated manuals on Sufism, i.e., al-Taʿarruf li-Madhhab Ahl al-Taṣawwuf which is a basic work for the understanding of Sufism in the first three centuries of Islam. Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhārī al-Kalābādhī, Kitāb al-Taʿarruf li-Madhhab ahl al-Taṣawwuf (Riyāḍ: Markaz al-Turāth lil-Barmajīyāt, 2013). Also see P. Nwiya, ‘al-Kalābādhī’, in EI2, vol. iv, p. 467. Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. v. Also see al-Kharrāz, Rasāʼil. In the introduction al-Sāmarrāʾī writes that the manuscript of Rasāʾil al-Kharrāz is kept in the Qisṭimūnī al-ʿĀmma Library in Turkey. This manuscript includes few pages from five different books of al-Kharrāz: Kitāb al-Ṣafāʾ, Kitāb al-Dhiyāʾ, Kitāb al-Kashf wa al-Bayān, Kitāb al-Firāgh, and Kitāb al-Ḥaqāʾiq (al-Kharrāz, Rasāʾil, p. 15). Al-Sāmarrāʾī also mentions the names of four other books by al-Kharrāz which have not survived but have been mentioned in Sufi literature: Kitāb Ruʾyat al-Qulūb, Kitāb Ādāb al-Ṣalāt, Kitāb al-Waṣāyā, Kitāb Darajāt al-Murīdīn. For more details, see al-Kharrāz, Rasāʾil, pp. 14–20. Also see Kalābādhī, al-Taʿarruf, p. 21; Sarrāj, al-Lumaʿ, p. 153, p. 264 and p. 428.

Walāya in Formative Sufism  129 30 See the review of Kitāb al-Ṣidq, Arberry edition, by Margaret Smith in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, no. 4 (October 1938), pp. 627–628. 31 Kalābādhī cites al-Kharrāz as the foremost among Sufi writers (‘fīʾl ʿulūm al-ishārāt’, as opposed to muʿāmalāt), see al-Taʿarruf, p. 11. Also see Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 6. In Kitāb al-Ṣidq, al-Kharrāz writes about the early Sufi teachings, especially in regard to patience, self-knowledge, gratitude, repentance, and relationship with God. He develops a concise and readable account of his experience and discusses how a wayfarer must pass through the preliminary stages until he reaches the stage of illumination to become united in God. Al-Kharrāz begins this work by explaining the idea of ṣidq (truthfulness). He talks about the ‘stations’ through which a mystic (murīd) must pass on his way to God, such as the stations of fear, hope, shame, trust, longing, and love. Al-Kharrāz backs his understanding by referring to the Qurʾan, the Sunna, and the lives of the man of piety. The importance of this work for this research lies in the discussion concerning the experience of ‘prophecy’, particularly the Prophet himself, as well as the discussion of the hierarchy of pious men. 32 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, pp. 6–7. 33 See Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 6 and p. 9. 34 This classification has been incorporated from Mohammed Rustom, Approaches to Proximity and Distance in Early Sufism, Mystics Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1/2 (March/ June 2007), pp. 4–5. 35 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 61. 36 Fear of God (khawf) and hope (for God’s mercy) (rajāʾ) are two stations (maqāmāt, sing. maqām) on the Sufi path. These stations follow the stations of patience (ṣabr) and gratefulness (shukr). But there is no fixed order of stations in Sufi writings as other authors locate these stations differently. The origin of these concepts can be traced to the Qurʾan (e.g., Q4:104 and Q79:40). We find discussions of these and related terms in the works of al-Ḥārith al-Muḥāsibī (d. 243/857). Al-Muḥāsibī called for the proper balance between fear and hope in the training of the soul of the devotee. Sufi concepts related to fear and hope are qabḍ (contraction) and basṭ (expansion), and taqwā (fear of God, piety), a term common already in both the Qurʾan and prophetic tradition. See Lutz Berger, ‘Fear of God and Hope (for God’s mercy) (in Sufism)’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_27081 (consulted online on 23 October 2020). References in Kitāb al-Ṣidq can be found in p. 56. 37 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 56. 38 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 57. 39 See Kitāb al-Ṣidq, pp. 57–58. 40 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 62. 41 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 63. 42 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 63. 43 ʿArafa means ‘to know’, but, perhaps as a result of the particular meaning of certain early derivatives such as ʿārif or ʿarrāf, a difference appeared at an early date in Muslim thinking between maʿrifa and ʿilm. For a discussion on the difference between maʿrifa and ʿilm, see the next chapter. Also see R. Arnaldez, ‘Maʿrifa’, in EI2, vol. vi, pp. 569–571 and Ed., ‘ʿIlm’, in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 1133–1134. 44 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 61. 45 For more information about the vital pair of fear and hope (khawf and rajāʾ) in Sufi literature, see Sara Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism - The World of al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and His Contemporaries (London and New York: Routledge, 2020), pp. 143–154. 46 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 51 47 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, pp. 59–60. 48 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 15.

130  Walāya in Formative Sufism 49 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 60. 50 No soul knoweth what is kept hid for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do (Q 32:17); Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 49. 51 Those unto whom they cry seek the way of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they hope for His mercy and they fear His doom. Lo! the doom of thy Lord is to be shunned (Q :17:57). 52 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 50. 53 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, pp. 51–52. 54 On this, see Alexandar Knysh, Islamic Mysticism: a short history (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 59. 55 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 52. 56 Keeler, Tafsīr, p. xv. 57 Karamustafa, Sufism, p. 38. 58 Sālimiyya is the name of a mystical-theological school in Basra, based on the teachings of Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Sālim (d. 297/909) and his son Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Sālim (d. 356/967) and ultimately on those of al-Tustarī. Both father and son were pupils of Sahl, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad for as long as 60 years; he therefore is to be considered as the main pupil of al-Tustarī. About the Sālimiyya, see L. Massignon and B. Radtke, ‘Sālimiyya’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 994. For more information about al-Tustarī’s disciples and founders of the school of Sālimiyya, see G. Böwering, ‘Sahl al-Tustarī’, in EI2, vol. viii, pp. 840–841. 59 Karamustafa, ‘Sufism: The Formative Period’, pp. 38–43. 60 It should be noted that although al-Tustarī is a frequently mentioned figure in Sufi sources and is cited in many compendiums of classical Sufism, very few scholars to date have paid detailed attention to his writings. Böwering’s contribution in this sense is quite unique. In his book, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam (1980), after the study of al-Tustarī’s life, his associates, and disciples, Böwering focuses on the analysis of al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr, the hermeneutics of its method and the structure of its thought by examining subjects ranging from ‘God in His Events’, ‘Day of Covenant’, and ‘Day of Resurrection’ to the nature of man and the spiritual warfare in which the Sufi is engaged. See Gerhard Böwering, The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qurʾānic Hermeneutics of the Ṣufī Sahl at-Tustari (d. 283/896) (Berlin and New York, 1980). The doctrine of Sālimiyya, a theological school that took its name from Al-Tustarī’s direct disciple, has been explored by few scholars, starting from I. Goldziher. See I. Goldziher, Die Dogmatische Partei der Sālimījja, ZDMG, no. 61 (1907), pp. 73–80. L. Massignon’s pioneering studies on Ḥallāj also contain scattered references to al-Tustarī’s teachings. See L. Massignon, Essay. Benedikt Reinert has also contributed to a deeper understanding of al-Tustarī’s thoughts and ideas. See Benedikt Reinert, Die Lehre vom tawakkul in der klassischen Sufik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968). 61 Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 44. 62 Böwerng, ‘Sahl al-Tustarī’, pp. 840–841. 63 Böwerng, ‘Sahl al-Tustarī’, pp. 840–841. 64 Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān b. al-Ashʿath b. Isḥāq b. Bashīr b. Shaddād b. ʿAmr b. ʿImrān al-Azdī al-Sijistānī, was a well-known traditionist and compiler of the ḥadīth collection known as Sunan Abī Dāwūd, the third of the six canonical books of ḥadīth (al-Ṣiḥāḥ al-Sitta). The title ‘al-Sijistānī’, occasionally ‘al-Sijzī’ which usually comes after his kunya, indicates that he came from Sīstān. See Ahmad Pakatchi, and Shahram Khodaverdian, ‘Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī’, in Encyclopaedia Islamica, http://dx​.doi​ .org​/10​.1163​/1875​-9831​_isla​_COM​_0053 (consulted online on 24 December 2020). 65 For more information about al-Tustarī’s claim of being proof of God and its consequences and reactions among the scholars of religious law, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 63–66. 66 Böwering, ‘Sahl al-Tustarī’, pp. 840–841.

Walāya in Formative Sufism  131 67 Ibn Baṭṭuṭa was a Moorish traveller from Tangier (born in 703/1304). His lengthy journeys make him one of the world’s most famous travellers (jawwāla) and authors of travel books (riḥla). See A. Miquel, ‘Ibn Baṭṭūṭa’, in EI2, vol. iii, p. 736. 68 Al-Maqqarī was considered a ‘man of letters and biographer’. He was born at Tilimsān in ca. 986/1577 and died in Cairo. Al-Maqqarī was essentially a ḥadīth compiler and a skilful versifier. See E. Lévi-Provençal and Ch. Pellat, ‘al-Maḳḳarī’, in EI2, vol. vi, pp. 187–188. 69 Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 74–75. 70 Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 8. 71 For detailed information about al-Tustarī’s works and writings, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 8–42. Böwering deals with al-Tustarī’s writings by dividing sources into different time periods: prior to 356/967, from 356/967 to 465/1074, from 465/1074 to 638/1240, and then to the modern period, to reflect an assessment of al-Tustarī’s writings in various sources. 72 Keeler, Tafsīr, pp. xi–xxvi. The nature of the exegetical content is diverse and includes exoteric interpretations to explain and expand upon the literal meaning of the verses as well as their historical context and ethical implications. It also includes discussion of mystical topics, anecdotes about earlier mystics, stories about the author himself, and several aphorisms describing different aspects of the spiritual wayfarer path. 73 The external evidence relies on Ḥaqiqat al-Tafsīr by Sulāmī (d. 412/1021) who has collected some twelve thousand items of Sufi interpretations of the Qurʾan from almost hundred Sufis, who are each time quoted by name along with their interpretation statement to a particular verse of the Qurʾan. About five hundred entries of commentary are quoted in Ḥaqiqat al-Tafsīr under al-Tustarī’s name (cited as Sahl). Also see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 110–111. 74 For a detailed discussion about the authenticity, structure, and compilation of al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, chapter III. Annabel Keeler relies on Böwering’s research for the authenticity of al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr too. See Keeler, Tafsīr, p. xxv. 75 Al-Tustarī provides several practical rules and guidelines for the spiritual life (Tafsīr, p. 8). He recommends fasting, solitude, and the night vigil, as he is in favour of silence (Tafsīr, p. 10). The most important is the opposing and monitoring of the lower self (nafs) and its desires. A line that runs constantly through his teachings is the theme of light, representing the divine guidance at all its levels to the highest level of certainty (yaqīn) and the ‘attainment’ of God. 76 Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 149; Massignon sees here a borrowing from extremist Shiʿi circles such as Qarmaṭiyān, see Massignon, Essay, pp. 52–57; also see AmirMoezzi, Divine Guide, pp. 29–30. Citing traditions mainly from Ibn Bābawayh, Amir-Moezzi writes that imāmī traditions relate that primordial light drawn from the Divine Light was that of ahl al-bayt, the ‘five of the cloak’ (ahl al-Kisāʾ: Muḥammad, ʿAlī, Fāṭima, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn). He also mentions that throughout the traditions of the imāms, Muḥammad himself frequently says that he was created with ʿAlī, before the creation of the world, out of one and the same light; for later citation, see Muḥammad ibn ʻAlī Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, Amālī, ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī Kāshānī (Qum, 1883), p. 236., and A. Lalani, Early Shiʿi Thought, pp. 80–83. 77 Tafsīr, p. 138. 78 Tafsīr, p. xxxii. 79 Tafsīr, p. xxxii. 80 Tafsīr, p. xxxii. 81 Karamustafa, Sufism, p. 42. 82 Tafsīr, pp. xxxii–xxxiii; Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 153–154. 83 And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam—from their loins (dhurrīyya)—their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to

132  Walāya in Formative Sufism 84 85 86 87 88 89

90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

111 112 113

them], ‘Am I not your Lord?’, They said, ‘Yes, we have testified’, [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, ‘Indeed, we were of this unaware’. Tafsīr, pp. 76–78; Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 153 and p. 155. Tafsīr, p. 76. Tafsīr, p. 76; Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 156. Tafsīr, p. 92. Tafsīr, p. 92; For detailed information about the concept of qalb Muḥammad and its interpretation in al-Tustarī’s writing, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 157–165. (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him. Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful. Which the True Spirit hath brought down. Tafsīr, p. 294; Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 161–162. Tafsīr, p. 92; Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 162. Tafsīr, p. 294; Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 164–165. Tafsīr, p. 16. Q 70:32. To read more about an interpretation of this verse, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 187–189. Böwering. Mystical Vision, p. 190. Tafsīr, p. xliii; Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 194. For more information about al-Tustarī’s interpretation of maʿrifa and ʿibāda, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 194–201. Böwering. Mystical Vision, p. 195. Böwering. Mystical Vision, p. 231. Tafsīr, pp. 92–93. Murīd literally means ‘he who seeks’ in Ṣufi terminology. Murīd is ‘the novice or postulant or seeker after spiritual enlightenment by means of traversing (sulūk) the Sufi path in obedience to a spiritual director (murshid, pīr, shaykh). The equivalent Persian term is shāgird (lit. ‘pupil, apprentice’)’. See Ed. ‘Murīd’, in EI2, vol. vii, p. 609. Tafsīr, p. 66; Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 231–232. Tafsīr, p. 89; Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 237. Tafsīr, pp-89–90. Tafsīr, p. 90. Tafsīr, p. 76. Tafsīr, p. 65. Böwering also mentions that outside of Tafsīr, there are statements attributed to al-Tustarī which indicates al-Tustarī’s position with respect to the spiritual difference between the prophets and the awliyāʾ. For instance, in his al-Lumaʿ p. 315, al-Sarrāj cites al-Tustarī’s saying: ‘the signs (āyāt) pertain to God, the miracles (muʿjizāt) to the prophets (anbiyā) and the gifts (karāmāt) to the awliyāʾ and the best of the Muslims’. See al-Sarrāj, al-Lumaʻ. To read more, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 240–241. Tafsīr, p. 93. For more information, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 234–236. Tafsīr, p. 176.

Walāya in Formative Sufism  133 114 Tafsīr, p. 106; for more details, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 234–235. 115 Shafāʿa (intercession) is ‘prayer or pleading with God on behalf of someone else’. For Qurʾanic usage of the term and its relationship with the notion of walāya, see Introduction of this book and also Valerie J. Hoffman, ‘Intercession’, in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 551–554. 116 Tafsīr, p. 184. 117 Tafsīr, p. 3. 118 Tafsīr, p. xxvi. 119 Tafsīr, p. 261. 120 Tafsīr, p. 61. 121 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 2. 122 Y. Marquet, ‘al-Tirmidhī’, in EI2, vol. x, pp. 544–546. According to Radtke, it was not al-Tirmidhī’s theosophical ‘system’ as a whole that exercised an influence on Ibn al-ʿArabī. It was, rather, al-Tirmidhī’s teachings about the khātam al-walāya which left its mark on posterity. Also see Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 8. 123 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 6–7. 124 Radtke lists the titles of al-Tirmidhī’s most important writings as follows: (1) Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ is considered as the most important of al-Tirmidhī’s writings. This research will look at this work in more detail. (2) Nawādir al-ʿUṣūl is al-Tirmidhī’s most voluminous work. It is a collection of an abundance of views and thoughts from the period of classical Islamic mysticism covering a wide range of topics. This text, unlike Sīrat, does not have a central theme. It is a selection of traditions and views on various subjects. (3) ʿIlal al-Sharīʿa in terms of subject matter is similar to Nawādir al-ʿUṣūl. According to Radtke, the unorthodox views expressed in this book led to al-Tirmidhī’s exile from his home city. (4) Kitāb al-Manhiyyāt is also similar to Nawādir al-ʿUṣūl and ʿIlal al-Sharīʿa mentioned above, with focus on the prohibitions prescribed by sharīʿa. (5) Kitāb al-Ṣalāt deals with the sharīʿa prescriptions that deal with ritual prayers. (6) Kitāb al-Ḥuqūq deals with the responsibilities related to government authorities, scholars, parents, children, spouses, relatives, neighbours, slaves, animals, police, etc. (7) Kitāb al-Amthāl is a collection of examples which serves to clarify the mystic experience and inspiration towards the mystic path. (8) Kitāb al-Akhyas wa al-Mughtarrīn describes right and wrong behaviour with regard to specific religious duties such as prayer and pilgrimage and also with regard to the mystic path. (9) Kitāb Riyāḍat al-Nafs deals with the issues related to the mystic path. (10) Kitāb Adab al-Nafs is a collection of issues about mysticism and particularly about the concept of ‘certainty’ (yaqīn). (11) Kitāb al-Furūq aims to demonstrate that synonyms do not exist. That is to say, each and every single word refers to a unique meaning. (12) Manāzil al-Qāṣidīn (known by other titles too) is mainly about the seven stages of the mystical path. (13) ʿIlm al-Awliyāʾ is a misleading title. The work does not deal with the ‘Knowledge possessed by the Awliyāʾ Allāh’. It rather describes the number and nature of halting stations of awliyāʾ. (14) Al-Farq bayn al-Āyāt wa al-Karāmāt, this work mainly deals with the issue of the possibility of miracles. Some of these books are only available in manuscripts. For more information about al-Tirmidhī’s writings, see Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 2–5. Radtke also lists four works which have been incorrectly attributed to al-Tirmidhī. 125 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 1. 126 According to Radtke, this is the first extensive Islamic autobiography that has come down to us. It contains sections mainly on Al-Tirmidhī’s education and the symbolic content of his wife’s dreams. For more information, see Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 9–10. 127 W. Barthold. ‘Tirmidh’, in EI2, vol. x, pp. 543–544. 128 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 1. 129 See Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 1–2 and Marquet, ‘al-Tirmidhī’, pp. 544–546. 130 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 2.

134  Walāya in Formative Sufism 131 Geneviève Gobillot, ‘al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​ -3912​_ei3​_COM​_30216 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). 132 Marquet, ‘al-Tirmidhī’, pp. 544–546. 133 Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions, p. 55. 134 Barthold, ‘Tirmidh’, pp. 543–544. 135 For the last few hundred years it was thought that the treatise on ‘The Seal of The Saints’ (Khātam al-Awliyāʾ) was lost. Only recently scholars found the manuscripts containing this work. See L. Massignon, Essay. Uthmān Ismāʿīl Yaḥyā’s edition based on his discovery in Istanbul of two manuscripts of this work was published in Beirut in 1965 as Kitāb Khātam al-Awliyāʾ, ed. Uthmān Ismāʿīl Yaḥyā (Beirut: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kāthūlisīyya, 1965). Radtke’s critical edition is based on the Beirut edition which was re-published in 1992. Also see Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Juyūshī, Al-Tirmidhī, His Works and His Opinions on Sufism, (unpublished) PhD Thesis (University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1970). It should be noted that here too, Radtke’s has translated walāya as ‘friendship with God’, awliyāʾ as ‘friends of God’, and walī as a ‘friend’. However, as discussed before, in the present study, while using Radtke’s translation, these terms will be left in their original Arabic form. 136 The importance of this work is primarily because of its influence on Ibn al-ʿArabī. See Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 5. 137 As mentioned before, Radtke and O’Kane have annotated, edited, and translated two works of al-Tirmidhī, namely his autobiography and the Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, in a single volume entitled Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane. Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, tr. Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane as ‘The Way of Life the Friends of God’, in The Concept of Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism: Two works by Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (Richmond, Curzon Press: 1996). Recently, Sara Sviri has also published an extensive monograph on al-Tirmidhī’s life and works where she has studied Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ. See Sara Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism. Also, there is an article by Diego R. Sarrio, published in 2011, in regard to walāya in al-Trimidhī’s view. In his article, ‘Spiritual anti-elitism: Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrine of sainthood (walāya)’, focusing on Ibn Taymiyya’s concept of walāya presented in his treatise Al-Furqān Bayna al-Awliyāʾ al-Raḥmān wa Awliyāʾ al-Shayṭān (The Criterion [for Distinguishing] between the Awliyāʾ of the All Merciful and the Awliyāʾ of Satan), Diego R. Sarrio compares Ibn Taymiyya’s understanding of the awliyāʾ with that of al-Tirmidhī’s in Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ. Similar to al-Tirmidhī who distinguishes between the two types of awliyāʾ, namely awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh and awliyāʾ Allāh, Ibn Taymiyya begins chapter 3 of al-Furqān by describing two categories of awliyāʾ: (1) the foremost, those brought nearest to God (sābiqūn muqarrabūn) and (2) the people on the right, who act in moderation (aṣḥāb al-yamīn muqtaṣidūn). However, unlike al-Tirmidhī, for whom the difference between the two categories of awliyāʾ is an issue of sincere effort vs. divine grace, Ibn Taymiyya sees the difference as lying in the believer’s willingness to draw closer to God by means of supererogatory acts of worship (nawāfil) in addition to the obligatory religious duties (farāʾiḍ). Interestingly, Ibn Taymiyya compares these two types of awliyāʾ with the two categories of prophets: the Servant-Messenger (ʿabd-rasūl), like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, for whom all his actions are in accordance with God’s purposes, and the Prophet-King (nabī-malik), such as David, Solomon, and Joseph, who must respect God’s orders and prohibitions. Contrary to al-Tirmidhī’s idea of khātam al-awliyāʾ, in which the idea of ‘seal’ presents to God perfecting prophethood (and walāya), for Ibn Taymiyya, the notion of ‘seal’, as applied to Muḥammad in the sense that he was the last of the prophets, is an unparalleled in the case of the awliyāʾ. For full article, see Diego R. Sarrio, ‘Spiritual anti-elitism: Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrine of sainthood (walāya)’, in Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, vol. 22, no. 3 (July 2011), pp. 275–291. 138 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 40.

