Imamate and Epistemology in the thought of Sheikh Ahmad Ahma d al-Ahsa’i al-Ahsa’i - ‘Abd al-Hakeem Carney Te Double-Bind of the Occultation
More than anything else, the problem o Occultation has haunted welver Shi’a thinkers. On the one hand, one is aced with an enormous body o hadeeth that explicitly reer to the constant need or direct reerence to the Imam, Imam,1 alongside o complete prohibition o ijtihad and use o personal conjecture, conje cture,2 heavy criticism o the use o kalam and other methods o rational deducing both doctrines and law.3 Knowing and obeying one’s Imam is elevated to the status o the most important pillar o Islam, 4 with many narrations narra tions decrying those who reject their Imam as being nothing more than flotsam.5 In the current period, many intellectuals (especially in Iran) seem to be rebelling against this idea o Imamate, hoping or a Protestant-style “reormation” o Shi’ism where one’s relationship with God is individual and unmediated. But once one removes the intermediar intermediaryy role o Imamate, Imamate, it is difficult difficu lt to see how Shi’ism retains much meaning as a doctrine, since Imamate stands at the core o its doctrine and could even be said to be the raison d’etre o the sect’s existence. An important question that must be conronted in the modern period, when Shi’ism is undergoing a dramatic re-thinking by ‘ulama and lay intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the disastrous state o the Islamic revolution in Iran, 1: Al-Kafi. Beirut: Dar as-Sa’ab and Dar at-a’ari, 1451 Hijri. vol. 1, pp. 168174. 2: Ibid., pp. 54-59. 3: Ibid., pp. 92-94. 4: Ibid., vol. 2, p. 18. 5: Wasa’il as-Shi’a. �um: Mu Mu’as ’assah-e-Al-e-Bayt, sah-e-Al-e-Bayt, 1412 Hijri. vol. 27, 2 7, p. 68. 1
is how one can have any belie in Imamate while maintaining an individualized relationship with God. Tis question inevitably leads to another discussion: Is it possible to have an individual relationship with the Imam during the period o ghayb ghaybah ah, or must all o one’s religious lie be channeled through the medium o the uquha? When thinkers in Iran discuss the idea o an Islamic reormation, they are not really rebelling against the idea o Imamate per se, but a conception o Imamate which has led l ed to the justificat justification ion o an oppressive theocrac theocracyy that claims to represent the Imam. Te real question, then, is whether or not one may have a personal experience and relationship with the Imam, whereby one receives the spiritual and esoteric illumination that the Imam is supposed to bring without the medium o a clergy. raditionally, the Shi’a ‘ulama had always taken a very orceul stance on the question o Imamate and the constant need or reerence to the Imam. Sheikh al-Mufid (d. 413/1022), in his arg ue with some sense o pride that the the Awaa’il al-Maqlat Aw al-Maqlat , seems to argue Imamiyah Im amiyah are the only on ly sect in Islam which believes in the constant necessity o Imamate, as opposed to the Mu’tazilah who would argue that although it is wajib (obligatory) it is possible or the Muslim world to deault on this obligation.6 As a result it is no surs ur prise that that the Mu’ Mu’tazilah tazilah would consistently consistently take prominent prominent Shi’a Shi’a scholars like Sheikh al-Mufid to task on the issue o Occultation, demanding to know how all their emphasis on Imamate could be intelligible when believed one in the possibility o a prolonged Occultation.7 It is not hard to see why other sects, who might accept the 6: Sheikh al-Mufid. Aw Awai’l ai’l al-Maqalat al-Maqalat . �um: Mihr, 1992. p. 7: See a discussion o Al-Mufid’s debates with the Mu’tazilah on this issue in MacDermott, Martin J. Te Teology o Al-Shaikh al-Mufid . Beirut: Dar elMachreq Machr eq éditeurs, 1978. pp. 122-123. 2