Walāya in Formative Sufism  135 139 For more information on this, see Hermann Landolt, review of Drei Schriften des Theosophen von Tirmiḏ: Das Buch vom Leben der Gottesfreunde; Ein Antwortschreiben nach Saraḫs; Ein Antwortschreiben nach Rayy by Bernd Radtke, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 114, no. 2 (Apr.–Jun. 1994), pp. 303– 304. 140 Besides the primary concern of the work to present a systematic theory of the awliyāʾ, al-Tirmidhī on numerous occasions pauses to expose spiritual leaders who, in the name of walāya, mistreat the populace. This may indicate the nature of the spiritual environment in which he spent his life. See Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 11. 141 ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī (470–561/1077 or 1078–1166) was a Ḥanbalī scholar active in Baghdad, who, after his death, was to become the namesake and patron of the Qādiriyya, one of the oldest Sufi orders. For more information, see Jacqueline Chabbi, ‘ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​ _COM​_22592 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). 142 Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Abū Yāsir ʿAmmār b. Yāsir b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmmār (b. Yāsir) b. Maṭar b. Saḥāb al-Shaybānī, known as ʿAmmār Bidlīsī, was a Sufi master (shaykh), who died between 590/1194 and 604/1207–1208. He was a native of Bidlīs, Eastern Turkey, and was a pupil of Abūʾl-Najīb al-Suhrawardī (d. 563/1168). ʿAmmār Bidlīsī’s most distinguished disciple was the future great Persian Sufi master Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā (d. 618/1221). To read more, see Edward Badeen, ‘Bidlīsī, ʿAmmār’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_23873 (consulted online on 23 December 2020). 143 Shaykh Abuʾl-Jannāb Aḥmad b. ʿUmar Najm al-Dīn al-Kubrā (d. 617/1220) was the founder of the Kubrawī Sufi, one of the major orders of the Mongol period in Central Asia and Khurāsān. He was born in Khwārazm in 540/1145 and began his career as a scholar of ḥadīth and kalām and travelled extensively. His interest in Sufism was awakened in Egypt, where he became a murīd of Shaykh Rūzbihān al-Wazzān al-Miṣrī, an initiate of the Suhrawardī order. The sobriquet of Kubrā is an abbreviation of the Qurʾanic expression al-ṭāmmat al-kubrā (the major disaster), a nickname Najm al-Dīn earned through his formidable talent in polemic and disputation. To read more, see Hamid Algar, ‘Kubrā’, in EI2, vol. v, pp. 300–301. 144 Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn Taymiyya was born at Ḥarrān in 661/1263 and died at Damascus in 728/1328 and was a Ḥanbalī theologian and jurist. Ibn Taymiyya remains today, with al-Ghazālī (d. 505/1111) and Ibn al-ʿArabī (d. 638/1240), one of the writers who have had the greatest influence on contemporary Islam, particularly in Sunni circles. See H. Laoust, ‘Ibn Taymiyya’, in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 951–955. 145 Radtke, ‘The Concept of Walāya in Early Sufism’, p. 487. With the exception of al-Hujwīrī (d. 465/1068 or 469/1072), the other Sufi handbooks of the fourth/fifth century pay little attention to al-Tirmidhī. Al-Hujwīrī, the author Kashf al-maḥjūb, also praises al-Tirmidhī very highly for his knowledge and attainment in mysticism. In his Kashf al-Maḥjūb, al-Hujwīrī devotes several pages of his book to al-Tirmidhī’s life and especially to his mystical doctrines. 146 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 5. Ibn al-ʿArabī’s al-Futūḥāt provides the answers to questions about walāya/walī posed by al-Tirmidhī. This commentary has been studied in detail by Michel Chodkiewicz and William Chittick among others: Michel Chodkiewicz, Un Ocean sans rivage (Paris: Seuil 1992). William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany: SUNY 1989), Index of Names. 147 Marquet, ‘al-Tirmidhī’, pp. 544–546. As a whole, in Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, the path of the mystic proceeds from repentance to disciplining the carnal soul, moving on to pious introspection. The path inwards is at the same time the path that leads outward and upward through the macrocosm. This spiritual ascension is accompanied by divine gifts, the possibility of which is discussed at great length in this book. The work treats, amongst other things, the possibility of receiving confirmation of one’s spiritual

136  Walāya in Formative Sufism

148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

159

160 161 162 163 164

165 166 167

168 169

rank. Likewise, a sizeable part of the discussion focuses on the dangers, pitfalls, and obstacles along the path, as for instance the hypocritical practice of asceticism, the problematic nature of ṣidq, and the delusion that commonly accompanies momentary illuminations (ʿaṭāyā). Also important in the text, though not central to it, is the notion of khātam al-walāya/khātam al-awliyāʾ, the doctrine of the ‘seal’, of the awliyāʾ. The spiritual rank is the highest that a walī can attain and it accords the walī a unique privilege of being the highest spiritual successor to the Prophet. It marks the summit and the culmination of the spiritual hierarchy. Moreover, it is clear from al-Tirmidhī’s autobiography that he considered himself to have attained the highest spiritual rank. Sīrat, p. 43. Sīrat, p. 88. Sīrat, p. 91. Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism, pp. 196–197. Radtke, The Concept of Sainthood, p. 89. Al-Tirmidhī, Badʾ, pp. 14–20 Sīrat, p. 149. Sīrat, p. 65. Sīrat, p. 70. Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism, pp. 199–200. Although al-Tustarī deals with the subject of creation with his idea of Muḥammadan Light (nūr Muḥammad), it was part of his Qurʾanic commentary and therefore could not be treated as systematically as the treatment of the same subject in al-Tirmidhī. See Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 149. Sīrat, p. 110. Radtke argues that most of the terminologies used by al-Tirmidhī in his description of the process of creation are al-Tirmidhī’s creative borrowing from extreme Shiʿi teachings (ghulāt). See Radtke, The Concept of Sainthood, pp. 102–103. Radtke translates dhikr as ‘thinking’. Perhaps ‘remembrance’ is a better translation for this term. Sīrat, p. 110. See Sīrat, pp. 151–152. The similarities and differences between prophethood and walāya will be considered separately in the next chapter. Sīrat, pp. 111–112. The notion of the role of rūḥ originates in the Qurʾan: And thus, have We inspired (ʾūḥīnā) in thee (Muḥammad) a spirit (rūḥan) of Our command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it a light whereby We guide whom We will of Our bondmen. And lo! thou verily dost guide unto a right path (Q 42:52). For the connection between ṣidq and taṣdīq, see al-Tirmidhī’s references to Virgin Mary in Sīrat, p. 162. Sīrat, p. 112. Firāsa is derived from furūsiyya (the art of horsemanship). For al-Tirmidhī, when a man gallops with his bodily limbs on a horse, it is called ‘furūsiyya’. When a walī gallops with the sight of his heart and with the light of God, it is called ‘firāsa’. See Sīrat, p. 122. This is based on the Qurʾanic verse: He it is who sent down peace of reassurance into the hearts of the believers that they might add faith unto their faith (Q 48:4). Al-Tirmidhī can confuse the reader with his complicated classification. In some passages it is not easy to understand the difference between waḥy and ilhām. Even though he may occasionally use the term waḥy for the awliyāʾ, its application to anyone but the Prophet would hardly be acceptable to him. In general, it is not al-Tirmidhī’s intention to equate the phenomenon of ilhām with prophetic revelation, especially since he carefully distinguishes between waḥy (prophetic revelation) and ilhām (inspiration) on a number of other occasions. Also see al-Tirmidhī, Nawādir, p. 119.

Walāya in Formative Sufism  137 170 Sīrat, p. 119. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās, known as a scholar and an exegete. For more information, see L. Veccia Vaglieri, ‘ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās’, in EI2, vol. i, pp. 40–41. 171 Sīrat, p. 119. 172 Sīrat, p. 120. 173 Forty is an important number in religious symbolism, for instance, 40 years the Israelites spent in the wilderness (book of Deut. 2:7), 40 days and nights Moses spend on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:18), Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness (Mark 1:13). In Islamic tradition also, this number is important. Muḥammad became the Messenger of God at the age of 40. The heads of martyrs buried in Karbalāʾ were 40 and many other references to this number. See Todd Lawson, Gnostic Apocalypse and Islam (London and New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 29. 174 For more information on the seven virtues, see Sīrat, pp. 124–125. 175 Sīrat, p. 111. 176 For more information about al-Tirmidhī’s argument against Shiʿis, see his Nawādir, pp. 284–290. Also see the rendition of ahl al-bayt in Van Ess, Theologie I, p. 258, n. 51. 177 See Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 128–129. 178 Radke. Concept of Sainthood, p. 135–136. 179 Lo, verily the awliyāʾ Allāh are [those] on whom fear comes not, nor do they grieve. Those who believe and keep their duty to Allāh, theirs are ‘good tidings’, in the life of this world and in the Hereafter. There is no changing the words of Allāh, that is the supreme triumph. 180 Radtke. Concept of Sainthood, pp. 136–137. 181 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 131. 182 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 91. 183 In explaining qadam ṣidq in this Qurʾanic verse, Radtke lists the interpretation of this concept by the Qurʾan commentators such as Tafsīr of al-Ṭabarī and Tafsīr of al-Qurṭubī. To read more about this concept, see Sīrat, pp. 104–105. 184 Sīrat, p. 104. 185 Sīrat, p. 109. 186 Sīrat, p. 68. 187 Sīrat, p. 68, 90. 188 Sīrat, pp. 91–92 and p. 109. 189 Sīrat, p. 109. 190 Sīrat, p. 109. 191 Sīrat, p. 110. 192 Sīrat, p. 109. 193 Sīrat, p. 109. 194 Sīrat, pp. 111–112. 195 Sīrat, pp. 118–119. 196 Sīrat, pp. 85–87. 197 Sīrat, p. 50. 198 The issue of knowledge will be analyzed in detail in the next chapter. 199 Sīrat, p. 41. 200 Sīrat is characterized by a polemical spirit. The names of persons or groups that al-Tirmidhī is critical of are not mentioned with the sole exception of Yaḥyā b. Muʿādh al-Rāzī (See Sīrat, p. 151 and p. 165). However, sections of Sīrat, especially from page 188 through page 196, indicate al-Tirmidhī’s attempt to justify his often harsh polemical criticism. Also see Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 39–41. 201 Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, ʿIlm al-awliyāʾ, ed. Sāmī Naṣr Luṭf (Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḥurrīya al-Ḥadītha, Jāmiʿat ʿAyn Shams, 1983), p. 142. The term ‘qiyās’, reasoning by analogy, constitutes the deduction of legal prescriptions from the Qurʾan and the sunna. It is used in kalām as a syllogistic procedure which consists in induc-

138  Walāya in Formative Sufism

202 203 204 205 206

207 208 209

tion from the known to the unknown. In the terminology of fiqh, qiyās is ‘judicial reasoning by analogy’. It is the method adopted by the Muslim jurists to define a rule which has not been the object of an explicit formulation in the Qurʾan, ḥadīth and ijmāʿ (consensus). See M. Bernand and G. Troupeau, ‘Ḳiyās’, in EI2, vol. v, pp. 239–242. Al-Tirmidhī, ʿIlm al-Awliyāʾ, p. 142. Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 225, p. 228, p. 237, etc. Al-Tirmidhī, ʿIlm al-Awliyāʾ, p. 142. Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 50. ‘As I have described to you, the prophets are assured by way of divine revelation. Divine revelation brings them certainty, and they accept it through the spirit. The awliyāʾ Allāh, however, [are assured] by way of that which is due, and tat which is due brings them certainty which they accept through god-inspired peace of mind. And they do not accept anything which contravenes the Holy Law of the Messenger. Moreover, they only receive God’s glad tidings once He has bestowed on them cleanliness of heart, knowledge of God’s Oneness (ʿilm al-tawḥīd) and knowledge of His favours (maʿrifat al-ālāʾ)’. Sīrat, p. 153. Sīrat, pp. 220–222. Radtke claims that al-Tirmidhī follows a Greek philosophical theory of vision in which the act of sight consists of light rays being emitted from the eye and meeting with the glow of colours. See Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 236–238. Sīrat, pp. 111–112.

4

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism

After the death of the Prophet, many theological and philosophical discussions arose regarding the relationship between mankind and God and its nature in the absence of prophethood. Within early Sufism, as we have seen within the texts under this study, all three authors argued for the capability of mankind to have a direct relationship with God. To them, mankind does not necessarily need an intermediary, such as imām in the case of Shiʿism, in order to communicate with God. It was the concept of walāya that provided a remarkable ground for these early Sufi thinkers to develop their system of thoughts to express such a relationship between mankind and God. Now, if there could be a possibility of direct relationship between mankind and God, the question that followed was: how mankind could reach and connect with the realm of the Absolute/God? Given the historical context of the second/ninth century, the answer to this question came to be through the acquisition of ‘God’s knowledge’.1 The discussion on the notion of ‘knowledge of God’ became so important in Sufism that the history of Sufism in Islam has been equated with the history of knowledge of God.2 The ‘knowledge of God’ dominated the Sufi discussions and gave Sufism its distinctive shape and complexion. In the course of time, with the acquisition of the notion of knowledge of God with the notion of walāya, a vast and rich genre of Sufi thoughts and literature flourished and led all aspects of religious, intellectual, and political life in Sufism. To this end, all three Sufi authors we examined in the last chapter consider the concept of walāya in relation to the acquisition of knowledge of God. Also, all of them, in their own way, deal with two questions: (1) who are those who possess walāya and knowledge of God and (2) how their knowledge of God is acquired? I will first start with a brief overview of the idea of knowledge of God within early Sufism. Then I will deal with other aspects of walāya coined within the discussions on notion of knowledge of God, such as the idea of emanation to express the cosmic existence of the awliyāʾ and a primordial covenant with God which leads to the idea of elite awliyāʾ, their archetypal existence in pre-eternity, and their spiritual hierarchy. Thus, what follows in this chapter is an examination of the development of the themes emerged from the discussions on walāya explored in the last chapter in the writings of early Sufi authors, namely Kitāb al-Ṣidq of al-Kharrāz (d. 286/899), Tafsīr al-Qurʾan of al-Tustarī (d. 283/896), and Kitāb DOI:  10.4324/9781003366416-5

140  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ of al-Tirmidhī’s (d. 295–300/907–912). Concerning the concept of walāya, four major themes have emerged within our texts:

1. Walāya and knowledge; 2. Hierarchy among the awliyāʾ; 3. Walāya, emanation and primordial covenant; 4. Walāya vs. Nubuwwa.

Walāya and Knowledge There are two major terms that have been known to comply with the idea of knowledge in Islam, those are ʿilm and maʿrifa. Between these two terms, ʿilm is the most commonly used term for knowledge as it is in the case of the Qurʾan too.3 Studies on the etymology of the root ʿ-l-m place it in pre-Islamic times and seem to agree on its semantic relationship to the Arabic word ʿalam, meaning ‘way sign, marker, and indicator’. It has been pointed out that for the Bedouins, the knowledge of way signs (ʿilm), the distinctive marks in the desert which directed them on their journeys and in carrying out their daily life, was the most immediate knowledge to be acquired.4 The word maʿrifa, on the other hand, is derived from the root verb ʿarafa which may be used in place of iʿtarafa (‘to recognize’), so in this sense, maʿrifa denotes ‘recognition’ or ‘identification’ of a thing.5 The Qurʾan’s understanding of ʿ-l-m, however, departs from the root meaning of the term and indicates the meaning of ‘religious knowledge’ which is particularly identical with the themes of the divine message transmitted by the Prophet.6 The root ʿ-r-f, on the other hand, is not employed in the Qurʾan in connection with God, and subsequently, never really entered the discussion of the divine attribute of knowledge.7 Thus, based on the Qurʾanic understanding of ʿilm and maʿrifa, Muslim scholars primarily expressed the notion of God’s knowledge with the term ʿilm, as against to maʿrifa.8 Having said above, it was perhaps al-Ashʿarī who treated the term maʿrifa as synonym to ʿilm in the discussion of God’s beautiful names (asmāʾ al-ḥusnāʾ): The name ‘ālim has the same meaning as ‘ārif, but we designate God as ‘ālim because He has thus designated Himself, and we do not designate Him as ‘ārif and this applies to other synonyms of ‘ālim, such as fahīm.9 Many later scholars joined al-Ashʿarī’s discussion and much additional ingenuity was spent by later Muslim scholars upon the explanation of the similarity and differences between the terms ʿilm and maʿrifa. Our authors were writing at a time when the discussion on these two terms and their relations between them were still in its elementary stage. They used both terms interchangeably.10 Therefore, I will limit my analysis of knowledge of God, be it ʿilm or maʿrifa, within our three Sufi texts, only to examine its relation to the concept of walāya. Al-Kharrāz in Kitāb al-Ṣidq is not too concerned with presenting an elaborate structure concerning walāya in regard to knowledge of God. His main task in his

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  141 Kitāb al-Ṣidq is to present in a coherent manner, a mystical journey open to any mystic based on a moral psychology. He builds for the mystic a path of truthfulness (ṣidq) based on the psychological states of fear and desire.11 Al-Kharrāz defines ṣidq at the outset as the complete agreement of one’s inner convictions and outward acts. Then he sets it as a condition for the true worship of God and a hallmark of the genuine Sufi.12 The wayfarer must travel with ṣidq along his path to God which includes several stations, such as fear, hope, trust, love, shame, intimacy, and longing. The goal of the journey is the ultimate proximity with God. However, before this proximity is achieved, there is one last level that a mystic man must possess. That is, the knowledge of God. Based on the level of knowledge of God, we can say that there is an implied hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in Kitāb al-Ṣidq. The supremacy among men can only be the result of the supremacy of their knowledge of God, and therefore, according to their degree of knowledge men differ from one another in this world and the next.13 Al-Tustarī’s understanding of the awliyāʾ’s knowledge of God, is restricted to the heart and the nafs. It is Muḥammad’s heart, filled with divine knowledge and love, which acts as the source of illumination and knowledge of God in the hearts of men.14 Thus, in al-Tustarī’s view, it is the ‘heart’ that is the organ of spiritual vision which absorbs divine knowledge. Al-Tustarī also understands the nafs as that secret entrusted to man from the Day of Covenant in pre-existence. For al-Tustarī, every man can attain the awareness of the secret of the nafs, but not all men realize the full extent of its intrinsic nature. The mystical path for al-Tustarī is a struggle between God-centred direction of his heart and the self-centred tendency of his nafs. Between the heart and the nafs stands the intellect (ʿaql).15 One can argue that the difference between al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī regarding walāya and their treatment of knowledge of God can be viewed as the difference between spiritual psychology and spiritual physiology. As we have seen in the last chapter, the starting point for al-Kharrāz is the psychological states of desire, fear, hope, love, and longing and increasing the knowledge of God station by station, whereas, for al-Tustarī, the starting point is the combination of physical organs and faculties which generate the momentum of a spiritual quest and acquiring the knowledge of God. From here onwards, the difference between al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī extends much further. There is nothing specifically set aside for the mystic antecedent to birth within al-Kharrāz’s writings. The journey of the mystic, for al-Kharrāz, begins with truthfulness. For al-Tustarī, however, the journey of truthfulness begins according to the pre-figured scheme in pre-eternity. In contrast to al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī, the knowledge of God, according to al-Tirmidhī, is not available even to the religious scholars (ʿulamāʾ), let alone the common people. ʿUlamāʾ, according to al-Tirmidhī, have the knowledge of the exterior of religion (ʿilm al-ẓāhir) whereas it is the awliyāʾ who have the inner knowledge of the religion (ʿilm al-bāṭin), which is the knowledge of the heart (ʿilm al-qalb) or the knowledge that is with God (ʿilm al-ladunnī).16 For al-Tirmidhī, therefore, the true inheritors of the prophets are the awliyāʾ Allāh who possess the true and hidden knowledge of God. They are the true knowers of God.17

142  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism Now the question is, how the awliyāʾ receive or acquire the knowledge of God? Al-Kharrāz does not refer to any process by which God reveals knowledge of Himself and His divine providence to a wayfarer. Neither revelation (waḥy) nor any other process of acquisition or bestowal of knowledge is discussed by al-Kharrāz. It seems that the attributes of a wayfarer, such as truthfulness merged with fear, hope, trust, love, shame, intimacy, and longing, lead through intelligence, comprehension (fahm), understanding, and attentiveness, as if automatically, to the knowledge of God. In this scheme of things, there is less divine selection and favour. The task of God is merely to appoint man as a successor and a follower of the Prophet and then watch man’s actions. Passing through all the stations which will bring a mystic nearer to God, including a comprehension of the divine, is considered by al-Kharrāz as very human in nature, and a truthful wayfarer is capable of enjoying it. For al-Tustarī, the process of acquisition or bestowal of knowledge of God is the same as in al-Kharrāz’s view. The process is based on man’s capacity of comprehension, understanding (fahm), and inspiration (ilhām).18 Al-Tustarī sometimes uses the word ‘waḥy’ for this process as well. Even though he acknowledges that the process of revelation (waḥy) is reserved for God’s prophets, he qualifies the same word to apply to the mystic. It is not the prophetic revelation, but revelation nonetheless that takes place through inspiration (ilhām) between the triangular relationship of the intellect, the heart, and the nafs.19 Within al-Tirmidhī’s writings, however, there is a major divergence from the other two authors regarding the ways of receiving knowledge of God. For al-Tirmidhī, the difference in the process of the acquisition of knowledge accounts for the distinction between prophethood and walāya. Al-Tirmidhī explains that unlike prophets who receive the knowledge of God through revelation (waḥy), the same knowledge (which he calls kalām) reaches the walī Allāh as supernatural speech (ḥadīth) in his tongue and leads to the walī’s peace of mind (sakīna).20 Here, waḥy for the prophet corresponds to ḥadīth for the walī Allāh. He distinguishes three ways in which ḥadīth comes to a walī Allāh: (1) through vision sent to a walī, (2) by entering the heart at the state of awakens by way of sakīna (divine peace), and (3) in the form of ilhām (inspiration). Although the ways of receiving the knowledge of God differ for prophets and the awliyāʾ, they receive the same knowledge nonetheless. This seems to be in response to the Shiʿi view that after the Prophet, the imām receives the complete knowledge of God, although the way of receiving this knowledge is different from that of the Prophet. I will discuss the correlation between prophethood and walāya in more detail later in this chapter.

Hierarchy among the Awliyāʾ The investigation of the question how a walī receives the knowledge of God led to the establishment of a hierarchical order among the awliyāʾ. Al-Kharrāz provides one of the earliest documented hierarchies of the awliyāʾ in Sufism. In the hierarchy of al-Kharrāz, awliyāʾ can never reach the level of the prophets. For him, walāya is a lower notion than nubuwwa. All awliyāʾ have lower rank than

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  143 the prophets. The awliyāʾ themselves stand at different levels within this hierarchy depending on the depth of the knowledge of God. He claims that supremacy among men accords only with supremacy in their knowledge of God.21 As already discussed, the notion of truthfulness is the foundation on which this hierarchy is constructed, according to al-Kharrāz. Anyone who wishes for intimacy of God can start the mystical journey towards God. The only condition the wayfarer needs to fulfil is the condition of truthfulness. But then, the wayfarer needs to pass through several stations to attain his goal, namely, to reside near God.22 This highest level of a walī can only be attained with the most perfect knowledge of God. Only then does the wayfarer stands on the peak of the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ.23 This is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Like for al-Kharrāz, prophethood has a higher rank than walāya for al-Tustarī too. But unlike al-Kharrāz, in al-Tustarī’s understanding, the awliyāʾ occupy a special place as compared to the rest of mankind. Al-Tustarī introduces the aspects of emanation and covenant into this hierarchy in order to bring forth the notion of spiritual elect. As a logical consequence, al-Tustarī introduces a clear division between those who are elected and those who are not. The common people (ʿumūm) are different from the spiritually elect (khuṣūṣ).24 The common people are believers (muʾminūn) and servants of God (ʿibād); they also had a pact with God professing God’s lordship over them, yet they may not be the one who entered the pact of the awliyāʾ with God in pre-eternity. Al-Tustarī maps the believing men and the awliyāʾ onto his murādūn–murīdūn dichotomy, as it was mentioned before. The group of elite awliyāʾ never forget their covenant, while the common people suffer from the forgetfulness of this significant event. The pact of the awliyāʾ also consists in reminding and guiding the believing men towards God.

Prophets (anbiyāʾ)

awliyāʾ walī K nowledge of God)

Mystical journey ṣiddīqun mankind

Figure 4.1  Hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Kharrāz’s Kitāb al-Ṣidq. Source: Created by author.

144  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism The awliyāʾ, according to al-Tustarī, are granted entry into Paradise without the need of shafāʿa. They receive inspirations of God’s signs and are endowed with the gift of understanding the Qurʾan.25 Al-Tustarī does not go into details concerning his hierarchy. He does not say why his hierarchy is the way it is. Nevertheless, he extends his hierarchy a little further than al-Kharrāz and, unlike him, moves towards the idea of eclecticism. He also describes Prophet Muḥammad as a walī, holding both offices, walāya and prophethood, at the same time.26 Al-Tustarī declares an internal gradation of perfection among the awliyāʾ. The lowest level of this hierarchy starts with ‘awtād’. Next is the level of ‘abdāl’ or ‘budalāʾ’, the substitutes. They are called abdāl because they are in constant progress towards perfection and hence are repeatedly substituted by someone from a lower rank. Their virtues are that they exercise moderation, even towards food (iḥmās al-buṭun), seclude themselves from the rest of mankind (iʿtizāl ʿan al-khalq), perform nightly vigils (saḥar al-layl), and stay silent (ṣamt). Higher up is the rank of the veracious ones (ṣiddīqūn). Al-Tustarī also assigns specific numbers to his hierarchy. He says there are seven awtād, forty budalāʾ among the fifteen hundred ṣiddīqūn. Al-Tustarī does not explain the reason behind these specific numbers. Are these numbers predetermined just as his scheme of preeternal creation or do they simply reflect the status of the hierarchy during his lifetime? Al-Tustarī does not provide any answer to this question. At the summit of his hierarchy stands ‘quṭb’—the pole, as the spiritual axis of this hierarchy and then he claims for himself the position of the quṭb.27 It is against this background that some Sufis, perhaps even al-Tustarī himself, understood the task of the quṭb as being the proof of God on earth (ḥujjat Allāh)—the supreme reminder of God for mankind after the Prophet. Figure 4.2 illustrates the hierarchy in al-Tustarī. Al-Tirmidhī, unlike al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī, develops a detailed hierarchy for the awliyāʾ. He starts with describing Prophet Muḥammad as the ‘Khātam al-nubuwwa’, the ‘seal’ of prophethood, which does not mean that Muḥammad was the last of the prophets, but rather that through Muḥammad, prophethood was made perfect and complete. In parallel to the seal of prophethood, the highest position in the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ is occupied by the seal of the awliyāʾ (khātam al-awliyāʾ), who, just like the Prophet Muḥammad in the hierarchy of prophets, perfects and completes the walāya. Besides being the highest in rank he is, as it was the case in al-Tustarī’s quṭb who was ‘ḥujjat Allāh’ (the proof of God for mankind), khātam al-awliyāʾ stands at the highest rank amongst all awliyāʾ and acts as the intercessor who will plead with God for mercy on the believers on the Day of Judgement. Just like Prophet Muḥammad, khātam al-awliyāʾ is God’s chosen servant to whom He will grant His closest proximity. He is the first to possess knowledge of God, the first to learn of God’s Will (mashiʾa), the first in the decree of destiny (al-maqādīr), and the first to be mentioned in the preserved tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ). He is destined to stand next to the Prophet at the end of time, speaking face to face with God (yunājihī kifāḥan) while all the remaining awliyāʾ will stand behind him.28 At the bottom of al-Tirmidhī’s hierarchy of awliyāʾ are the pious worshippers (ʿubbād), ascetics (zuhhād), the God-fearing (muttaqūn), and those with

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  145

Prophethood (nubuwwa)

The Prophet as a walī of God, is the highest of awliyāʾ

Spiritual Elect (khuṣūs)

awliyāʾ

Quṭb

Knowledge of God (ʿlm/maʿrifa

strong (qawwī)

ṣiddīqun budalāʾ

weak (ʿajz)

awtād

Common People (ʿumūm) Servants of God (ʿibād)

Believers (muʾminūn)

Figure 4.2  Hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr . Source: Created by author.

146  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism sincere intentions (mukhliṣūn). Al-Tirmidhī calls them ‘the special people’ (akhyāṣ).29 After this general assembly comes what al-Tirmidhī calls ‘created beings’ or ‘men of earth’ (arḍiyyūn). Their ascent in the hierarchy cannot surpass the Throne of God. Even though the highest of these reside in the loftiest of the regions, the ‘ʿillīyūn’, they are still far away from the realms (mulk) of divine proximity, because, regardless of their exalted status, they are still bondsmen of the carnal soul (ʿibād al-nufūs).30 Even among the highest of them, the carnal soul (nafs al-ammāra) still prevails. Their hierarchy is similar to that outlined by al-Tustarī, with ṣiddīqūn, budalāʾ, and awtād situated in successive levels.31 Al-Tirmidhī modifies this part of the hierarchy by introducing two new groups: ‘aḥrār’ (free) and ‘kirām’ (nobles). Just as in case of al-Tustarī, they are awliyāʾ as well. However, al-Tirmidhī classifies them as ‘awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh’. They are in constant struggle for overcoming the challenges of their carnal soul, which constitute a barrier between them and God. Therefore, they too require guidance in their spiritual path.32 This guidance comes from the ones above them. After this general assembly of arḍiyyūn, the realm of the inhabitants of the Celestial Throne (ʿarshiyyūn) begins. They are the ‘awliyāʾ Allāh’ who cross the realm of the Throne because ‘they are the bondsmen of the Noble and the Generous and not the bondmen of their carnal souls’.33 They come ever closer to God. This privilege, however, is not through their own enterprise and effort but only by the grace of God. What is noticeable in al-Tirmidhī’s distinction between two types of awliyāʾ, namely awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh and awliyāʾ Allāh, is his language. His language is noteworthy because the way he treats the concept of walāya is similar to patterns of the social institution of clientage (walāʾ) exercised at the time of al-Tirmidhī in Transoxiana.34 As mentioned earlier, al-Tirmidhī lived for much of his early life under Ṭāhirīd rule in Tirmidh. The Ṭāhirīds were Abbasid mawālī (clients).35 Crone notes that although the clientage system of walāʾ characterized Arab and non-Arab relationships during much of the Umayyad period, it no longer served to functionally organize relationships of inequality between Arab Muslims and nonArab converts to Islam. However, she argues that the ruling Abbasids continued using this institution, especially in the army and in their interactions with the local rulers of different provinces, since they felt that the bond of loyalty among these clients (mawālī) was stronger than among Arabs or free Muslims.36 Al-Tirmidhī explains the institution of walāʾ, and the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ by referring to the then existing social institution of slavery.37 The awliyāʾ resemble the khulafāʾ (caliphs, the successors of the Prophet) and are the truly ‘free’ ones (aḥrār). Just as the caliph frees a slave, and thereby the slave enters a bond of allegiance known as walāʾ (clientage) with the caliph, God frees the believing servant from the bondage of his lower nafs to make him a walī. The two types of the awliyāʾ within al-Tirmidhī’s writing correspond to the social institution of walāʾ.38 First are those who are on the path of disciplining their lower nafs but have not subdued it completely (awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh). These are like the slaves who acquired their freedom by paying off their debts. Such a walī will remain in their rank and will never attain the higher rank of a free walī. For

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  147 al-Tirmidhī, it is one thing to acquire freedom and quite another to have freedom from the beginning. The second and higher type of walī, in al-Tirmidhī’s view, is a walī who is freed from the slavery from his lower nafs by God’s pure favour (jūd) and mercy (raḥma).39 This is the walī who is absolutely free (ḥurr) and is the true walī (walī Allāh). Both above-mentioned types of awliyāʾ are distinguished from the commoners (ʿāmma) who are the slaves (ʿabīd) of their lower nafs.40 A detailed hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Tirmidhī’s system is shown in Figure 4.3.

Walāya, Emanation and Primordial Covenant The notion of knowledge of God led to another major discussion in Sufism on which walāya was obtained through emanation (fayḍ).41 This connection between walāya and knowledge of God through emanation was established through the story of creation. Within the texts of our three authors, the discussion on walāya and emanation starts with al-Tustarī and not with al-Kharrāz. Amongst our early authors, it was al-Tustarī who used the notion of emanation and the metaphor of light to explain the creation of the awliyāʾ, but this metaphor was long in use by the time of al-Tustarī. The idea of light as ‘guidance and wisdom’ was already common in biblical thought and throughout later Judaism and Christianity. The Hellenistic thought in its search for clarity of expression made much use of the imagery of light.42 Light has a central place in dualistic religions, such as Zoroastrian and Manichaean, too. The opposition of darkness and light explains the man’s low, material world of darkness in contrast with the glorious world of light on high.43 Light is also a Qurʾanic term which provides guidance and is given by God only (Q 24:40 or Q 57:28). According to the Qurʾan, ‘ʿilm, guidance, and a scripture giving light’ are the things that together offer true religious insight (Q 31:20). Light also accompanies the faithful, representing their perfect faith (Q 66:8). The famous ‘verse of light’ known as āyat al-nūr (Q 24:35),44 the explanation of the suffix in nūrihī (his light), gave rise to many commentaries as well as explanatory glosses of the Qurʾanic vocabulary.45 In addition, the early Sīra of Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150/767), roughly half a century before al-Tustarī, mentions the light shining on Muḥammad’s father ʿAbd Allāh which was passed on to his wife Āmina when she was pregnant with Muḥammad.46 Al-Tustarī may not have been the first to use the notion of emanation, particularly, the notion of Muḥammad’s light as the first creature, but he could very well have been among the first to have incorporated this idea into Sufism and linked it with the notion of the Qurʾanic primordial covenant.47 Within Tafsīr, the creation process in pre-eternity for al-Tustarī starts with Muḥammad’s light (nūr Muḥammadī) as the first creation. Once created in preeternity, the light of Muḥammad shines on all creations and serves as a primal archetypal principle of mankind. Before it reaches mankind, it creates derived lights of the prophets, the awliyāʾ and the archetypal man or Adam. The prophets and the awliyāʾ, as the ones whom God desires (murādūn), are directly created

148  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism Seal of the awliyāʾ (khātam al-awliyāʾ)

Seal of prophethood (Khātam al-anbīyaʾ) PROXIMITY TO GOD walī Allāh

munfarid/umanāʾ

1

Mulk al-fardiyya (singleness)-> ʿuwwida (promoted)

2

Mulk al-raḥma (mercy)-> shujjiʿa (nourished)

3

Mulk al-hayba (awesomeness)-> rubbiya (developed)

Celestial Beings ʿarshiyūn)

4

Mulk al-bahja (joy)-> wussiʿa (broadened)

5

Mulk al-bahāʾ (splendour)-> ṭuyyiba (sweet smelling)

ahl al-yaqīn

6

Mulk al-ʿaẓama (majesty)-> ṭuhhira (cleansed)

7

Mulk al-jamāl (beauty)-> nuqqiya (puriied)

8

Mulk al-jalāl (greatness)-> uddiba (educated)

9

Mulk al-sulṭān (dominion)-> hudhdhiba (reined)

10

Mulk al-jabarūt (compulsion)-> quwwima (upright)

THRONE OF GOD

Created Beings (arḍiyūn) ahl al-ṣidq Special People (akhyāṣ)

walī ḥaqq Allāh

Loftiest Region ʿilliyūn

ṣiddīq budalāʾ awtād

walī

Aḥrār/ kirām

ṣādiq

ʿubbād

zuhhād

muttaqūn

mukhliṣūn

Bondsmen of carnal soul ʿibād al-nufūs

Figure 4.3  Hierarchy of the awliyāʾ in al-Tirmidhī . Source: Created by author.

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  149 from the Muḥammad’s light, whereas the progeny of Adam and the rest of mankind, as the ones who desire God (murīdūn), are created by Adam’s light. By considering Muḥammad as the first creation and his light as directly emanating from the light of God, al-Tustarī tacitly dismisses the idea of privileged elite based on kinship (belonging to a certain tribe or family). It is through the idea of light that the progeny of Muḥammad becomes a universal, spiritual notion. Ibn Isḥāq’s view of light shining on Muḥammad’s father and mother may have been simply a way to confirm the pious Arab ancestry of Muḥammad as opposed to his ancestry among the pagan, jāhiliyya ancestors.48 In al-Tustarī, however, the preeternal Muḥammad’s light emanating directly from God de-localizes the ancestry as well as the Arab legacy of Muḥammad. Therefore, the awliyāʾ need not be from the physical progeny of Muḥammad—they are to constitute his spiritual progeny and spiritual legacy. Awliyāʾ are heirs to the light and to the knowledge of the prophets. The purpose of situating the creation of Muḥammad in pre-eternity is not to conceive the moment of creation but to mark spiritual destinies. Awliyāʾ become ‘spiritual elect’ and because of this, are necessarily few in numbers, unlike the rest of mankind. As explored earlier, a major discussion in Tafsīr of al-Tustarī regarding the ontology and epistemology of the awliyāʾ is the story of creation. Al-Tirmidhī follows al-Tustarī’s idea of emanation based on the story of creation but goes a step further. Al-Tirmidhī portrays the highest walī becoming the first among the awliyāʾ just as Muḥammad is the first to be created among the prophets.49 Although not explicitly stated, it seems that the creation of awliyāʾ in al-Tirmidhī takes place not as a derivative of the creation of Muḥammad, but rather in parallel to it.50

Walāya vs. Nubuwwa The status of walāya and prophethood (nubuwwa) is quite clear in al-Kharrāz, as shown in Figure 4.1. Prophethood is a rank situated far above the rank of walāya. The spiritual precedence of prophets over the awliyāʾ is not just a privilege assigned to Prophet Muḥammad. All prophets are higher in rank than the awliyāʾ within the mystical world of al-Kharrāz. When he speaks of the awliyāʾ and nearness to God, he explicitly emphasizes that there is no possibility of prophethood after Prophet Muḥammad but there are possibilities of attaining walāya. This highest of stations attainable for a mystic, walāya, is open to everyone and it is not restricted to certain chosen or selected people. For al-Tustarī too, the Prophet Muḥammad is without doubt the highest and the most exalted being. He was the first to be contemplated by God and the first light that irradiated from God. The light of Muḥammad shines on all the prophets and all the awliyāʾ simultaneously. However, in al-Tustarī writings, with the exception of Prophet Muḥammad, prophethood and walāya are treated as identical with each other, except in the acquisition of knowledge. All the prophets and all the awliyāʾ have their source not in God’s light, but in Muḥammad’s light, predetermined in pre-eternity and confirmed in the primordial pact. Similar to al-Kharrāz's view,

150  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism the role of walāya is open to everyone, according to al-Tustarī too. Al-Tustarī admits that everyone can be a walī, that is, a carrier of prophetic legacy, and does not necessarily have to be from the physical progeny of Muḥammad. The notion of Muḥammad’s light, which allows the office of the awliyāʾ to become universal, together with the inclusion of primordial covenant for the awliyāʾ, however, creates a basic two-fold hierarchy in al-Tustarī: the chosen ones (murād) who are destined to become awliyāʾ, and mankind in general (murīd) who are to be guided by these selected awliyāʾ. The selection process is by God’s Will only.51 Like prophets, according to al-Tustarī, the awliyāʾ are also depicted as the recipients of the revelation of God’s signs (āyāt).52 When al-Tustarī makes the crucial distinction between prophethood and walāya, it is mainly by alluding to the tasks allocated to each group. As mentioned earlier, both prophets and awliyāʾ emanate from the primordial column of Muḥammad’s light; however, they enter into God’s realm in varying degrees.53 The elect, chosen by God, enjoyed special privileges. They received revelations of God’s signs, which for prophets meant miracles (muʿjizāt) and for the awliyāʾ charismatic gifts (karāmāt) and they were endowed with the gift of understanding the Qurʾan. Al-Tustarī also mentions that the last of the ranks (darajāt) of the righteous (ṣiddīqūn) is the first of the states (aḥwāl) of the prophets (anbiyāʾ).54 It is apparent that for al-Tustarī, both prophets and awliyāʾ are favoured in the primordial existence, but the prophets were ‘first to approach the faith in God’ Himself, whereas the awliyāʾ were ‘first to approach the faith in the prophets’.55 Hence, in terms of history and having faith in God, prophets are described as the possessors of a higher rank. In addition to this, al-Tustarī mentions that God assigned for the prophets the duty of propagating the faith while the awliyāʾ were charged with reminding believers of the message of the prophets.56 Moreover, al-Tustarī considers Prophet Muḥammad as a walī and holding simultaneously the offices of walāya and nubuwwa.57 Al-Tirmidhī makes the same basic distinction between the ‘guided ones’ and the ‘chosen ones’ as al-Tustarī’s hierarchy.58 However, his guided ones are not the common, non-elected people but certain awliyāʾ whom he describes as ‘awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh’. The chosen ones, according to al-Tustarī, are then the spiritual elect, namely ‘awliyāʾ Allāh’ (see Figure 4.3). They hold the same spiritual rank as the prophets (except Prophet Muḥammad) and carry the responsibility of guiding mankind after the completion of prophethood, as decreed in the covenant and in their destinies. An interesting point to note here is that the prophets and the chosen awliyāʾ are not subject to struggles with their carnal soul.59 The chosen ones only need to perfect themselves, slowly accomplishing their virtues during their journey across the divine realms until they reach the position of uniqueness (infirād).60 The difference between munfarid and khātam al-awliyāʾ (seal of the awliyāʾ) appears only in the history of mankind and eschatology. The ‘seal’ of the awliyāʾ is supposed to come at the end of time and conversely his presence is supposed to be an indicator of the end of time.61 It is appropriate not to question al-Tirmidhī on the position of prophethood and walāya with respect to each other. From the very beginning he, instead of subjugating one to the other, creates a parallel world

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  151 for each. As God is creating Prophet Muḥammad as His first being, so he is creating the seal of the awliyāʾ (khātam al-awliyāʾ) as his first being. In pre-eternity, as al-Tirmidhī might have realized, there is no point in speaking of successive events and time. As the first creation, Muḥammad too partakes in walāya. The treatment of the relationship between prophethood and walāya in al-Tirmidhī’s writings is ambiguous. It seems that he implies, albeit vaguely, that the prophets were awliyāʾ of God before they become prophets and hence, they possess the qualities of both, prophethood and walāya.62 Particularly in the case of Prophet Muḥammad, there is nothing in al-Tirmidhī’s system which hinders the Prophet from claiming the title of the seal of the awliyāʾ for himself—for all the functions and proofs of a walī Allāh are already present in him.63 The seal of the awliyāʾ, however, cannot claim the title of the seal of prophethood. The function of the seal of the awliyāʾ is not to propagate the message of God as messengers, but to guide mankind towards the message of God already imparted by the prophets.64

Closing Remarks It is evident from the texts of Sufi authors examined in this study, that from the formative period of Sufism, walāya became the central concept that describes the relationship between mankind and God after the end of the prophethood with the death of Prophet Muḥammad. Within less than a half century, the notion of walāya develops into an important and comprehensive concept that is incorporated by al-Tirmidhī into a richly imaginative and complex scheme of mystical theosophy. It is interesting to note that the foundation of the understanding of walāya within all three texts remains the same. Whether it is al-Kharrāz, al-Tustarī, or al-Tirmidhī, the starting point for any mystical elevation is ṣidq. Truthfulness is the cornerstone of the mystical self-discipline on top of which sits knowledge of God. Within all three texts, the manner in which the knowledge of God is received creates the difference between prophethood (nubuwwa) and walāya and alludes to the hierarchy of the awliyāʾ. Once the walī acquires the knowledge of God, the path is open to him to ascend to ever higher stages to gain ultimate proximity with God. However, albeit emerging from the same foundation within our three texts, the concept of walāya diverges significantly and develops in different directions and levels. One observes that amongst our three texts, al-Kharrāz provides the simplest and most basic understanding of the notion of walāya. Apart from the simplicity, the particular feature of the discussion on walāya in al-Kharrāz is that anyone can partake in this mystical quest. There is no elaborate hierarchy in al-Kharrāz, just an ever-going quest. Hence any man can journey towards God and become a walī. It is with al-Tustarī that the concept of walāya gains a cosmic and primordial relevance. His scheme is based on three essential beliefs: walī’s participation in the primordial emanation of light, walī’s divine election as holder of divine intimacy, and bestowal of divinely infused charisma upon the walī. The gradual perfection of the awliyāʾ also takes place within a spiritual hierarchy composed of stages

152  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism based on the knowledge of God. At the same time, awliyāʾ are described as clearly distinct from God’s prophets. Within al-Tirmidhī’s writings, the concept of walāya becomes such a significant central concept that his system can be described as, in Sviri’s words, ‘phenomenology and typology of walāya’ (ʿilm al-walāya).65 Al-Tirmidhī provides minute details on how awliyāʾ are created, how they enter a primordial pact with God, how they gain knowledge, how they can be recognized, what are their virtues, what are the different states and types of awliyāʾ, what their spiritual hierarchy is and how the most perfect among the awliyāʾ (khātam al-awliyāʾ) relates to the most perfect of the prophets (khātam al-anbiyāʾ). Therefore, we can conclude that, within the formative period of Sufism, walāya is transformed from a simple human quality, which is can be obtained by any human being, into a complex and an exhaustive set of properties of the elite awliyāʾ Allāh who are chosen as awliyāʾ from pre-eternity by God. Thus, walāya should be understood as a dynamic term which does not remain unchanged through time, as we observed within early Shiʿism too. In the course of time, the concept of walāya evolves through a set of meanings which are different but thoroughly related to one another.

Notes 1 Towards the end of second/ninth century, we witness the initiation of various viewpoints which later on became the starting point of various schools of jurisprudence (madhāhib) and different brunches within Islam. This is also the time of the major translation movement. ‘Bayt al-Ḥikma’ (the House of Wisdom) was the palace library of the early Abbasid caliphs, mentioned in the sources in connection with al-Rashīd (r. 170–193/786–809) and al-Maʾmūn (r. 196–218/812–833), primarily to do with collecting and preserving early Arabic lore and translating books of pre-Islamic Iranian and Greek. For more details, see Dimitri Gutas and Kevin van Bladel, ‘Bayt al-Ḥikma’, in EI3, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_22882 (consulted online on 07 December 2019); Arnaldez, ‘Falsafa’, p. 772 and also Michael E. Marmura, ‘Some aspects of Avicenna’s Theory of God’s Knowledge of Particulars’, in JAOS, LXXXII (1962), pp. 299–312. 2 In his preface to Renard’s book, Ahmet Karamustafa writes: ‘In a very real sense, the subsequent history of Islamic mysticism can be said to be the history of maʿrifa’. See John Renard, Knowledge of God in Classical Sufism (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2004), p. xii. 3 Also see Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, p. 2. 4 For a detailed study of the root of the term ʿilm, see the valuable work of Franz Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, pp. 6–12. Based on this, the opposite term of knowledge, namely jahl, has been linked with a root (j-w-l) that meant ‘to wander aimlessly in circles’ and ‘unable to discern the markers necessary to make for a hospitable destination’. Early Muslims called the time before Islam al-Jāhilīyya, indicating an age before true knowledge the Prophet brought. ‘Such was knowledge in Arabia when Muḥammad came and altered the concept into an effective tool and objective of divine revelation’. Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, p. 11. 5 Arnaldez, ‘Maʿrifa’, p. 568. 6 For instance, Q 2:225; 2:140; 7:62; and 30:56. A question which would follow is that how the mere meaning of the term ʿilm as ‘way sign’ in pre-Islamic Arabia

Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism  153 amalgamated with the Qurʾanic concept of knowledge which constituted a higher and truer form of reality, namely the ‘religious knowledge’? One theory is the possibility of the Prophet's awareness of Christian understanding of knowledge of the time which Rosenthal provided. With a comparative study of the Qurʾanic term ‘ʿilm al-yaqīnī’ in Q 102: 5–7 and the concept of Christian theological phrase, ‘hī gnūsis tīs alītheias’ translated as ‘the knowledge of truth’, Rosenthal shows the Christian influence on the Qurʾanic terminology regarding the notion of knowledge. He argues that the aforementioned phrase was much used and discussed in Christian circles at the time of Muḥammad and in a geographical location close to central Arabia and was known to Muḥammad. This hypothesis needs further evidence; however, it helps us to understand the divergence from the limited scope of pre-Islamic Arabian ‘knowledge’ and the remarkable impact the concept made upon Muḥammad which is present in the Qurʾan and in turn, set in motion the great movement towards knowledge in Islam. For more details, see Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, pp. 22–32. 7 A philological clarification of the inapplicability of ʿ-r-f to God was given by Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī (d. 395/1005): ‘I do not describe God as ‘ārif, though I do not blame anyone who describes Him thus, because ma‘rifa is derived from the ‘irfān of the mansion, that is, the traces (āthār) which serve to make the mansion in question recognizable (ʿr-ƒ). It is not permissible to assume that God’s knowledge of things comes from effect (trace) and indication (dalīl). Ma‘rifa is the act of distinguishing (tamīz) between the objects of knowledge’ (Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī, Furūq al-lughawiyya (Cairo, Maktabat al-Qudsī, 1353), p. 14). For al-ʿAskarī, maʿrifa is more restricted than ʿilm, ‘Every maʿrifa is an ʿilm, but not every ʿilm is [necessarily] maʿrifa’ (al-ʿAskarī, Furūq allughawiyya, p. 14). 8 For more details, see Morris S. Seale, Muslim Theology: A Study of Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers (London: Headley Brothers Limited, 1980), p. 18. 9 Abī al-Ḥasan ʻAlī ibn Ismāʻīl al-Ashʻarī, Maqālāt al-Islāmiyīn (Beirut: Dār al-Ḥadātha, 1405), p. 525. For detailed description on this point see Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, p. 113. 10 As an example, al-Tirmidhī uses both al-ʿilm bi Allāh and maʿrifat Allāh. 11 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 56. 12 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 56. 13 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 50. 14 Böwering. Mystical Vision, p. 162. 15 For detailed information about these concepts and their interpretations in al-Tustarī’s writing, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 157–165 and pp. 187–189. 16 On this point, also see Radtke, ‘The Concept of Walāya in Early Sufism’, pp. 483–496 and Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism, p. 217. 17 Tafsīr, pp. 15, 20, 42 and 66. Also see Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism, p. 218. 18 Tafsīr, p. 25. 19 Tafsīr, p. 261. 20 Sīrat, p. 112. 21 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 50. 22 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, pp. 60–61. 23 Kitāb al-Ṣidq, p. 49. 24 The manner in which al-Tustarī distinguishes common people from the spiritual elect is clear in the following passage in his Tafsīr: ‘The similitudes which God strikes for man are available for everyone [to see], since the evidence of [His] omnipotence (qudra) are [in themselves] proof of the [existence of] the Omnipotent. However, it is only His elect (khāṣṣa) who fully understand them. Thus, knowledge is rare and understanding granted by God even rarer’. Tafsīr, p. 150. 25 Tafsīr, p. xliv.

154  Development of  Walāya in Formative Sufism 26 Tafsīr, p. 61. 27 See Tafsīr, pp. 89–90 and Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 231–237. 28 Sīrat, p. 104 and p. 110. 29 Sīrat, pp. 151–152. 30 Sīrat, pp. 68 and 88. 31 Tafsīr, p. 194. 32 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 170. 33 Sīrat, p. 152. 34 The significant of al-Tirmidhī’s language in using the institution of walāʾ first was noticed by Aiyub Palmer in his valuable study of al-Tirmidhī’s works. I have adopted his argument on this. For detailed information, see Aiyub Palmer, Sainthood and Authority in Early Islam: Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’s Theory of Walāya and the Re-envisioning of the Sunnī Caliphate (published as E-Book in Studies on Sufism, December 2019, vol. 5), pp. 40–47. 35 Clifford Edmund Bosworth, ‘Ṭāhirids’, in EI2, vol. x (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 104–107. 36 Crone, ‘Mawlāʾ’, p. 878. 37 The term awliyāʾ was also used as a synonym for mawālī in al-Tirmidhī’s time. The terms awliyāʾ and mawālī both denoted freed slaves. For more information, see Clifford Edmund Bosworth, The history of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz: (247/861 to 949/1542–1543) (Costa Mesa, Calif: Mazda Publishers in association with Bibliotheca Persica, 1994), p. 261. 38 See Sīrat, pp. 123–124. 39 Sīrat, p. 123. 40 Sīrat, pp. 233–234. For more information, see Palmer, Sainthood and Authority in Early Islam, pp. 40–81. 41 Among the philosophical ideas offered by the Greek philosophy, which became available in Arabic and Persian translations during the Umayyad caliph al-Maʾmūn and his son and successor al-Muʿtaṣim, one of the most attractive to Muslim thought was the Neoplatonism, and particularly, the Neoplatonic idea of emanation in the cosmology or cosmogony. The notion of emanation is from the Latin ‘emanare’ meaning ‘to flow from’ or ‘to pour forth or out of’. For Neoplatonism, the fundamental concept for relating the original Being (that is, God) to the world is that of emanation. The original Being or God initially emanates, and all things are derived from it by stages of degradation to lesser degrees of that original Being. It was Yaʿqūb al-Kindī who first introduced Neoplatonic philosophy into the Islamic world. In the formative period of Islamic philosophy, it was combined with the idea of creation. For more information, see Willian Hasker, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (London and New York: Routledge 1998), pp. 1863–1864. Also see Richard Walzer, ‘The Rise of Islamic Philosophy’, in Oriens, vol. 3, No. 1 (Jun. 30, 1950), pp. 4–6 and Cristina D’Ancona, ‘Emanation’, in EI3 http://dx​.doi​.org​.iij​.idm​.oclc​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_26173 (consulted online on 22 February 2020). 42 For more information, see Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, pp. 155–156. 43 Rosenthal, Knowledge Triumphant, p. 157. 44 Allāh is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allāh guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allāh speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allāh is Knower of all things. 45 Arthur Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Qurʾan (Leiden: Brill, 1937), pp. 65 and 149. 46 U. Rubin, ‘Nūr Muḥammadī’, in EI2, vol. viii, p. 125.

Development of Walāya in Formative Sufism  155 47 Needless to say, the idea of the specific nature of Muḥammad in pre-existence was not generally accepted by all Muslim scholars. Al-Ghazālī’s (d. 505/1111) statement that the pre-eternal creation of Muḥammad signifies predestination (taqdīr) rather than pre-existence is an interesting point to consider within the discussion of walāya. On this, see Martin Whittingham, Al-Ghazālī and the Qurʾan: one book, many meanings (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), pp. 48–54. 48 Uri Rubin, ‘Prophets and progenitors in the early Shiʿa tradition’, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, I (1979), pp. 41–65. 49 Sīrat, p. 110. 50 Sīrat, p. 110. Al-Tirmidhī continues to make a link between the metaphysical creation and the creation of the physical world, including man’s physical body parts. In doing so, he creates a spiritual genealogy of bodily organs, such as the heart, chest, eyes, ears, and limbs. The purpose is to show how God’s covenant resides within man since the day of creation. ‘God made man hollow and then placed within the spirit, the carnal soul, life, power, knowledge, understanding, memory, comprehension and astuteness, reason, insight, intelligence, vision, lust, compassion, gentleness, kindness and love, joy, anger and indignation’. Then God demanded that man make use of all this and bring it forth from his interior into the open by means of his bodily limbs. Furthermore, by presenting the divine attributes in the realm of lights and connecting it to the attributes of awliyāʾ Allāh, al-Tirmidhī explains how the cosmos has originated through the interweaving work of the luminous realms of the attributes; hence, the created world is an ever-shifting series of manifestations of the divine attributes. See Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 220–227. 51 Tafsīr, p. 106; to read more in this, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 234–235. 52 For more information, see Böwering, Mystical Vision, pp. 234–236. 53 Tafsīr, pp. 92–93. 54 Tafsīr, p. 93. 55 Tafsīr, p. 106. 56 Tafsīr, p. 65. 57 Tafsīr, p. 61. 58 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 131. 59 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, pp. 169–170. 60 Tafsīr, p. 321. 61 Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 202. 62 See Sīrat, p. 236. 63 Also see Radtke, Concept of Sainthood, p. 113. 64 Sīrat, p. 170. 65 Sviri, Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism, p. 2.

5

A Comparative Study of Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism

While Prophet Muḥammad was alive, he was the principal political and religious authority for the Muslim community. Muhammad’s religious authority ultimately rested on the recognition by the Muslim community that God spoke to him via revelation. At the same time, he was also the political authority over the Muslim community. It is not surprising, therefore, that after his death, the model of authority that Muslim intellectuals developed reflected and mirrored the model of the prophetic authority. It is evident that they projected their understanding of the authority of the Prophet Muḥammad into their suggested models of authority. The Shiʿi and Sufi intellectuals developed their concept of walāya on the model of authority exemplified in Muhammad’s ‘nubuwwa’ (prophethood). It has been shown in previous chapters that the understanding of the authority of the Prophet Muḥammad was different at different times. However, regardless of the differences, there is one fundamental element that the prophetic authority, irrespective of time and context, stands on, and that is the connection with the Divine. Friedmann concludes that while it is true that the phrase khātam al-nabiyyīn is generally interpreted as meaning ‘the last prophet’, ‘it is evident the exegetical tradition and other branches of Muslim classical literature preserved this meaning as not the only possible one, and not necessarily the earliest’. It is also understood as the fulfilment of the history of past prophecies, in an additional sense, that is ‘continuity’ or ‘fulfilment’.1 While it seems that both early Shiʿis and Sufis agreed on the finality of prophethood with the death of the Prophet, there was the belief that divine guidance continues throughout time and history. If nubuwwa encapsulated that function in the person of the Prophet and formed the basis of his authority, it is walāya that would encapsulate the function of divine guidance in Sufism and Shiʿism to form the basis of authority of imām and highest walī or quṭb. Our texts reveal that in the minds of the Shiʿi and Sufi intellectuals, the spiritual leader, be it Shiʿi imām or Sufi walī Allāh, retains that special connection with the Divine through their walāya. The ways in which Shiʿi and Sufi intellectuals have conceived of walāya, we can trace elements of both epistemological and ontological inquiries. If epistemological inquiry of nubuwwa involves examination of the process of reception of divine knowledge, then we see similar examination of the manner of reception of divine knowledge in walāya. If an ontological inquiry of nubuwwa DOI:  10.4324/9781003366416-6

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  157 involves understanding the nature of the reality of prophethood, then we see an exploration and elaboration of the nature of reality of walī within both Sufism and Shiʿism. In other words, the elaboration of the epistemological and ontological aspects of walāya mirrors the elaboration of these aspects in nubuwwa. Walāya provided a counterpart to nubuwwa in which both Shiʿism and Sufism developed their understanding of legitimate authority based on the epistemological and ontological understanding of the prophetic model of authority. As the understanding of nubuwwa changed throughout history, so did the understanding of walāya. Initially, Prophet Muḥammad was seen as having political and religious authority over the Muslim community. Consequently, walāya in the writings of Sulaym is related to both political and religious matters. Faḍl expanded on the epistemological question of authority and argued for walāya to have a foundation in the Divine knowledge. From Faḍl onwards, the centrality of the concept of knowledge (ʿilm/maʿrifa) as the backbone of walāya of a walī/ imām is evident. Knowledge meant not a particular science such as medicine or astronomy, but the conduct that would please God and bring mankind closer. Again, Muḥammad is considered as the most knowledgeable human being and his source of knowledge is the Divine revelation. In turn, the Divine knowledge is the most crucial justification for the imāms/awliyāʾ to be the legitimate authority in the community. What immediately followed the epistemological question of a walī/imām was a discussion about the ways in which God reveals His knowledge to a walī/imām. Almost all the authors discussed in the book had elaborate discussions on the controversy about ilhām and waḥy as mediums of receiving Divine knowledge. Our primary sources indicated that while Faḍl did not agree with the ilhām as a gate of revelation, through which a walī received Divine knowledge, al-Kulaynī seemed to accept ilhām as revelation. As we have seen in Chapters 3 and 4, parallelly, different Sufi texts provide different accounts on the ways in which the awliyāʾ receive divine knowledge. Central to both Shiʿi and Sufi discussions on authority is also the metaphysical reality of Prophet Muḥammad. In both Sufism and Shiʿism, Muḥammad’s existence in the primordial realm facilitates the creation of imāms and the awliyāʾ Allāh. Again, this is based on time- and context-bound understanding of Muḥammad’s prophethood. As observed, Sulaym and Faḍl did not conceive Prophet Muḥammad as a cosmic entity. In turn, within Kitāb Sulaym and al-Īḍāḥ, walāya emulates for ʿAlī the same political and religious authority of Muḥammad without discussing ʿAlī as a cosmic being. It was with al-Tustarī that the idea of prophecy in Prophet Muḥammad is embedded in a cosmic dimension and described as a column of light. The cosmic nature of Muḥammad is then reflected in the development of the cosmic nature of the awliyāʾ. Al-Tustarī’s walāya is based on the model of prophethood, where Muḥammad occupies the highest rank. The rest of prophets and awliyāʾ follow Muḥammad’s steps. As the level of a walī elevates, he becomes closer to the rank of Muḥammad. For Al-Tustarī, no walī can reach Muḥammad’s rank. Here prophethood is considered superior to the authority of walāya. A walī in his spiritual journey towards the Divine comes

158  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism closer to the position of Prophet Muḥammad but never reaches the Prophet's rank or supersedes him. It is al-Tirmidhī who, by introducing the concept of khātam al-awliyāʾ, draws a separate model of authority based on walāya, parallel to the model of prophethood. In his model of authority, al-Tirmidhī reserves the highest rank for the khātam al-awliyāʾ, similar to that of Muḥammad as khātam al-anbiyāʾ. Here Khātam al-awliyāʾ finds a role in the dynamics of creation which was previously reserved for the Prophet Muḥammad only. The difference between the khātam al-awliyāʾ and Muḥammad is hard to distinguish. They both perform the same intermediary function between God and creation as well as marking marks the end or the fulfilment of God’s message or revelation. As we have seen in the dramatic account of the story of creation, al-Tirmidhī elaborates on the centrality of the notion of khātam al-awliyāʾ and the role played by its processor in both the pre-eternal and the post-eternal realms. In other words, in its journey through two centuries after the death of the Prophet Muḥammad, walāya finally, within the writings of al-Tirmidhī, matches the ranking of prophethood, functioning as the legitimate authority, from the death of Prophet Muḥammad to the end of history. Where nubuwwa left off, walāya begins and serves the same function till the end of the world.

Significance of Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism In the tribal context of Arabia, the succession to a leader was customarily based on blood kinship and inheritance.2 This social context is reflected in the Qurʾan as well. There are instances in the Qurʾan that give preference to blood relations (ulu al-arḥām) over any other bond between the believers (for example Q 33:6). The notion of prophethood and the chain of the prophets are also described in terms of blood relations (Q 6:84–89). Moses asked God to receive help of his brother Aaron, in the face of the opposition of the Banī Isrāʾīl (Q 20: 29–32, 36; Q 35:35). Aaron became the associate of Moses (Q 21:48–49). David’s son, Solomon, became his assistant and successor (Q 35:30). Solomon inherited from David both his crown and his prophethood (Q 27:16). Being childless Zacharia implored God for descendent from his own family (Q 19: 5–6). This strong and already established custom of successorship based on blood kinship within the tribal system of Arabia was what the Shiʿis grounded their dispute to demonstrate ʿAlī’s right of succession to Muḥammad.3 The ahl albayt of Muḥammad initially as well meant, as it was consistent with the general usage of the term at the time, primarily his blood relations. The legitimate authority based on the idea of blood kinship and being from ʿAlī’s offspring exclusively has continued in Shiʿism up to the present, as an essential component of the ontology of a walī/imām. It is thus conceivable why Shiʿism at the beginning started with the juxtaposition of the terms waṣiyya and walāya to justify ʿAlī’s legitimacy to succeed the Prophet. Waṣiyya could more precisely convey the sense of strong blood kinship needed for the next ruler after the death of the Prophet.

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  159 It was after the occurrence of the Minor Occultation that within both Shiʿism and Sufism the development of the concept of walāya started to mirror the ongoing development of the concept of nubuwwa. Prior to the Minor Occultation, nubuwwa was considered a concept representing an agency markedly different from walāya. In the post-Occultation period, however, walāya became a counterpart to nubuwwa, defining the legitimate authority in both Shiʿism and Sufism. For Shiʿism, this was done by discussing the process of succession of the earlier prophets in the Qurʾan. The former prophets in the Qurʾan considered being succeeded by their offspring or close kin a supreme divine favour for which they pledged their Lord. The concept of walāya in Sufism as well provided a solid foundation for the development of the Sufi understanding of legitimate authority. Although the Sufi understanding of authority and hierarchy of the awliyāʾ is rooted in the Qurʾan, it seems that Sufism, specifically in the case of al-Tirmidhī, was also inspired by the social institution of clientage (walāʾ) for their articulation of legitimate authority. As we have already seen, walāʾ was an institution that justified social relationships of dependence between Arab rulers and nonArabs, which was specifically in practice in the province of Greater Khurāsān during the early Abbasid period. This social pattern of walāʾ, mediating relationship between a slave and a freeman, served as the basis for articulation of the hierarchy of awliyāʾ as the legitimate authority. Furthermore, the understanding of walāya as legitimate authority within Sufism, as evident within the writings of al-Tirmidhī, was a response to the Shiʿi’s understanding of the legitimate authority.4 Al-Tirmidhī strongly objected to the Shiʿi’s claim of the legitimacy and authority of ahl al-bayt as referring to the relatives of the Prophet or exclusively to the ʿAlid line. As pointed out in the previous chapter, al-Tirmidhī goes as far as to redefine the phrase ‘ahl al-bayt’. By doing so, he was able to create a new opportunity for expressing claims to the legitimate authority that could compete with the Shiʿis. That means, walāya in Sufism created an alternative paradigm of religious authority that rivalled primarily the authority of the Shiʿi imāms. In the early development of the concept of walāya, three major stages of transformation can be discerned within the texts under this study. Those stages are as follows: 1. Walāya in the earliest texts of Shiʿism, namely before the occurrence of the Minor Occultation, within Kitāb Sulaym and Faḍl’s al-Īḍāḥ, when still there is no considerable Sufi discussion on walāya. At this stage, walāya mainly refers to the political and religious authority of ʿAlī and the imāms of his bloodline. 2. Walāya within al-Barqī’s al-Maḥāsin in Shiʿi context has the same ambiance as the Kitāb al-Ṣidq of al-Kharrāz and Tafsīr of al-Tustarī in the Sufi context. It is at this stage that the concept of walāya finds a cosmic dimension within both Shiʿism and Sufism and becomes attached to the metaphysical realm of pre-existence.

160  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism 3. Al-Kulaynī treats walāya within the same ambiance as al-Tirmidhī. Both writers consider the notion of walāya equal to and as high as the notion of nubuwwa (prophethood). Here I would provide a comparative analysis of the development of the concept of walāya within the Shiʿi and Sufi texts under this study, considering it within the context of the three aforementioned stages. Stage 1: Walāya in Earliest Sources Chronologically speaking, the discussion on walāya started within Shiʿism, much earlier than formative Sufism. Sufis joined the discussions on walāya to elaborate on their understanding of the legitimate authority when Shiʿism was already facing Minor Occultation. This section, therefore, recaps the development of the concept of walāya within Kitāb Sulaym and al-Īḍāḥ which provided us with an understanding of this development before the occurrence of the Minor Occultation in about 260/874, at which time there is no comprehensive extant text on walāya within Sufism. During the pre-Occultation period of Shiʿism, as shown by Kitāb Sulaym, ʿAlī’s walāya was manifested mainly by his being the sole holder of the prophetic waṣiyya, that is, the Prophet’s direct heir and also the trustee and holder of the Prophet’s will. The concept of walāya thus appears along with the concept of waṣiyya as a theological justification for ʿAlī as the legitimate authority after the Prophet, on both Prophet’s political and spiritual authority in the Muslim community. As we have seen earlier, the justification of walāya of ʿAlī through waṣiyya went through a modification by the time of Faḍl, since it could not address the exclusivity of the person of ʿAlī, for there could be other contenders within the larger family of the Prophet to make a similar claim of being the Prophet’s waṣī. Perhaps that was the reason for Faḍl to initiate a more tenable justification by invoking the aspect of knowledge. Faḍl considered ʿAlī’s unique access to the divine knowledge as the mark of the exclusivity of ʿAlī’s walāya. From the time of Faḍl, the centrality of the idea of divine knowledge as the mark of legitimate authority had already entered the discussions on walāya well before the occurrence of the Minor Occultation. But even this strong foundation for walāya was reinterpreted by Faḍl through the term waṣiyya. ʿAlī was the waṣī to the Prophet and consequently, he was the heir to the Prophet’s divine knowledge. Thus, in pre-Occultation sources, the image of an imām as a divinely inspired agent, who receives divine knowledge just like the prophets, is absent. Such an image is a result of post-Occultation sources. Faḍl, although acknowledging that imām is divinely guided, argued that the divine knowledge was passed to ʿAlī by the Prophet because he was the waṣī to the Prophet or the heir to the divine knowledge. Hence, walāya in pre-Occultation period marks an agency that is dependent though separate from nubuwwa. When Faḍl is at pains to denounce the claims of his opponents that imāms do not partake in either waḥy or ilhām, he has the idea of waṣiyya behind him to support his understanding of the source of imām’s

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  161 knowledge. As mentioned before, Faḍl discredited the idea that an imām partakes in ilhām, based on his understanding that ilhām is not specific to imām and every human being can receive such a divine inspiration. In both Kitāb Sulaym and al-Īḍāḥ, walāya also yielded a sense of Shiʿi elitism and hierarchy. For both Sulaym and Faḍl, by emphasizing on the small number of true believers, those who recognized walāya of imāms, the early Shiʿis made a case for themselves as a mark of the elites of the Muslim community. In sum, up until Faḍl, namely, before the occurrence of Minor Occultation, the concept of walāya points to both legitimate political and spiritual authority of the imām. There is, however, a major difference in understanding of walāya between Sulaym and Faḍl. It is within Faḍl’s writings that walāya becomes a loftier concept than it is in Sulaym’s. While Sulaym’s understanding of walāya meant mainly political legitimacy and spiritual leadership of the community, walāya with Faḍl found an abstract dimension of divine knowledge. Also, from the texts of Kitāb Sulaym and al-Īḍāḥ, it is apparent that the seeds of later spiritual categories and detailed hierarchies based on walāya were already sown during pre-Occultation period and paved the way for the establishment of a theological identity of the Shiʿi community. Stage 2: Walāya at the Time of Minor Occultation During stage 1, that is pre-Occultation, Faḍl widened the dimensions of walāya by including the aspect of divine knowledge. Yet, walāya based on divine knowledge hitherto remained within the boundary of this-worldly political legitimacy and religious duty. In the second stage, which is during the period of the Minor Occultation (260–327/874–941), a major shift is observed in understanding of the concept of walāya within al-Maḥāsin of al-Barqī in Shiʿism and Kitāb al-Ṣidq of al-Kharrāz and al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr in Sufism. It is in this stage that the concept of walāya encompasses a cosmic realm with both Shiʿism and Sufism discussing walāya within a metaphysical and primordial realm of existence. It was within the writing of al-Tustarī that walāya was linked to a primordial realm of existence through emanation (fayḍ). Through al-Tustarī’s interpretation of the story of creation, the idea of ‘light’, especially the light of Muḥammad (nūr Muḥammad), entered the discussion of walāya in Sufism. Within Shiʿism too, by the time of al-Barqī, walāya found a cosmic foundation through the aspects of the primordial covenant where the position of the imām/walī is firmly established in pre-eternity. Even though both Shiʿism and Sufism treated walāya within a cosmic realm of pre-existence at this stage of history, many dissimilarities in understanding of walāya existed between the two. The most notable difference is the matter of acquisition of walāya. Within Shiʿism, the acquisition of walāya was expressed through the notion of waṣiyya. In this stage too, waṣiyya continued to be used in juxtaposition with walāya, but this time, in relation to the Shiʿi cosmological worldview.5 By the time of al-Bāqir, an idea of naṣṣ began to take shape in relation to waṣiyya in relation to nūr Muḥammad and nūr Allāh.6 Apart from the hereditary transfer of

162  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism the divine knowledge, waṣiyya/walāya at this stage indicated the hereditary light of Muḥammad (nūr Muḥammad), coming to ʿAlī through their common ancestor ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib.7 The light of God, nūr Allāh, on the other hand, connected ʿAlī and subsequent imāms to the sacred history of divine guidance.8 For Shiʿis, nūr Muḥammad is what ʿAlī inherited at the time of his birth, whereas nūr Allāh is a light which ʿAlī received at the time of his succession to the Prophet. Similarly, imāms receive nūr Muḥammad at the time of their birth and nūr Allāh after the designation or naṣṣ.9 Nūr Muḥammad as part of the ancestral seed does not limit the genealogical line of Muḥammad’s progeny. Any number of Muḥammad’s family members can thus make a claim to be his legitimate waṣī/walī. On the other hand, nūr Allāh transferred by means of naṣṣ confines the waṣiyya/walāya to one and only one person within the extended ahl al-bayt. That one person is a walī/imām. Sufism, however, did not employ the same understanding of waṣiyya to mark the spiritual ancestry of the awliyāʾ. This is not surprising as it may restrict the genealogy of the awliyāʾ. Nūr Muḥammad used extensively in al-Tustarī and al-Tirmidhī is considerably different from the understanding of nūr Muḥammad in Shiʿism. Al-Tustarī considers nūr Muḥammad as the first creation which serves as a primal archetypal origin of mankind in a primordial realm. Before it reaches mankind, it creates derivative lights of the awliyāʾ and the archetypal man Adam. Unlike Shiʿism the idea of nūr Muḥammad in Sufism is not tied with Muḥammad’s biological ancestry. As the first light emanating directly from God and shining on the archetypal awliyāʾ, it becomes a universal mode of spiritual inheritance, de-localized from its association with an Arab biological ancestry. Therefore, the awliyāʾ need not to be from the physical progeny of Muḥammad but qualify as Muḥammad’s spiritual heirs through his light. This spiritual inheritance is open to those who undertake the Sufi path, as mystic or seeker after the legacy of the Prophet and refers to a more widely diffused legacy passing through multiple initiatic lines. Another notable difference in understanding of walāya between Shiʿism and Sufism at this stage, followed by the cosmic idea of spiritual inheritance and ancestry, is its hierarchical structure. Since Sufism sees the entire life of a mystic as a journey through mystical stations, the notion of hierarchy becomes the core of Sufi understanding of walāya. The walī ascends level by level to reach the highest station in the quest towards finding proximity to God. For Shiʿis also, there is a sense of hierarchy in understanding of walāya, but it is not as explicit as it is within Sufism. Al-Barqī establishes a hierarchy consisting of God, the Prophet, imāms, Shiʿi believers, and the rest of mankind. In his hierarchy, Shiʿis are ranked immediately after the imāms and they are in a position beyond the reach of the ordinary man (non-Shiʿi). It is crucial to note that al-Barqī elevates the significance of the Shiʿi community above other Muslim believers and distinguishes the Shiʿi community as the only true believers. However, at this stage, both Shiʿism and Sufism consider prophethood higher than walāya. There is also a sense of exceptionalism at this stage within both Shiʿi and Sufi writings regarding the concept of walāya. Within Sufism, while the path of

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  163 walāya is open to all, such as in Kitāb al-Ṣidq of al-Kharrāz, for al-Tustarī the understanding of walāya includes an already determined distinction between the special (khuṣūs) and the common (ʿumūm). For al-Tustarī, not only the prophets but also the awliyāʾ are favoured in the pre-existence; at the peak of the hierarchy stands the ‘quṭb’ (the pole), as the spiritual summit of this hierarchy.10 In case of Shiʿism too, by accepting the walāya of imāms, Shiʿis become distinguished from the rest of mankind. It is apparent from al-Maḥāsin that Shiʿi exceptionalism became an important part of the Shiʿi identity by this time. Based on the primordial pact taken for walāya of the imāms, whether an individual becomes a Shiʿi or non-Shiʿi became an absolute determination. Stage 3: Walāya at the Beginning of the Major Occultation The next major transformation in the development of walāya can be observed at a time when Shiʿism entered the Major Occultation, by which time Sufism was also immersed into the discussions regarding the concept of walāya. This period marks the third and the final stage of the development of walāya in the formative period, as represented in al-Kāfī of al-Kulaynī and Sīra of al-Tirmidhī. During this stage, despite some similarities between the two, the attainment of walāya based on the notion of divine knowledge marked a significant difference between Shiʿism and Sufism. Walāya within Shiʿism, as we have seen so far, had already moved from a mere political and religious leadership of the Muslim community to find its metaphysical dimension elaborated in al-Barqī through the aspects of primordial covenant. However, it was by the time of al-Kulaynī that walāya explicitly moved away from its initial dependency on the political aspect. Consequently, the Shiʿis considered that imām’s walāya does not depend on his actual political rule over the Muslim community.11 With al-Kulaynī, the concept of walāya becomes an abstract concept and finds its place within a purely spiritual rather than a political realm. In this sense, the concept of walāya comes closer to that of Sufi idea of ‘initiation’, a process through which the spiritual inheritance is transmitted and assumed by the walī. This spiritual aspect of walāya was so thoroughly established by the time of al-Kulaynī that he went one step further and considered walāya as the most important pillar of Islam (diʿāma). Walāya in the traditions of daʿāʾim becomes as part of fundamental religious practice and faith of the Shiʿis. Al-Kulaynī elevated walāya from a duty incumbent on all Muslims in general as observed in Kitāb Sulaym, to an essential component of faith of the Shiʿis. Thus, walāya in Shiʿism, at this stage, implicitly contained a triple profession of faith: belief in the unity of God, to the Prophet’s mission, and to the walāya of ʿAlī and the imāms of his lineage. Therefore, faith (īmān) became dependent on walāya which meant that recognizing the walāya of the imām of one’s time and recognizing the correct sequence of previous imāms were considered as a fundamental mark of faith. Al-Kulaynī, however, did this carefully. He found more comfort in interpreting traditions to be inclusive of other Muslim groups in the primordial pact of selection by linking

164  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism the concept of walāya to the notion of faith (īmān). Unlike al-Maḥāsin, al-Kāfī established a kind of framework in which the non-Shiʿis could be recognized as participant believers along with the Shiʿis.12 Walāya within Shiʿism at this stage also meant the spiritual inheritance of divine knowledge transmitted through prophet and imāms of ʿAlī’s bloodline. The spiritual status of the ʿAlid imāms and their rank for al-Kulaynī are much higher and beyond the reach of all mankind, including their Shiʿi followers. Walāya, therefore, was reserved for the ʿAlid line of imāms only from a primordial time until the end of history. This is the point that al-Tirmidhī found worth opposing. For Sufism, walāya refers to a more widely diffused prophetic legacy passing through multiple initiatic lines. For al-Tirmidhī, all of humanity was offered walāya in pre-eternity, but these were only the chosen awliyāʾ Allāh who received the specific knowledge which God endowed in their hearts in the primordial realm. Al-Tirmidhī, in line with al-Tustarī, perceives the ‘Day of the Covenant’ as the foundation of the mystical experience and divine knowledge attainable in this world. However, as in Shiʿism, there is a strong sense of exceptionalism in al-Tirmidhī too. Al-Tirmidhī maintains that the awliyāʾ Allāh had been distinguished and separated from their fellow men before the formation of the world, due to their unique knowledge of God and in accordance with divine choice. The elect few, chosen by God, enjoy special privileges, such as receiving revelations of God’s signs, which for prophets, meant miracles (muʿjizāt) and for the awliyāʾ charismatic gifts (karāmāt). These awliyāʾ are the chosen elite, just like the prophets. By virtue of this spiritual elevation, these awliyāʾ are not subject to constant attack by their carnal souls and remain in place of proximity to God. The most highly endowed in this respect is the one who is the khātam al-awliyāʾ (seal of the awliyāʾ). Considering the degree of walāya, both Shiʿism and Sufism take the level of walāya equal to and as high as the prophethood at this stage in their history. In al-Kāfī, imāms gained a rank higher than all prophets except for Prophet Muḥammad. Al-Tirmidhī also developed a detailed hierarchy of the awliyāʾ similar to the model of hierarchy of prophethood, in which at the summit of his hierarchy stands the seal of the awliyāʾ, at the same level as Prophet Muhammad who was considered the seal of prophethood (khātam al-anbiyāʾ). Thus, by comparison, it is evident that by this period, the Sufi walī Allāh was considered similar to that of the Shiʿi imām at the peak of hierarchy in every given time. However, there remains a very important and irreducible difference between the two. The separation between the Sufi walī and his disciple is simply a function of their relative degrees of advancement on the Sufi path. A disciple could theoretically surpass his master in the level of spiritual attainment. The relationship between the Shiʿi imām and his disciple is not analogous in any sense. There is an irreducible ontological gap between the imām and his followers that could not be traversed regardless of the follower’s spiritual achievements. The imām is chosen for his role, just as the prophets were for theirs, and he would always remain the imām in relation to his followers. The ways of acquiring divine knowledge also become part of the discussion which, despite some similarities, marks a major difference in understanding of

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  165 walāya between Shiʿism and Sufism in this stage. Within both Shiʿism and Sufism the one who has acquired divine knowledge is referred to as muḥaddath. As far as the sources considered in this study, it can be said that the discussion concerning the concept of muḥaddath and the acquisition of divine knowledge through inspiration (ilhām) started within Shiʿism much earlier than in Sufism. Within Sufism, it was al-Tirmidhī who incorporated the idea of muḥaddath into his understanding of how a walī acquires knowledge. In Shiʿism, the imām himself is a muḥaddath receiving divine knowledge through ilhām. For al-Tirmidhī, however, muḥaddath is a walī who receives divine knowledge through intimation (najwā). This transmission is done in three ways; ilhām is one of them. Intimation in the form of a vision sent to a walī in his sleep (mubbashshirāt); intimation can also enter the heart in wakefulness in the form of divine peace (sakīna); and finally, intimation can come through inspiration (ilhām) brought to the heart by ‘a spirit’ (rūḥ). Much in the same manner as al-Kulaynī, al-Tirmidhī, too, makes the distinction between waḥy and ilhām. For al-Tirmidhī, waḥy involves the act of perceiving the angel as God’s messenger, whereas ilhām only involves the act of hearing the divine revelation without perceiving the angel as the agent of revelation. A major difference between al-Tirmidhī’s muḥaddath and the al-Kulaynī’s muḥaddath is that for al-Tirmidhī the divine knowledge is ‘attainable’, whereas for al-Kulaynī’s muḥaddath/imām, this knowledge is ‘accessible’. This means that for the Shiʿis no one, apart from the imāms, has access to divine knowledge. On the other hand, for al-Tirmidhī, the divine knowledge is attainable and attained in degrees, and the root from which it is derived is truthfulness (ṣidq) towards God. A life spent in complete accordance with God’s Will and complete disregard of one’s own desires, according to al-Tirmidhī, makes a walī a muḥaddath, open to God’s knowledge. In brief, the Shiʿi and Sufi theory of legitimate authority centred on the concept of walāya led to the proclamation of absolute spiritual authority of the imāms within Shiʿism and walī Allāh in Sufism at this stage. Walāya by this time gained a rank equal to prophethood and in some cases, even higher. The imāms acquired a superhuman character by virtue of the supernatural qualities they possessed. By the time of al-Kulaynī, walāya is established as the sixth pillar of faith within Shiʿism. Within Sufism, despite the fact that it maintained the idea of the capability of all men to obtain walāya in theory, the concept of walāya came closer to the idea of exceptionalism in Shiʿism. Walāya within Sufism by this time also indicated an absolute religious authority of walī Allāh which was reserved by God through exceptionalism within the primordial realm.13 As a result, the underlying understanding of walāya within both Shiʿism and Sufism paved the way to the solution of the theological problem of predetermination. From the beginning of the history of Shiʿism, walāya of imāms were considered predestined by God, but within Sufism it was al-Tirmidhī’s treatment of walāya that favoured the predestined rank of the awliyāʾ. In his universe, there exist groups of three, seven, forty, or three hundred awliyāʾ being entrusted with various duties in maintaining the world in order. Like the prophets, whose seal is Muhammad, the awliyāʾ have their seal, the last and culminating figure in his hierarchy. In Tirmidhī’s system,

166  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism since the awliyāʾ are selected in the pre-eternal primordial realm, their numbers are few and their pre-determined rank distinct from the rest of mankind.

Conclusion As indicated in the Introduction, this study could be considered as the continuation of Ibn Khaldūn’s (d. 784/1382) argument regarding the notion of walāya. He perceived a close affinity between Shiʿism and Sufism, established within the concept of walāya. Our investigation has shown that walāya is indeed a key concept which sheds light on both Shiʿi and Sufi understanding of the notion of authority. This research, however, has also shown that Shiʿism and Sufism each has taken different approaches in their treatment of the notion of walāya to justify their unique understanding of legitimate authority of the Muslim community. The normative understanding of walāya as seen within the conceptual development of this term points towards a shared milieu in which the authors partake. I maintain that it is irrelevant to question whether it was Shiʿism or Sufism that first appropriated the concept of walāya or whether it was Sufism that took the concept from Shiʿism or vice versa. What matters is that the Arabic root w-l-y could provide both Sufism and Shiʿism with a concept that could readily contribute to the articulation of the idea of authority in both Shiʿism and Sufism. The Qurʾan added a dimension of nuṣra (mutual aid and support), thereby bringing together within the concept of walāya the idea of attachment, loyalty, and devotion with social as well as spiritual significance for breaking such bonds of attachment. This study thus far has demonstrated that the concept of walāya has gone through several stages of development in its history, within both formative Shiʿism and formative Sufism. It has shown that the fluidity of ideas in the formative period of Islam, coupled with the lack of historical documentation and research, does not allow us to trace the exact lines of influence between Shiʿism and Sufism within the realm of the concept of walāya. Before the formation of the Sufi orders in fifth/ eleventh century on the one hand, and the beginning of the Major Occultation within Shiʿism on the other, the intellectual milieu in Islam is sufficiently rich for writers to have developed similar views without having a direct influence on each other. For example, the remarkable similarity between al-Tustarī and al-Tirmidhī may lead one to take a mistaken view that al-Tirmidhī builds on the work of al-Tustarī. Whereas, we know from little available historical documentation, that al-Tirmidhī may not have been acquainted with al-Tustarī’s works or views at all.14 The similarity between the two authors is thus a product not of a direct individual influence but of a shared intellectual heritage in which both these authors lived. Similarly, the differences in the manner in which the concept of walāya is conceived within the historical space and time also points towards an environment open to a vast field of influence rather than to a dedicated development of the concept of walāya over mutual correspondence between Shiʿism and Sufism. This book also began by presenting the difference in vocalization between wilāya and walāya considered as appropriate vocalization for Sufism and Shiʿism, respectively. It was stated that many scholars of Shiʿism and Sufism, such as

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  167 Henry Corbin, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Vincent Cornell, and Maria Dakake, are of the opinion that the vocalization demarcates the function and the meaning of wilāya/walāya.15 That wilāya pertains to the realm of sanctity appropriate to Sufism and walāya to the realm of initiation and spiritual ministry of the Shiʿi imām. It has become a scholarly standard, so to speak, to use walāya for Shiʿism and wilāya for Sufism, as it can be seen in the works of Amir-Moezzi and Ahmet Karamustafa among others. Even though it was stated at the beginning that this book will not contribute towards the vocalization debate, some remarks are nevertheless due. During the formative period under consideration, the textual evidence does not support any particular vocalization. The clear-cut functional distinction between wilāya and walāya, such that wilāya is taken as sanctity and walāya as the spiritual ministry of the imām, does not stand up to scrutiny after looking at the development of this concept in Shiʿism and Sufism. In this sense the research can be said to corroborate the view taken by Carl Ernst and Hermann Landolt that the Shiʿi and Sufi ideas of initiation and sainthood, respectively, overlap considerably. We have seen in the previous chapters that the idea of initiation having as much importance in Sufism as the idea of sanctity has had in Shiʿism. The concept of wilāya/walāya on the whole has played a significant part in forming communal solidarity in both Shiʿism and Sufism. The ideas of belief and charismatic leadership also have been common to both Shiʿism and Sufism. Thus, not only at the level of vocalization, but at the level of function as well, there is no point of distinguishing between wilāya and walāya during the formative period of Islam. The Shiʿis, as it is evident from the texts examined in this study, argued that ʿAlī held the same position as the Prophet. That meant that ʿAlī was considered as the foremost political and religious authority at the same time. The notion of walāya, which was deeply rooted in Arab culture, combined with the ḥadīth of Ghadīr Khumm, gave the Shiʿis a strong foundation to build up and uphold their argument. In their view, walāya meant that ʿAlī, as a walī, inherited not only the political but also the ultimate religious authority after the Prophet. The events that followed the death of the Prophet, of course, were not favourable to the cause of the Shiʿis, and ʿAli was deprived of his political power, so that he could only function as a purely religious leader of his Shiʿi followers. It was only when ʿAlī became the fourth caliph that the union of ultimate religious and political authorities, which initially walāya preserved for him in the eyes of his followers, came true for a brief period. Outside the Shiʿi circles, however, there ceased to be a single representative in religious matters. While political power belonged to one single caliph, the religious authority was now dispersed among those people who, owing their authority entirely to their knowledge, came to be known as the ʿulamāʾ, the scholars, and in the case of Sufism specifically, the awliyāʾ. It led to a dramatic shift in understanding of the concept of walāya from the institution of walāʾ which was a legal custom in pre- and early post-Islamic Arabia, as well as of the understanding of the term in the Qurʾan, to the definitive authority of a walī/imām. Walāya provided a solid ground for both Shiʿi and Sufi intellectuals to address the problem

168  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism of legitimate authority in the absence of nubuwwa. Nubuwwa by then was considered as a sole agency which made direct connection between mankind and the Divine possible. However, within formative Shiʿism and Sufism, the idea of khātam al-nubuwwa did not mean the finality of divine revelation which prophets used to enjoy. It did not mean that the connection between mankind and God was broken. This pivotal role was taken over by the concept of walāya. As we have seen within the primary texts examined in this study, walāya was understood differently based on the model of prophethood (nubuwwa) and eventually could occupy the very same position and possess the same qualities as nubuwwa within the writings of al-Tirmidhī. The flexibility of the term walāya has made it possible for both Shiʿis and Sufis to appropriate the term in such a way that it has eventually acquired a comprehensive and a wide range of relationships with other theological ideas and concepts, chiefly in relation to the notion of authority. In order to understand walāya in all its complexity, it is essential to explore these relationships as well. Nine such relationships or aspects have been identified in this research, as shown in Figure 5.1.

Polical Authority Spiritual Hierarchy

Religious Duty

Creaon and Emanaon

Faith Walāya

Primordial Covenant

Spiritual Inheritence

Elect Community

Knowledge

Figure 5.1  Aspects of walāya. Source: Created by author.

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  169 Table 5.1 Shared Aspects of walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism #

Aspect

Shiʿism

Sufism

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Political Authority Religious Duty Faith Spiritual Inheritance Divine Knowledge Elect Community Primordial Covenant Creation and Emanation Spiritual Hierarchy

Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent

Absent Absent Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present

Source: Created by author.

Some of these aspects are exclusive to Shiʿism, whereas the remaining are shared within both Sufism and Shiʿism with a remarkable degree of similarity as well as differences (see Table 5.1). In Shiʿism, walāya begins its life to provide a justification for the political authority of ʿAlī following the succession crisis. However, this link between the political authority and walāya is not maintained for long. Only in Shiʿism the aspect of duty (farīḍa) is linked with the notion of walāya. This emphasis on walāya as a religious duty eventually transforms into an essential pillar of faith (diʿāma). Thus, from accepting the political authority of ʿAlī as a duty, walāya turns into the most essential tenet of the Shiʿi faith, as a key concept towards the recognition of the imām. In the early stages of the development of walāya in Shiʿism, one of the justifications for the walāya of ʿAlī was his recognition as a legatee (waṣī) of the Prophet. However, as time goes by, the notion of waṣī no longer serves as a strong justification for the walāya of the imāms. This notion of waṣī is not replaced but extended to a metaphysical realm and abstract inheritance of divine knowledge. With respect to the imām, knowledge of God is the central concern of the walāya in Shiʿism. So is the case with Sufism. The hierarchy of the awliyāʾ is a hierarchy based on the knowledge of God. It was seen how close Shiʿis and Sufis are in their understanding of the manner in which the imām and the awliyāʾ gain the divine knowledge and how they differ from one another. Both Sufis and Shiʿis strive to use walāya to create a sense of an elect community of believers, supported by the idea of the primordial covenant and pre-eternal mode of creation. Remarkably, these developments take place during the same time period. Finally, in both Sufism and Shiʿism, the term walāya is frequently discussed in relation to prophecy (nubuwwa), referring to the particular commission of the Prophet to publicly proclaim the exoteric revelation over against the vocation of the Shiʿi imāms or the Sufi awliyāʾ to transmit and explain the revelation’s inner meaning. The two spiritual offices are complementary but hierarchically ordered. These spiritual categories and hierarchies developed through walāya paved the way for the establishment of a theological identity for both communities. The concept of walāya could thus provide a ground in which Shiʿis and

170  A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism Sufis could see themselves as separate, self-contained, and recognizable communities within the Islamic umma. Walāya, therefore, should not be understood merely as a term assigned different technical meanings in various contexts but rather as a wide-ranging and comprehensive term encompassing a set of meanings that are thoroughly related to one another and for which no single English word can suffice. Only when the full span of the concepts and ideas it signifies is considered holistically, and in relation to its use across the spectrum of the Shiʿi and Sufi and largely Islamic tradition, we can hope to arrive at some understanding of the authority and meaning of this term for the Shiʿis and Sufis of the first Islamic centuries, for both of whom this concept was central and related to their identity. In brief, what we encounter in the formative period is a cluster of rich, deeprooted improvisational responses of Muslim intellectuals to the question of authority. Through the concept of walāya, the Shiʿi and Sufi thinkers could offer alternatives for legitimate authority in the absence of prophethood to preserve the ostensibly lost connection between mankind and the divine. Walāya, therefore, strived to restructure the understanding of the most fundamental and highest level of authority, which was known to Muslims till then, i.e. the notion of nubuwwa. In other words, after the death of the Prophet, walāya extended the ultimate position of authority, which once was reserved for the prophets, to other selected human beings.

Notes 1 Y. Friedmann: ‘Finality of Prophethood in Sunnī Islam’, in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), p. 183. Wilferd Madelung also remarks that the accepted Islamic view according to which khātam al-nabiyyīn means the last prophet is not entirely granted (see W. Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate (Cambridge: 1997), pp. 14–15). Similarly, Hartmut Bobzin argues that the word ‘seal’ (khātam) has been understood differently, not just as indicating the finality of Muḥammad’s prophethood, but also in the sense of confirmation, i.e., as a form of continuity with earlier prophets (for further study, see H. Bobzin, ‘The Seal of the Prophets’: Towards an Understanding of Muḥammad’s Prophethood’, in A. Neuwirth / N. Sinai / M. Marx (eds.): The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu (Leiden 2010, pp. 576–577). One way of explaining this is the juxtaposition of the Qurʾanic term of muṣaddiq with khātam al-nabiyyīn when applied to Muḥammad; this designation means that he confirms, or fulfils, what has been foretold by previous prophets (Q 48:29). It would be a remarkable study to investigate why in Sufism the very foundation of the awliyāʾ is always considered as ṣidq, which is the same root as muṣaddiq. 2 See Madelung, Succession to Muḥammad, pp. 12–15. 3 Based on this kinship rule of succession, Madelung has shown how Abū Bakr’s succession to Muḥammad would have been considered highly irregular. The new caliphal rule was inconsistent with maintaining the privileged status of Muhammad’s ahl al-bayt. He also shows how and why Abū Bakr might have been selected in Saqīfa despite the strong custom of succession based on kinship. See Madelung, Succession to Muḥammad, pp. 18–27. 4 See Chapter 4. 5 For instance, the doctrine of waṣiyya promulgated by the early Ismaʿilis held that each of the seven historical eras was initiated by a speaking prophet (nāṭiq), and that each

A Comparative Study of  Walāya in Shiʿism and Sufism  171 of the first six nuṭaqāʾ was succeeded by a legatee (or ṣāmit, ‘a silent one’). The nāṭiq brought the scripture in its generally accepted meaning, while the waṣī introduced a systematic interpretation of its inner, esoteric aspects (taʾwīl, ḥaqīqa) and initiated a series of imāms, of whom the last became the nāṭiq of the following era. The waṣī is therefore called a founder (asās). See E. Kohlberg, ‘Waṣī’, p. 161. Also see Farhad Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 97–98 and P.E. Walker, Early philosophical Shiʿism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 114–124. 6 Al-Bāqir is believed to be the first imām to implement the idea of naṣṣ to explicitly designate (naṣṣ al-jalī) his son Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, in presence of witnesses, as his one and only one legitimate successor (waṣī). For more information, see Amir-Moezzi, Divine Guide, pp. 34, 41, and 67. 7 As noted before, Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150/767) mentions the light shining on Muḥammad’s father ʿAbd Allāh was passed on to his wife Āmina and to Muḥammad. Also see Rubin, ‘Nūr Muḥammadī’, p. 125. The idea of nūr Muḥammad transmitted through wilāya serves the same purpose in Shiʿism as it does in Ibn Isḥāq’s biography of the Prophet. As for Ibn Isḥāq, the idea served to maintain the pious Arab ancestry of the Prophet; in Shiʿism, it served to maintain the same pious non-pagan ancestry for the ʿAlī and the subsequent imāms. 8 Rubin, ‘Nūr Muḥammadī’, p. 125. 9 See Lalani, Early Shiʿi Thought, pp. 81–82. 10 Tafsīr, pp. 89–90; also see Böwering, Mystical Vision, p. 237. 11 See Madelung, ‘Imāma’, pp. 1164–1169. 12 This is directly linked with the discussion of the terms islām and īmān and the differences among them. For this subject, see Dakake, Charismatic Community, pp. 179– 185. 13 In a Shiʿi context, the imāms and their descendants may also be compared to the awliyāʾ in a Sufi context, through the concept of ʿiṣma (moral infallibility). In Shiʿi doctrine, the notion of ʿiṣma became explicitly an attribution of the imāms. Similar notions of sanctity, however, were not considered to apply to the Shiʿi community at large. For although Shiʿis considered themselves to represent the true believers and something of a spiritual elite within the larger Muslim community, their participation in wilāya and their status as the awliyāʾ had less to do with a kind of moral attainment or moral perfection than with their special access to divine guidance through their spiritual predilection for the imām and their special access to divine forgiveness and leniency as a result of their loyalty to, and efforts on behalf of, the divinely chosen imām. To read more about ʿiṣma, see Madelung and Tyan, ‘ʿIṣma’, p. 183. To deal with the notion of ʿiṣma in detail is beyond the scope of this research. 14 While there is much overlap in the thoughts of al-Tirmidhī and al-Tustarī, there is no historical evidence to support al-Tirmidhī’s exposure or contact with the Sufi’s of Baghdad, including al-Tustarī. See Karamustafa, Sufism, p. 47. 15 As mentioned in the introduction, however, Cornell investigates both vocalizations within Sufism and argues both exist within Sufism.

Bibliography

Abbott, N. Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1957–1972. Abdel-Kader, Ali Hasan. The Life, Personality and Writings of al-Junayd: A Study of a Third/Ninth Century Mystic, with an Edition and Translation of His Writings. London: Luzac, 1976. Adams, Charles J. ‘The Hermeneutics of Henry Corbin,’ in Approaches to Islam in Religious Studies, ed. Richard C. Martin. Tucson and Arizona: University of Arizona Press, 1985. Afsaruddin, Asma. ‘Authority, Religious,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​ _ei3​_COM​_23445 (Consulted online on 17 October 2020). Alexander, Scot. ‘Fear,’ in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 194–196. Algar, Hamid. ‘Kubrā,’ in EI2, vol. v, pp. 300–301. ——— ‘The Study of Islam: The Work of Henry Corbin,’ in Religious Studies Review 6 (April 1980), pp. 85–91. Amir-Moezzi, M. A. ‘al-Ṣaffār al-Qummī (d. 290/902–903) et son Kitāb Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt,’ in Journal Asiatique, vol. 280/3–4 (1992), pp. 221–250. ——— The Divine Guide in Early Shiʿism: The Sources of Esotericism in Islam. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. _____ ‘Note bibliographique sur le Kitâb Sulaym b. Qays, le plus ancien ouvrage shiʿite existent,’ in Le shîʿisme Imāmīte quarante ans après. Hommages à Etan Kohlberg, eds. M.A. Amir-Moezzi, M.M. Bar-Asher and S. Hopkins. Paris and Turnhout: Brepols, Turnhout, cop., 2009, pp. 38–48. ——— ‘Notes on Imāmī Walāya,’ in The Spirituality of Shiʿi Islam: Beliefs and Practices. London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2011, pp. 231–275. ——— The Spirituality of Shiʿi Islam: Beliefs and Practices. London: I.B. Tauris in association with the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 2011. ——— ‘The silent Qurʾan and the speaking Qurʾan: History and scriptures through the study of some ancient texts,’ in Studia Islamica, vol. 108, (2013), pp. 143–174. ——— La preuve de Dieu. La mystique shi’ite à travers l’oeuvre de Kulaynî. Paris: Islam nouvelles approaches, 2018. ——— Ali, le secret bien gardé. Figures du premier Maître en spiritualité shi’ite. Paris: CNRS Éditions, 2020. Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali and Jambet, Christian. What is Shīʿī Islam? An Introduction, tr. Kenneth Casler and Eric Ormsby. London and New York: Routledge, 2018. Anjum, Ovamir. Politics, Law, and Community in Islamic Thought: The Taymiyyan Moment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

174  Bibliography Arberry, A. J. ‘al-Djunayd,’ in EI2, vol. ii, p. 600. Arnaldez, R. ‘al-Muḥāsibī’ in EI2, vol. vii, p. 467 ——— ‘Falsafa,’ in EI2, vol. ii, pp. 770–758. ——— ‘Maʿrifa,’ in EI2, vol. vi, pp. 569–571. Asad, Talal. ‘Kinship,’ in EQ Online, http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1875​-3922​_q3​_EQSIM​ _00250 (Consulted online on 12 January 2021). al-Ashʻarī, Abī al-Ḥasan ʻAlī ibn Ismāʻīl. Maqālāt al-Islāmiyīn. Beirut: Dār al-Ḥadātha, 1405. al-ʿAskarī, Abū Hilāl. Furūq al-lughawiyya. Cairo: Maktabat al-Qudsī, 1353. Awliya, Nizam al-Din. Morals for the Heart, tr. Bruce B. Lawrence. Mahwah and New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1992. Ayoub, Muhammad M. The Crisis of Muslim History, Religion and Politics in Early Islam. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003. al-ʿAyyāshī, Muḥammad b. Masʿūd. Kitāb al-tafsīr, ed. Hāshim al-Rasūlī al-Maḥallātī. Qum: ʿIlmiyya, 1961. Badeen, Edward. ‘Bidlīsī, ʿAmmār,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​ _COM​_23873 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Bar-Asher, Meir M. Scripture and exegesis in Early Imāmī Shiʿism. Leiden: Brill, 1999. al-Barqī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid. Kitāb al-Maḥāsin, ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī (Muḥaddith). Qum: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmīyah, 1331 Sh/1952. Barthold, W. ‘Tirmidh,’ in EI2, vol. x, pp. 543–544. Bayhom-Dao, Tamima The Imāmī Shiʿi Conception of the Knowledge of the Imām and the Sources of Religious Doctrine in the Formative Period: From Hishām b. Ḥakam (d.179 AH) to Kulīnī (d. 329 AH). PhD Thesis, London: University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1996. ——— ‘The Imam’s Knowledge and the Qurʾan according to al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Nishābūrī (d. 260 AH/ 874 AD),’ in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 64, no. 2 (2001), pp. 188–207. ——— ‘al-Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Naysābūrī,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​ _ei3​_COM​_26904 (Consulted online on 23 July 2019). Berger, Lutz. ‘Fear of God and Hope (for God’s mercy) (in Sufism),’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​ .org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_27081 (Consulted online on 23 October 2020). Bernards, Monique and Abdallah Nawas, John (eds). Patronate And Patronage in Early and Classical Islam. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005. Bernand, M. ‘Id̲jmāʿ,’ in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 1023–1026. Bernand, M. and Troupeau, G. ‘Ḳiyās,’ in EI2, vol. v, pp. 239–242. Bobzin, H. ‘The Seal of the Prophets’: Towards an Understanding of Muḥammad’s Prophethood,’ in The Qurʾān in Context: Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu, A. Neuwirth and et al eds. Leiden: Brill, 2010, pp. 565–584. Bosworth, C. E. ‘Shūrā,’ in EI2, vol. ix, p. 505. ——— ‘al-Ṭabarī,’ in EI2, vol. x, p. 11. ——— ‘Ṭāhirids,’ in EI2, vol. x., pp. 104–107. ——— The History of the Saffarids of Sistan and the Maliks of Nimruz: (247/861 to 949/1542–1543). Costa Mesa and Calif: Mazda Publishers in association with Bibliotheca Persica, 1994. Böwering, G. ‘Sahl al-Tustarī,’ in EI2, vol. viii, pp. 840–841. ——— ‘Covenant,’ in EQ, vol. 1, p. 464. ——— Sufi Hermeneutics in Medieval Islam. Tokyo: Sophia University, Institute of Asian Cultures, 1987.

Bibliography  175 ——— The Mystical Vision of Existence in Classical Islam: The Qurʾanic Hermeneutics of the Ṣufī Sahl at-Tustarī (d. 283/896). Berlin and New York, 1980. Brockelmann, C. ‘al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā,’ in EI2, vol. vii, p. 634. Brockopp, Jonathan E. ‘Slave and Slavery,’ in EQ, vol. 5, pp. 57–60. Brunschvig, R. ‘ʿAbd’ in EI2, vol. i, pp. 25–40. Calderini, Simonetta. ‘Lord,’ in EQ, vol. 3, pp. 229–231. Ceyhan, Semih. ‘Ibn Khaldun’s Perception of Sufis and Sufism: The Discipline of Tasawwuf in Umran,’ in Asian Journal of Social Science, 36/3–4 (Jan 2008), pp. 483–515. Chabbi, Jacqueline. ‘ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jīlānī,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​ _ei3​_COM​_22592 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Chittick, William. The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabī’s Metaphysics of Imagination. Albany: SUNY, 1989. Chodkiewicz, Michael. Le Sceau des saints: Prophétie et sainteté dans la doctrine d'Ibn Arabî. Paris, 1986. ——— Un Ocean sans rivage. Paris: Seuil 1992. Cooperson, Michael. ‘Bishr al-Ḥāfī,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​ _COM​_24019 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Corbin, Henry. Histoire de la Philosophie Islamique. Paris: Gallimard, 1964. ——— The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism. London: Shambhala, 1978. ——— History of Islamic Philosophy. London and New York: Kegan Paul International and London: In association with Islamic Publications for the Institute of Ismaili Studies, 1993. Cornell, Vincent. The Realm of the Saint: Power and Authority in Moroccan Sufism. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1998. Crone, P. and Hinds, M. God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Crone, Patricia and Cook, M. Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Crone, Patricia. ‘Mawālī and the Prophet’s Family: An Early Shiʿite View,’ in Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005, pp. 167–194. ——— ‘Mawlāʾ,’ in EI2, vol. x, pp. 875–876. ——— Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law: The Origins of the Islamic Patronate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. ——— Slaves on Horses: The Evaluation of the Islamic Polity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980. D’Ancona, Cristina. ‘Emanation,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​.iij​.idm​.oclc​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​ -3912​_ei3​_COM​_26173 (Consulted online on 22 February 2020). Dabashi, Hamid. ‘Early Propagation of Wilāyat-i Faqīh,’ in Expectation of the Millennium: Shiʿism in History, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Hamid Dabashi, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. ——— Authority in Islam, From the Rise of Muhammad to the Establishment of the Umayyads. New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers, 1989. Daftary, Farhad. The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Dakake, Maria Massi. Love, Loyalty and Faith: Defining the Boundaries of the Early Shiʿite Community. PhD Thesis, Princeton University, 2000. ——— The Charismatic Community: Shiʻite Identity in Early Islam. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Dietrich, A. ‘Ibn Abiʾl-Dunyā,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 684.

176  Bibliography Djebli, Moktar. ‘Sulaym b. Ḳays,’ in EI2, vol. ix, p. 819. Duri, A.A. ‘Amīr,’ in EI2. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_islam​_SIM​_0602 (Consulted online on 23 November 2020). Ebrahim, Alireza. ‘Dhū al-Nūn al-Miṣrī,’ in Encyclopaedia Islamica. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​ .1163​/1875​-9831​_isla​_COM​_036113 (Consulted online on 23 November 2019). Ebstein, Michael. ‘Covenant (religious) pre-eternal,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​ /1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_25584 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Ed. ‘ʿIlm,’ in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 1133–1134. Ed. ‘Murīd,’ in EI2, vol. vii, p. 609. Eliash, Joseph. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib in Ithna-ʿasharī Shiʿi Belief. PhD Thesis, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1966. Elton, Daniel L. ‘ʿAbbāsid Revolution,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​ _COM​_0025 (Consulted online on 13 June 2020). Ess, Josef van. Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2 und 3 Jahrhundert Hidschra: Ein Geschichte des religiosen Denkens im fruhen Islam. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Farhang Ansari, Hussein. ‘al-Barqī,’ in Encyclopaedia Islamica, tr. Rahim Gholami, vol. 4, pp. 457–459. al-Faruque, Muhammad. ‘Emigrants and Helpers,’ in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 15–17. Friedmann, Y. ‘Finality of Prophethood in Sunnī Islam,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 7 (1986), pp. 177–215. Fromherz, Allen James. Ibn Khaldūn: Life and Times. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010). Fück, J. W. ‘Ibn al-Nadīm,’ in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 895–896. ——— ‘Ibn Saʿd,’ in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 922–923. Gardet, L. ‘Fitna,’ in EI2, vol. ii, p. 931. Gardeth, L. ‘Dharr,’ in EI2, vol. ii, pp. 219–220. al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad. Tahāfut al-falāsifa. Miṣr: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1972. Ghédira, A. ‘Ṣaḥīfa,’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 835. Gimaret, D. ‘Shahāda,’ in EI2, vol. ix, p. 201. Gleave, Robert M. ‘Akhbāriyya and Uṣūliyya,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​ -3912​_ei3​_COM​_0029 (Consulted online on 13 December 2020). ——— ‘Between Ḥadīth and Fiqh: The Canonical Imāmī Collections of Akhbārīs in Islamic Law and Society,’ in Ḥadīth and Fiqh, vol. 8, No. 3, (2001), pp. 350–382. ——— ‘Early Shiʿite hermeneutics and the dating of Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays,’ in Bulletin of SOAS, 78, 1 (2015), pp. 83–103. ——— ‘Patronate in early Shiʿite law,’ in Patronate and Patronage in Early and Classical Islam, eds. Monique Bernards and John Nawas. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2005, pp. 134–166. ——— Inevitable Doubt, Two Theories of Shiʿi Jurisprudence. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2000. ——— Scripturalist Islam: The History and Doctrines of the Akhbārī Shiʻi school. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007. Gobillot, Geneviève. ‘Éthique et spiritualité en Islam à travers la pensée d'al-Hakîm al Tirmidhî: Le sage de Tirmidh, mystique khurâsânien (m. 318/930),’ in Revue d’éthique et de théologie morale, vol. 245 (Issue 3, 2007), pp. 33–59. ——— ‘al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​ _30216 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Goldziher, I. ‘Die Dogmatische Partei der Sālimījja,’ in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Magazine of the German Oriental Society), vol. 61 (1907), pp. 73–80.

Bibliography  177 Gutas, Dimitri and van Bladel, Kevin. ‘Bayt al-Ḥikma,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​ /1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_22882 (Consulted online on 7 December 2019). Ḥāʾirī, Abū ʿAlī. Muntaha al-Maqāl fiʾl Aḥwāl al-Rijāl. Qum: Muʿassasa Āl al-Bayt, 1995. al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī. ʿIlm al-awliyāʾ, ed. Sāmī Naṣr Luṭf. Cairo: Maktabat al-Ḥurrīya al-Ḥadītha, Jāmiʿat ʿAyn Shams, 1983. ——— Kitāb Khatm al-Awliyāʾ, ed. Uthmān Ismāʿīl Yaḥyā. Beirut: Al-Maṭbaʿa al-Kāthūlisīyya, 1965. ——— Nawādir al-uṣūl fī maʿrifat aḥādīth al-Rasūl. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmīyah, 1992. Hasker, Willian. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. Hawting, G. R. ‘al-Thaḳafī,’ in EI2, vol. x, p. 432. ——— ‘al-Mukhtār b. Abī ʿUbayd,’ in EI2, vol. vii, p. 521. al-Ḥillī, Ḥasan ibn ʻAlī Ibn Dāwūd. Kitāb al-Rijāl. Najaf: al-Matʿaba al-Ḥaydarīyya, 1972. Hinds, M. ‘Miḥna,’ in EI2, vol. vii, p. 3. Hodgson, M.G.S. ‘Ghulāt,’ in EI2, vol. ii, p. 1094. Hoffman, Valerie J. ‘Intercession,’ in EQ, vol. 2, pp. 551–552. Hourani, George F. ‘Islamic and Non-Islamic Origins of Muʿtazilite Ethical Rationalism,’ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan. 1976), pp. 59–87. al-Hujwīrī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. ʿUthmān. Kashf al-maḥjūb, tr. R.A. Nicholson. London: Luzaq and Company Ltd., 1976. Hurvitz, Nimrod. ‘Early Hanbalism and the Shiʿa,’ in The Sunna and Shiʿa in History: Division and Ecumenism in the Muslim Middle East, eds. Ofra Bengio and Meir Litvak. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, pp. 37–49. Ibn Abiʾl-Ḥadīd, ‘Izz al-Dīn ‘Abu Hamīd. Sharḥ-i Nahj al-Balāgha. Cairo: ʿĪsā al-Bābī al-Hạlabī, 1965. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad. al-Kāmil fiʾl Taʾrīkh. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1979. Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, Muḥammad ibn ʻAlī. Amālī, ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī Kāshānī. Qum, 1883. Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, Muḥammad ibn ʻAlī. Kitāb al-Tawḥīd (The Book of Divine Unity of al-Shaykh al-Ṣadūq with select commentary by Sayyid Hāshim al-Ḥusaynī al-Ṭihrānī), tr. Ali Adam, ed. Michael Mumisa and Mahmood Dhalla. Birmingham: AMI Press, 2013. Ibn Bābawayh al-Qummī, Muḥammad ibn ʻAlī. ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā. Najaf: Al-Ḥaydarīyah Publications, 1970. Ibn Khaldūn, Walī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Muqaddima, tr. Franz Rosenthal. New York, 1958. Ibn Manẓūr, Abū al-Faḍl Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad. Lisān al-ʿArab. Beirut: Dār al-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1419/1999. Ibn Nadīm, Abū al-Faraj Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq. Al-Fihrist. Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, Bayrūt, 1994. Ibn Qays al-Hilālī, Sulaym. Kitāb Sulaym ibn Qays al-Hilālī, ed. Mohammad Baqer Ansari. Qum: Dalīl-i mā Publications, 1381 Sh./2002. Ibn Qutaybah, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh. Al-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah aw Taʾrīkh al-Khulafāʾ, ed. ʿAlī Shīrī. Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1990. Ibn Shādān al-Nishābūrī, al-Faḍl. Kitāb al-Īḍāḥ, ed. Sayyid Jalāl al-Ḥusaynī al-Urmawī al-Muḥaddith. Tehran: Intishārāt Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1350 Sh./1971. Ibn Shādhān al-Nīsābūrī, al-Faḍl. Al-Īḍāḥ, ed. Anonymous. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-ʿIlamī lil Maṭbūʿāt, 1982.

178  Bibliography Izutsu, Toshihiko. Ethico-Religious Concepts in the Qurʾan. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002. Jafri, S.H.M. The Origins and Early Development of Shiʿa Islam. London: Stacey International Publishing, 2007. Jeffery, Arthur. Materials for the History of the Text of the Qurʾan. Leiden: Brill, 1937. Jenkins, Keith. Rethinking History. London: Routledge, 2003. Jones, J.M.B. ‘Ibn Isḥāḳ,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 811. Junaydī, Faridūn. Faḍl ibn Shādān-i Nishābūrī va Nabard-i Andīshah-hā dar Īrān pas az Islām. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Balkh, 1981. Juynboll, G.H.A. ‘Ridjāl’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 515. ——— ‘thiḳa,’ in EI2, vol. x, p. 446. Juyūshī, Muḥammad Ibrāhīm. Al-Tirmidhī, His Works and His Opinions on Sufism. PhD Thesis, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies, 1970. Kadi (al-Qāḍī). ‘Authority,’ in EQ, vol. 1, pp. 188–189. al-Kalābādhī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhārī. Kitāb al-taʿarruf li-madhhab ahl al-taṣawwuf. Riyāḍ: Markaz al-Turāth lil-Barmajīyāt, 2013. Kamali, M.H. ‘The Approved and Disapproved varieties of Raʾy (personal opinion) in Islam,’ in American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, vii (1990), pp. 39–63. Kantūrī, Iʿjāz Ḥusayn. Kashf al-Ḥujūb waʾl-Astar ʿan Asmaʿ al-Kutub waʾl-Asfar, or the bibliography of Shiʿa literature. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1935. Karamustafa, Ahmet T. ‘Wilāya according to al-Junayd,’ in Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought, ed. Todd Lawson. Bloomsbury: I. B. Tauris, 2005, pp. 64–70. ——— Sufism: The Formative Period. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. al-Kashshī, Muḥammad ibn ʻUmar. Ikhtiyār Maʿrifat al-Rijāl. Mashad: Dānishkadh-ʼi Ilāhīyāt va Maʻārif-i Islāmī-yi Dānishgāh Mashhad, 1969. Kennedy, H. ‘From Oral Tradition to Written Record in Arabic Genealogy,’ in Arabica, vol. 44 (1997), pp. 531–544. Khalil, Athamina. ‘Abū ʿUbayda b. al-Jarrāḥ’ in EI3. Consulted online on 23 December 2020 http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_SIM​_0036. Khan, Masood Ali. ‘Sufism: Origin and Earliest Sects,’ in Encyclopaedia of Sufism, ed. Masood Ali Khan and S. Ram. New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 2003. al-Kharrāz, Abū Saʿīd. Kitāb al-Ṣidq (The Book of Truthfulness), ed. and tr. Arthur John Arberry. London: Oxford University Press, 1937. ——— Rasāʾil al-Kharrāz, ed. Qāsim al-Sāmarrāʾī. Baghdad: Al-Jamʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿIrāqī Publications, 1967. Knysh, Alexandar. Islamic Mysticism: A Short History. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——— Ibn ʿArabī in the Later Islamic Tradition: The Making of a Polemical Image in Medieval Islam. Albany: University of New York Press, 1999. Kohlberg, Etan. ‘Al-ʿUsūl al-Arbaʿumia,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 10 (1978), pp. 128–166. ——— ‘Barāʾa in Shiʿi Doctrine,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 7 (1986), pp. 139–175. ——— ‘From Imāmīyya to Ithnāʿasharīyya,’ in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 39, no. 3 (1976), pp. 521–534. ——— ‘Imām and Community in the pre-Ghayba period,’ in Authority and Political Culture in Shiʿism ed. Said Amir Arjomand. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988, pp. 25–53.

Bibliography  179 ——— ‘In praise of the few,’ in Studies in Islamic and Middle Eastern texts and traditions in memory of Norman Calder, ed. G. R. Hawting, J. A. Mojaddedi and A. Samely. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 149–162. ——— ‘Mūsā al-Kāẓim,’ in EI2, vol. vii, pp. 646–648. ——— ‘Some Imāmī Shiʿi views on the Ṣaḥāba,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 5 (1984), p. 143–175. ——— ‘The Term Muḥaddath in Twelver Shiʿism,’ in Studia Orientalia memoriae D.H. Baneth dedicata. Jerusalem, 1979, pp. 39–47. ——— ‘Waṣī,’ in EI2, vol. xi, pp. 161–165. ——— A Medieval Muslim Scholar at Work, Ibn Ṭāwūs and His Library. Leiden: Brill, 1992. ——— ‘Al-ʿUsūl al-Arbaʿumia,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 10 (1978), pp. 128–129. ——— ‘From Imāmīyya to Ithnāʿasharīyya,’ in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, vol. 39, no. 3 (1976), p. 523. ——— Belief and Law in Imāmī Shiʿism. Aldershot: Variorum; Brookfield Vt: Gower Publication Co., 1991. al-Kūfī, Abū Muḥammad Aḥmad. Kitāb al-Futūḥ. Ḥaydarābād: ʿUthmāniyyah University, 1969. al-Kulaynī al-Rāzī, Abū Jaʻfar Muḥammad ibn Yaʻqūb ibn Isḥāq. al-Uṣūl min al-Kāfī, ed. ʻAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī. Tehran, 1375 Sh./1955. Lalani, A. Early Shiʿi Thought: The Teachings of Imām Muhammad Al-Baqir. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004. Landolt, Hermann. ‘Henry Corbin, 1903–1978: Between Philosophy and Orientalism,’ in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 119, No. 3 (Jul.–Sep. 1999), pp. 484–490. ——— ‘Review of Drei Schriften des Theosophen von Tirmiḏ: Das Buch vom Leben der Gottesfreunde; Ein Antwortschreiben nach Saraḫs; Ein Antwortschreiben nach Rayy by Bernd Radtke,’ in Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 114, no. 2 (Apr.– Jun. 1994), pp. 303–304. ——— ‘Walāyah,’ in Encyclopaedia of Religion, vol. 15. New York: Macmillan Reference, 1987, pp. 316–320. Lane, Edward William. Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Williams & Norgate, 1863. Lange, Christian. ‘Hell,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​_COM​_23502 (Consulted online on 13 October 2020). Laoust, H. ‘Ibn Taymiyya,’ in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 951–955. Lawson, Todd. Gnostic Apocalypse and Islam. London and New York: Routledge, 2012. Lecker, M. ‘Ṣiffīn,’ in EI2, vol. ix, pp. 553–555. Lecomte, G. ‘Saḳīfa,’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 888. Lévi-Provençal, E. and Pellat, Ch. ‘Al-Maḳḳarī,’ in EI2, vol. vi, pp. 187–188. Lewisohn, L. ‘Tawakkul,’ in EI2, vol. x, p. 377. ——— ‘Taḳwāʾ,’ in EI2, vol. xii, p. 872. Librande, Leonard. ‘Ibn Abī l-Dunyā,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​ _COM​_30663 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Lory, P. ‘al-Sarrādj,’ in EI2, vol. ix, p. 66. ——— Les commentaires ésotériques du Coran: D'après ʿAbd ar-Razzāq al-Qāshānī. Paris: Les Deux océans, 1980. MacDonald, D.B. ‘Ilhām,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 1120

180  Bibliography Madelung Wilfered. Religious and Ethnic Movements in Medieval Islam. Aldershot: Variorum, 1992. ——— ‘al-Kharrāz,’ in EI2, vol. iv, p. 1083. ——— ‘al-Mufīd,’ in EI2, vol. vii, pp. 312–315. ——— ‘Hishām b. al-Ḥakam,’ in EI2, vol. viii, pp. 497–498. ——— ‘Imāma,’ in EI2, vol. iii, pp. 1164–1169. ——— ‘Shīʿa,’ in EI2, vol. ix, pp. 420–424. ——— ‘The Hāshimiyyāt of al-Kumayt and Hāshimī Shiʿism,’ in Studia Islamica, vol. 70 (1989), pp. 5–26. ——— The Succession to Muḥammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ——— ‘al-Kulaynī (or al-Kulīnī), Abū Djaʿfar Muḥammad,’ in EI2. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​ .1163​/1573​-3912​_islam​_SIM​_4495 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). Madelung, W. and Tyan, E. ‘ʿIṣma,’ in EI2, vol. iv, pp. 182–193. Madigan, Daniel A. ‘Revelation and Inspiration,’ in EQ, vol. 4, pp. 438–440. al-Māgirī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Aḥmad ibn Abī Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ. Al-Minhāj al-wāḍiḥ fī taḥqīq karāmāt Abī Muḥammad Ṣālih. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿIlmiyya, 1933. Maḥfūẓ, ʿAlī Ḥusayn. ‘Introduction’ in al-Kāfī, ed. Akbar al-Ghaffārī. Beirut: Dār al Aḍwā, 1405/1985. Majlisī, Muḥammad Bāqir. Biḥār al-Anwār. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-Islāmiyya, 1957–1973. Marcotte, Roxanne D. ‘Night of Power, in EQ. vol. 3, p. 538. Marlow, Louise. ‘Friends and Friendship [Supplement 2017],’ in EQ Online. http://dx​ .doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1875​-3922​_q3​_EQCOM​_050523 (consulted online on 07 January 2020). Marmura, Michael E. ‘Some aspects of Avicenna’s Theory of God’s Knowledge of Particulars,’ in JAOS, LXXXII (1962), pp. 299–312. Marquet, Y. ‘al-Tirmidhī,’ EI2, vol. x, pp. 544–546. Massignon, L. ‘al-Ḥallādj,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 100. ——— ‘Muḥāsibī’ in EI1, vol. vi, p. 699. ——— and Radtke, B. ‘Sālimiyya,’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 994. ——— Essai sur les origines du Lexique Technique de la Mystique Musulmane. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1954. ——— Essay on the Origins of the Technical Language of Islamic Mysticism, tr. Benjamin Clark. Notre Dame and Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. al-Masʿūdī, Abuʾl Ḥasan ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī. Murūj al-dhahab wa maʿādin al-jawhar, ed. Muḥammad Muḥy al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tijārīyya al-Kubrā, 1948. McDermott, Martin J. The Theology of al-Shaikh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022). Beirut: Dār al-Mashriq éditeurs, 1978. McGregor, Richard J. ‘Friend of God,’ in EI3. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1573​-3912​_ei3​ _COM​_27194 (Consulted online on 23 December 2020). ———. Sanctity and Mysticism in Medieval Egypt: The Wafa Sufi Order and the Legacy of Ibn ʿArabi. New York: State University of New York Press, 2006. Melchert, Christopher. ‘The Transition from Asceticism to Mysticism at the Middle of the Ninth Century,’ in Studia Islamica, vol. 83 (1996), pp. 51–70. al-Minqārī, Naṣr b. Muzāḥim. Waqʿat Ṣiffīn, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn. Cairo: al-Muʾassasa al-ʿArabiyya al-Ḥadītha, 1962.

Bibliography  181 Miquel, A. ‘Ibn Baṭṭūṭa,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 736. Modarressi Tabatabai, Hossein. Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shiʿite Islam: Abū Jaʻfar ibn Qiba al-Rāzī and His Contribution to Imāmite Shīʿite Thought. Princeton: Darwin Press, 1993. ——— ‘Rationalism and traditionalism in Shīʿī Jurisprudence: A Preliminary Survey,’ in Studia Islamica, vol. 59 (1984), pp. 141–158. ——— An Introduction to Shiʿi Law: A Bibliographical Study. London: Ithaca Press, 1984. ——— Tradition and Survival: A Bibliographic Survey of Early Shiʿite Literature. Oxford: Oneworld, 2003. Momen, Moojan. An Introduction to Shiʿi Islam, the history and doctrines of Twelver Shiʻism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Morrissey,Fitzroy. Sufism and the Perfect Human: From Ibn ʿArabī to al-Jīlī. London: Routledge, 2020. Mottahedeh, Roy P. ‘Brother and Brotherhood,’ in EQ, vol. 1, p. 262. Mourad, Suleiman Ali. Early Islam Between Myth and History: Al-Ḥaṣan Al-Baṣrī (d. 110H/728CE) and the Formation of His Legacy in Classical Islamic Scholarship. Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2006. al-Mufīd, Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad. Taṣḥīh al-Iʿtiqād bī-Sawāb al-Intiqād aw Sharḥ ʿAqāʾid al-Sadūq. Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Islāmī, 1983. al-Najāshī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī. al-Rijāl, ed. Muḥammad Jawād al-Nāʾīnī. Beirut: Dār al-Aḍwāʾ, 1988. ——— Rijāl al-Najāshī. Beirut: Alaalami Co., 2010. ——— Fihrist-i Asmāʼ Muṣannifī al-Shiʻa al-Mushtahir bi-Rijāl al-Najāshī. Qum: Muʼassasat al-Nashr al-Islāmī, 2008. Nasr, Sayyed Hossein. ‘Shiʿism and Sufism: Their Relationship in Essence and History,’ in Religious Studies, vol. 6, no. 3 (September 1970), pp. 229–242. ———. Living Sufism. London and Boston: Unwin Paperbacks, 1980. ———. Sufi Essays. London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1972. Newman, Andrew J. ‘The Nature of The Akhbārī/Uṣūlī dispute in late Ṣafawid Iran,’ in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 55 (1992), pp. 250–261. ———. The Formative Period of Twelver Shiʿism: Ḥadīth as Discourse between Qum and Baghdad. Curzon Press: Richmond, Surrey, 2000. Nwiya, P. ‘al-Kalābādhī,’ in EI2, vol. iv, p. 467. ———. Exegese coranique et langage mystique: Nouvel essai sur le lexique technique des mystiques musulmans. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq editeurs, 1970. Ohlig, Karl-Heinz. The Hidden Origins of Islam. Amherst and New York: Prometheus Books, 2010. Osman, Yahya. Histoire et classification de l'oeuvre D'IBN 'ARABI. Etude critique. Beirut: Institut français de Damas, 1964. Özer, Yumna. ‘Introduction’ in Ibn Khaldūn on Sufism: Remedy for the Questioner in Search of Answers (Shifāʾ al-Sāʾil li-Tahdhīb al-Masāʾil), tr. Ozer Yumna. Cambridge: Islamic Texts Society, 2017. Pakatchi, Ahmad and Khodaverdian, Shahram. ‘Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī,’ in Encyclopaedia Islamica. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​/1875​-9831​_isla​_COM​_0053 (Consulted online on 24 December 2020). Pakatchi, Ahmad. ‘Ibn Shādhān, Abū Muḥammad’ in Dāʾirat al-Maʿārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī. https://www​.cgie​.org​.ir​/fa​/article​/222952/​%D8​%A7​%D8​%A8​%D9​%86-​%D8​

182  Bibliography %B4​%D8​%A7​%D8​%B0​%D8​%A7​%D9​%86​%D8​%8C-​%D8​%A7​%D8​%A8​%D9​%88​ %D9​%85​%D8​%AD​%D9​%85​%D8​%AF (Consulted online on 23 December 2019). Palmer, Aiyub. Sainthood and Authority in Early Islam: Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī’s Theory of Wilāya and the Re-envisioning of the Sunnī Caliphate. Studies on Sufism: E-Book, vol. 5, December 2019. Pellat, Ch. ‘al-Barḳī,’ in EI2, vol. xii, pp. 127–128. Peters, R. ‘Waṣiyya,’ in EI2, vol. xi. Leiden: Brill, 2002, p.171. Provençal, E. Lévi and Pellat, Ch. ‘al-Maḳḳarī,’ in EI2, vol. vi, pp. 187–188. al-Qummī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṣaffār. Kitāb Baṣāʾir al-Darajāt, ed. M. Kūchibāghī. Tabriz: Shirkat-i Chāp-i Kitāb, 1960. al-Qushayrī, Abū al-Qāsim. Al-Qushayrī’s Epistle on Sufism, tr. Alexander D. Knysh, ed. Muhammad Eissa, Laleh Bakhtiar and Abd al-Halim Mahmud. Lahore: Suhail Academy, Mizan Press and Kazi Publications, 2011. al-Qushayrī, Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj. Ṣaḥīḥ. Ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Kutub al-ʻArabīya, 1955. Radtke, Bernd and O’ Kane John. Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī, Sīrat al-Awliyāʾ, tr. Bernd Radtke and John O’ Kane as ‘The Way of Life the Friends of God’ in The Concept of Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism: Two works by Al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī. Richmond: Curzon Press, 1996. Radtke, Bernd. ‘The Concept of Walāya in Early Sufism,’ in The Heritage of Sufism, vol. 1. Classical Persian Sufism: From its Origins to Rumi, ed. Leonard Lewisohn. London: Oneworld, 1999, 484–486. Reinert, B. ‘Sarī al-Saḳaṭī,’ in EI2, vol. ix, pp. 57–58. Reinert, Benedikt. Die Lehre vom tawakkul in der klassischen Sufik. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968. Renard, John. Knowledge of God in Classical Sufism. New York and New Jersey: Paulist Press, 2004. Ritter, H. ‘Abū Yazīd (Bāyazīd) Ṭayfūr b. ʿĪsā b. Surūshān al-Biṣṭāmī,’ in EI2, vol. i, p. 162. ——— ‘Ḥasan al-Baṣrī,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 248. Robinson, F. Islamic Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Roman, Andre. Une Vision Humaine des Fins Dernieres-Le Kitäb al-Tawahhum d'al Muhäsibi, Études Arabes et Islamiques series. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1978. Rosenthal, Franz. Knowledge Triumphant: The Concept of Knowledge in Medieval Islam. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007. Rubin, U. ‘Nūr Muḥammadī,’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 125. ——— ‘Pre-existence and Light: Aspects of the Concept of Nūr Muḥammad,’ in Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), pp. 62–119. ——— ‘Prophets and progenitors in the early Shiʿa tradition,’ in Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, vol. I (1979), pp. 41–65. ——— ‘Prophets and Prophethood,’ in EQ, vol. 4, pp. 289–306. Rustom, Mohammed. ‘Approaches to Proximity and Distance in Early Sufism,’ in Mystics Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1/2 (March/June 2007), pp. 1–25. Samʻānī, ʻAbd al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad. Kitāb al-Ansāb. Leiden: impr. de E. J. Brill, 1912. al-Sarrāj, Abū Naṣr ʻAbd Allāh ibn ʻAlī. The Kitāb al-Lumaʻ fī Taṣawwuf, ed. Reynold Alleyne Nicholson. London: Luzac, 1963. Sarrio, Diego R. ‘Spiritual anti-elitism: Ibn Taymiyya’s doctrine of sainthood (walāya),’ in Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, vol. 22, no. 3 (July 2011), pp. 275–291.

Bibliography  183 Schacht, J. ‘ʿAhd,’ in EI2, vol.1, p. 255. ——— ‘Waṣīya,’ in EI1, vol. iii, pp. 1132–1133. Schimmel, Annemarie. Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975. Schmidtke, Sabine. ‘Pairs and Pairing,’ in EQ, vol. 4, pp. 1–2. Seale, Morris S. Muslim Theology: A Study of Origins with Reference to the Church Fathers. London: Headley Brothers Limited, 1980. Sellheim, R. ‘al-Samʿānī,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 1025. Sells, Micheal Anthony ed. Early Islamic Mysticism: Sufi, Qurʾan, Miʿrāj, Poetic and Theological Writings. Costa Mesa: Paulist Press, 1996. al-Shaibi, Kamil M. Sufism and Shiʿism. Surrey: LAAM Ltd, 1991. Sharon, M. Black Banners from the East: The Establishment of ʿAbbāsid state-Incubation of a Revolt. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University and Leiden: Brill, 1983. Smith, Grace Martin, and Ernst, Carl W. ‘Introduction,’ in Manifestation of Sainthood in Islam, eds. Grace Martin Smith and Carl W. Ernst. Istanbul: Isis Press, 1993. Smith, Margaret [Ch. Pellat]. ‘Rābiʿa al-ʿAdawiyya al-Ḳaysiyya,’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 355. Smith, Margaret. ‘Book review of Kitāb al-Ṣidq, Arberry edition’ in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 4 (October 1938), pp. 627–628. ——— An Early Mystic of Baghdad, A Study of the Life and Teaching of Ḥārith b. London: Asad al-Muḥāsibī, 1935. ——— Studies in Early Mysticism in the Near and Middle East: Being an Account of the Rise and Development of Early Christian Mysticism in the Near and Middle East up to the Seventh Century, and of the Subsequent Development of Mysticism in Islam known as Sufism, Together with Some Account of the Relationship Between Early Christian Mysticism and the Earliest Form of Islamic Mysticism. London: Sheldon Press, 1931. Spellberg, Denise A. ‘ʿĀʾisha bint Abī Bakr,’ in EQ Online. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1163​ /1875​-3922​_q3​_EQCOM​_00007 (Consulted online on 14 December 2020). Stewart, Devin J. ‘Ejmāʿ,’ in Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 8, Fasc. 3, pp. 275–278. ——— Islamic Legal Orthodoxy, Twelver Shiʿite Responses to the Sunni Legal System. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1998. Sviri, Sara. Perspectives on Early Islamic Mysticism- The World of al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī and His Contemporaries. London and New York: Routledge, 2020. al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr. Taʾrīkh al-Rusul waʾl-mulūk, ed. M. J. De Goeje. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Takim, Liyakatali Nathani. The Rijāl of the Shiʿi Imāms as Depicted in Imāmī Biographical Literature. London: University of London, 1990. Talbi, M. ‘Ibn Khaldūn,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 826. al-Ṭūsī, Abī Jaʻfar Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan. al-Fihrist, ed. Maḥmūd Rāmyār. Mashhad: Chāpkhāna-yi Dānishgāh Mashhad, 1351 Sh/1973. al-Tustarī, Shal b. ʿAbd Allāh. Tafsīr al-Tustarī, tr. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler. JordanAmmān: Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, 2011. Ustādī, Riḍā, Madārik al-Nahj al-Balāgha. Qum: Dār al-Tablīgh-i Islāmī, 1396 Sh/1976. Vaglieri, L. Veccia. ‘ʿAbd Allāh b. al-ʿAbbās,’ in EI2, vol. i, pp. 40–41. Velieri, L. Veccia. ‘Ghadīr Khumm,’ in EI2, vol. ii, p. 993. Vilozny, Roy. ‘A Shiʿi Life Cycle according to al-Barqī’s Kitāb al-Maḥāsin,’ in Arabica, T. 54, Fasc. 3 (July 2007), pp. 362–396. ——— Construction a Worldview: Al-Barqī’s Role in the Making of Early Shiʿi Faith. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017.

184  Bibliography Wakin, Jeanette and Zysow, A. ‘Raʾy,’ in EI2, vol. xii, pp. 688–690. Walker, P.E. Early Philosophical Shiʿism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Walzer, Richard. “The Rise of Islamic Philosophy” in Oriens. vol. 3, No. 1 (Jun. 30, 1950), pp. 1–19. Wansbrough, J. The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History. Oxford University Press, 1978. Watt, W. Montgomery. ‘Abū Bakr,’ in EI2, vol. i, pp. 110–111. ——— ‘Ibn Hishām,’ in EI2, vol. iii, p. 801. ——— ‘Some Mystics of the Later Third/Ninth Century,’ Islamic Studies, vol. 7, no. 4 (December 1968), p. 314. Weir, T. H. ‘ʿIlliyyūn,’ in EI1, vol. iii, p. 496. Wensinck, A. J. and Fahd, T. ‘Rabb,’ in EI2, vol. viii, p. 350. Wensinck, A.J. and Burton, J. ‘Naṣṣ,’ in EI2, vol. vii, p. 1029. Wensinck, A.J. and Crone, Patricia. ‘Mawlā,’ in EI2, vol. x., pp. 871–898. Wherry, E. M. A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an: Comprising Sale’s Translation and Preliminary Discourse. Routledge: 2013. Whittingham, Martin. Al-Ghazālī and the Qurʾan: One book, many meanings. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. Religion and Politics under the Early Abbasids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite. Brill: Leiden and New York, 1997.

Index

Abbasid 16–19, 21, 22, 31, 33, 34, 36–38, 43, 75, 76, 87, 96, 126, 146, 152, 159 Adam 11, 52, 53, 59, 64, 80, 81, 93, 108, 109, 131, 147, 149, 162 ʿadāwa 84, 85, 95, 96 adhān 96 ʿajam 49 Akhbār: akhbār 56, 65, 70 akhyāṣ 146, 148 ʿalam 54, 140 ʿAlam al-Hudā 70 ʿAlī 2, 7, 8, 15–17, 21, 25, 26, 30, 35–43, 45–50, 52–55, 57–62, 65, 70, 73–77, 79–85, 87–90, 94–96, 114, 119, 120, 131, 137, 157–160, 162–164, 167, 169, 171; ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib 57; ʿAlid 3, 18, 37, 38, 47, 87, 119, 159, 164; ʿAlid codex 47 al-lawḥ 144; al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ 144 al-muḥaddath 121, 122; al-muḥaddathūn 121, 122 amīr 24 Amīr al-muʾminīn 59 amīrs 24 ʿāmma 82, 84, 89, 147 amr 24, 40, 41, 48, 63, 91, 108 Anti Shiʿism: al-Radd ʿalā al-Rāfiḍa 119 ʿaql 110, 113, 125, 141 asmāʾ al-ḥusnāʾ 116, 140 asrār 25, 111 awliyāʾ Allāh 7, 85, 97, 100, 105, 108, 111–113, 115–117, 119–121, 123, 125, 134, 137, 138, 141, 146, 150, 152, 155, 157, 164; awliyāʾ ḥaqq Allāh 115–117, 120, 134, 146, 150 āya: āyat 147; āyāt 112, 119, 132, 150; āyat al-nūr 147 Balʿam 110 baqāʾ 99, 128 barāʾa/ʿadāwa 95

bāṭil 113 bāṭin 7, 99, 108, 124 bayʿa 16, 47, 94 Bayt al-Ḥikma 152 brotherhood 14, 30; akh 29, 30; akhū 30 companions: anṣār 14, 30, 83; aṣḥāb 48, 65, 93, 134; aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth 65; aṣḥāb al-shimāl 93; aṣḥāb al-yamīn 93, 134; muhājirīn 48 covenant 51, 69, 79, 108–110, 112, 114, 119, 130, 141, 147, 164, 169; ʿahd 28, 110, 112; ʿaqd 119, 121; ʿaqd al-nubuwwa 119; ʿaqd al-walāya 119; mīthāq 52, 53, 58, 69, 79–82, 92–94, 108, 112, 117, 118, 127; ʿuhūd 28 daʿāʾim 60, 86, 87, 95, 96, 163; daʿāʾim al-islām 60 determination: jabr 82; Jabriyya 65 dharr 52, 53, 79, 81, 108, 110; dhurrīya 108 dhikr 113, 117, 119, 123, 136; dhikr al-khafī 113; tadhkirat al-awliyāʾ 97 Ethical Rationalism: muʿtazila 22, 33, 34, 75, 82 faḍāʾil 36 fahm 46, 91, 112–114, 142; fahīm 140; fahm al-Qurʾan 112; mafahhamūn 46; mufahham 78 fanāʾ 99, 128 farīḍa 40, 41, 60, 87, 169; farāʾiḍ 134 Fāṭima 7, 35, 39, 74, 120, 131 Fāṭimids 24 fayḍ 147, 161 fear 28, 129; khawf 129; khawf and rajāʾ 129; muttaqūn 121, 144; taqwā 98, 129; wāq 28

186 Index Fiqh 70, 71; sharīʿa 44, 124, 133; uṣūl alfiqh 94, 96; Uṣūliyya 94 Firʿaun 110 freeman: aḥrār 146; ḥurr 13, 29, 147 Ghadīr Khumm 20, 21, 33, 38, 40–42, 47, 57, 74–77, 87, 88, 90, 95, 167 ghālī 33, 71; ghulāt 22, 23, 136 ghayba 93; Major Occultation 23, 36, 55, 78, 84, 89, 94, 163, 166; Minor Occultation 23, 35, 36, 43, 49, 50, 54, 55, 70, 75–78, 88, 89, 91, 159–161 ḥadīth 20, 21, 36, 38–40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 55, 57, 64, 66, 67, 71, 74–76, 81, 83, 84, 88, 94, 96, 114, 118, 120, 122, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 138, 142, 167; aḥādīth 78, 126; ḥadīth al-thaqalayn 76 ḥāl 111; aḥwāl 111, 150 ḥalīfs 29 ḥaqq 113, 116, 117 ḥaqq: ḥaqīqa 171 Hāshimī 31, 37; Hāshimiyyāt 17; Hāshimiyyāt of al-Kumayt 17 heart 26; fuʾād 125; qalb 109, 110, 113, 125, 132; qalb Muḥammad 109, 132; ṣadr 125 hidāya 51 hierarchy 103, 110, 120, 140, 142, 143, 145, 148, 169; al-aqwiyā 122; albudalāʾ 122; al-umanāʾ 122; arḍiyyūn 121, 146; ʿarsh 116; ʿarshiyyūn 121, 146; ḍuʿafā 68; zuhhād 121, 144 hijāb 100 ḥisāb 112 ḥubb 51, 85, 86, 102; ḥubb ahl al-bayt 51 ḥujja: ḥujjat Allāh 106, 122, 144 ʿibād 111, 143, 146; ʿibād al-nufūs 146; ʿibāda 117, 132; ʿibādāt 56 ʿibāda 117, 132 idhṭirār 116 ijmāʿ 84, 94, 138 ikhlāṣ 100 ilhām 44–46, 58, 59, 66, 71, 77–79, 113, 114, 118, 119, 121, 123, 136, 142, 157, 160, 161, 165 ʿilliyīn 68, 69; elyūn 53; ʿilliyūn 69, 122 imāma 1–3, 24, 35, 36, 45, 53, 55, 57–59, 61, 70, 76, 82, 87–89, 96; imāmī 16–18, 23, 24, 35, 36, 42–45, 50, 55, 56, 61–63, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76–78, 92, 94, 131 insān kāmil 98 ʿiṣma 57, 59, 71, 171; maʿṣūm 59, 120 isnād 31, 56, 64; isnāds 56

Jahl: juhhāl 56 jawāz 117, 118, 123 jūd 147 kalām 118, 123, 124, 127, 135, 137, 142; mutakallim 64 karāmāt 26, 112, 114, 132, 150, 164 Karbalāʾ 15, 16, 21, 22, 33, 137 khafī 113 Khārijī: Khawārij 65 khāṣṣa 82, 84, 89, 153; khāṣṣat Allāh 113; khuṣūs 111, 163 khatm: khātam 2, 25, 98, 114, 115, 117, 121–123, 133, 134, 136, 144, 150–152, 156, 158, 164, 168, 170; khātam al-awliyāʾ 2, 25, 98, 117, 121–123, 134, 136, 144, 150–152, 158, 164; khātam al-nabiyyīn 156, 170; khātam al-nubuwwa 168; khātam al-walāya 133, 136; khātim 98 khilāfa: Khalīfat al-Rasūl 83; khulafāʾ 146 Khurāsān 19, 37, 43, 128, 135, 159; Khurāsānian 19, 128 knowledge: al-ʿilm bi Allāh 124, 153; ʿārif 129; ʿarrāf 129; ʿilm 45, 46, 57, 58, 76, 78, 91, 111, 117, 123, 124, 129, 138, 140, 141, 147, 152, 153, 157; ʿilm al-bāṭin 124, 141; ʿilm al-ladunnī 141; ʿilm al-qalb 141; ʿilm al-walāya 152; ʿilm al-yaqīnī 153; ʿilm al-ẓāhir 124, 141; ʿirfān 7; iʿtarafa 140; maʿrifa 110, 124, 125, 129, 132, 140, 152, 153, 157; maʿrifat al-ālāʾ 124, 138; maʿrifat Allāh 124, 153; maʿrifat al-tawḥīd 124 kufr 74, 87, 119; kāfir 84, 85, 118; kufr 74, 87, 119 Lord 10, 11, 13, 27, 28, 52, 53, 60, 67–69, 80, 81, 93, 102, 105, 108, 111, 113, 121, 130–132, 159; Lordship 28, 81, 82, 108; Rabb 27, 82, 121 madhhab 152 malakūt 108, 120 manzil 58, 123 maqām 100, 129; maqām al-qurb 100; maqāmāt 129 mashiʾa 144 mawālī 4, 9, 10, 12–14, 30, 48, 49, 66, 146, 154 mawlāʾ 8–10, 13, 29, 30, 45, 47, 100 maẓhar 96 miftāḥ 60, 87 miḥna 75

Index  187 mīrāth 58 muʿjizāt 112, 114, 132, 150, 164 mulk 24, 100, 116, 123, 146; mulk al-mulk 123 muʾmin 59, 94; ḥudūd al-īmān 60; īmān 8, 11, 84, 85, 95, 163, 164, 171; muʾminūn 95, 111, 143 murād 114, 150; murādūn 108, 143, 147; murīd 111, 113, 114, 129, 135, 150; murīdūn 108, 143, 149 Muslim community 4, 5, 12, 16, 17, 22, 30, 40, 54, 73–76, 82, 84, 88, 90, 94, 156, 157, 161, 163, 166, 171; muslim 30, 94; Umma 83 mutʿa 44 nafs 109, 110, 113, 116, 117, 131, 141, 142, 146, 147; nafs al-ʾammāra 116; nafs al-rūḥ 113; nafs al-tabʿ 113 Nahj al-Balāgha 36, 61, 62, 70, 90 najwā 116, 165 nasaba: kunya 130; laqab 127; nisba 55, 64, 99 nāṣib 93 nāṣiḥūn 122 naṣṣ 87, 96, 161, 162, 171; naṣṣ al-jalī 171 nāṭiq 170, 171 nawāfil 134 niʿma 110 nūr 52, 91, 92, 107, 108, 136, 147, 161, 162, 171; nūr Ādam 108; nūr al-anbiyāʾ 108; nūr Muḥammad 92, 107, 136, 147, 161, 162, 171; nūr Muḥammadī 107, 147 Paradise 53, 80, 81, 85, 93, 103, 112, 114, 144; ʿAdn 57 people of: ahl al-bayt 16, 17, 31, 35, 38, 39, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55, 82, 83, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 119, 120, 131, 137, 159, 162, 170; ahl al-bidʿa 31; ahl al-ḥadīth 66; ahl al-īmān 61; ahl al-ʿIrāq 65; ahl al-Kisāʾ 131; ahl al-raʾy 66; ahl al-sunna 18, 31, 44–47, 65, 75, 77, 83; ahl al-sunna waʾl jamāʿa 44, 45, 65; ahl al-yaqīn 120; ahl-Ḥijāz 65; Āl 45–47, 62; Āl Muḥammad 45, 46; Banī ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib 83; Banū Muṭṭalib 31; household of ʿAlī 31; ʿitra 91 pīr 132 pole 2–4, 111, 144, 163; quṭb 2, 7, 111, 144, 156, 163 prophethood 89, 105, 109, 112, 118, 121–123, 134, 136, 139, 142–144,

149–151, 156–158, 160, 162, 164, 165, 168, 170; anbiyāʾ 108, 112, 123, 150, 152, 158, 164; nabī 89, 118, 134; nubuwwa 2, 7, 79, 89, 119, 121, 125, 142, 144, 149–151, 156–160, 168–170; rasūl 118, 134 qabḍ 129; qabḍa 123 qadr 79, 92; laylat al-qadr 79, 92; taqdīr 155 qāʾim 70 qiyās 137, 138; maqāyīs 124; miqyās 124 Quraysh 48 qurba 17, 100, 101, 116 rajāʾ 129 rawḥ al-ṭarīq 124 raʾy 45, 46, 65, 66, 94; raʾy al-Jahmiyya 66 revelation 66, 89; al-waḥy 46 riyāʾ 98 rūḥ 52, 118, 123, 125, 136, 165 sabb al-ṣaḥāba 95 ṣabr 71, 100, 102, 129 Safavid 24, 56, 96 ṣahīfa 45; ʿAlid codex 47; ṣuḥuf muṭahhara/mukarrama 66; ʿUthmānīc codex 47 sakīna 118, 142, 165 ṣāmit 171 Saqīfa 37, 39, 83, 93, 170 Satan 11, 15, 28, 47, 91, 134 Sayyid 34, 43, 61, 64, 68; sādāt al-awliyā 122 shafāʿa 27, 28, 112, 117, 118, 123, 144; shafīʿ 27, 28 shāgird 132 shahāda 95, 96 shaykh 4, 6, 26, 132, 135 Shūrā 64 ṣidq 100, 116, 121, 129, 136, 137, 141, 148, 151, 165, 170; muṣaddiq 170; ṣādiqūn 116; ṣiddīq 111, 116; ṣiddīqūn 111, 112, 116, 119, 122, 144, 146, 150; taṣdīq 118, 136; ʿummal al-ṣidq 122 Ṣiffīn 73, 74, 84, 90, 94 Sijjīn 69 slave 29; ʿAbd 24, 29, 31, 33, 38, 41, 62–64, 83, 90, 91, 105, 106, 114, 115, 126, 127, 135, 137, 147, 162, 171 Slave of God: ʿabd Allāh 117; ʿabd ḥaqq Allāh 117; ʿabīd 147; ʿubūdiyya 29, 92 ṣūfī 31

188 Index sulṭān 24, 28, 119; Sulṭān al-ḥaqq 119 sulūk 132 sunna 31, 45–49, 59, 65, 75, 137 sūra 28, 40, 63, 92; sūra al-nisā 63 ṭāʿa 82 tafsīr 45, 77, 93; Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm 106; Tafsīr of al-Qurṭubī 137; Tafsīr of al-Ṭabarī 137 Ṭāhirīds 146 tawakkul 32 tawḥīd 121, 138 taʾwīl 89, 91, 171 taʿẓīm 51 thaqalayn 91 thiqa 50, 67, 68 ṭīna 52; ṭīn al-ʿizza 109; turāb 93 Twelver Shiʿism 3, 31, 50, 55, 91, 94 ʿubbād 144; ʿubūda 117 ʿujb 98 ʿulamāʾ 75, 141, 167 ulū al-albāb: uluʾl amr 40, 42, 79; uluʾlʿazm 58, 71

Umayyad 4, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 37, 38, 42, 48, 62, 87, 96, 146, 154 ʿumūm 111, 143, 163 vocalization of wilāya/walāya 1–5, 8, 9, 22, 24–26, 167 wāl 8, 9, 24, 45; awlāʿ 41 walāʾ 4, 12–14, 26, 29, 48, 146, 154, 159, 167 walāyat al-faqīh 3, 24, 73 walāyat Allāh 113, 116, 121, 123–125 wālī 8, 24 warathat al-anbiyāʾ 75 waṣī 4, 25, 39, 40, 63, 73–75, 88, 90, 160, 162, 169, 171; waṣiyyūn 25, 63 yaqīn 131, 133, 148 yawm 48, 108, 112, 118, 119; yawm al-ḥisāb 112; yawm al-mīthāq 108, 119; yawm al-qiyāma 108 ẓāhir 7, 99, 108, 124 zuqāq 107