possibility o Occultation (as Jesus, Enoch, and Khidr are all al l said to be in a kind o Occultation) and a prolonged prolong ed lie or or the welfh welfh Imam (as Noah is described as lived nearly a millennium in the �ur’an), would not be able to see what is lef o the concept o Imamate once the Imam was “ravished” or a long period o time, and why such enormous debates would ensue. Tis seemed to be a consistentt subject o debate between consisten bet ween scholars like Sheikh al-Mufid al-Mufid and their Mu’tazilah rivals in 4 th-5th century Baghdad, and produced a variety o theological studies in deense o the ghaybah. Most prominent were the works o Shari al-Murtada, who seems to be the first scholar to ormulate a purely rational argument or Occultation based on the concept o lut (grace). Tis debate did not cease in Baghdad, but has gained more intensity through time. Te most significant re-thinking on this issue, which has still yet to be accepted by the majority o ‘ulama, was done by Imam Imam Khomeini, argued arg ued in his Mis Misbah bah that the just jurisprudent) prudent) who obtains a proper level o spiritual stature stature aqihh ( juris aqi becomes the Perect Man and “World-Pole” (qutb) o his time: “Anyone...who has the quality o Perect Man.8..is a caliph in this world.””9 world. It is not surprising that these ideas would come along and become accepted, at least or a time, by a large Shi’a population such as that in Iran. Te popularity o Imam Khomeini during the 8: Here, Khomeini is making reerence to the concept, made amous amous by Ibn ‘Arabi, o al-insan al-kamil Man who combines in himsel every e very al-kamil , the Perect Man virtue while being purified rom every vice, and is the greatest maniestatio maniestationn o God in the cosmos. For a survey o these ideas in Ibn ‘Arabi ‘Arabi and other schools (such as the Brethren o Purity) see akeshita, Masataka. Ibn `Arab `Arabi’i’ss Teory o the Perect Man and its Place in the History o Islamic Tought. Institute itute or the Study o Languages and Cultures Cultures o Asia and Arica, Tokyo: Inst
1987. 9: Qtd. in Brumberg, Daniel: Reinventin Reinventingg Khomeini Khomeini. Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 2001. p. 48. 3
80s was indicative o the yawning yawning psychologica psychol ogicall need or the Imam to somehow maniest himsel in order to lead a community 10 that requently eels itsel victimized and attacked on all-sides.11 More deeply, it indicates upon a general g eneral dissatisaction dissatisaction with the type typ e o rationalistic ratio nalistic arguments that that have been given to deend the idea o Occultation, such as those ound in Al-Murtada’s works. Te Biblical scholar Tomas McElwain once suggested to this author that the problem o the Occultation is, in many ways, similar to the question about ab out the Ascension o o Jesus in Christianity. Christianity. On both cases, we have a central figure upon whom the entire edifice o religion is built departing rom direct contact with the aithul. Faithulness to this figure is o the most important soteriological concern, or salvation does not lie merely in orthodoxy or ortho praxy, but but in a firm, dedicated commitment commitment to a specific specific person, a commitment that must be based on lo�e more than anything else. Tis is why Shi’ism has never accepted that a mere acceptance o the Imam’s authority is sufficient or one to be on the right path; rather, one must love the Imam more than one’s own sel. On one level, level , the question about Jesus’ Ascension as a departure rom the world does not pose the same dilemmas as the Occultation o the Imam. On the one hand, the Divinity o Jesus helps to make the question o his physical, human presence relatively unimportant. I Jesus is by his very person God, then the omni presence o God ensures that the Divine Person o Jesus remains present in one orm or another another.. Te act that the welver Shi’as are emphatic that the Imam is not God, but rather a “means o 10: Linda Walbridge Walbridge explores the sociolog y o this phenomena in her Without Forgetting Forge tting the Imam Imam. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996. 11: Moojan Momen claims that that this siege-mentality which has become one o the most important part o the welver Shi’a cultural mileau. See Momen, Moojan. An Introduction Introduction to Shi’i Shi’i Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. 4
approach”12 to God, makes the issue more cloudy. For the belie that God requires a means o approach would imply that God remains wholly distant i that means o approach was closed. Without the Im Imam am (or prophet, at earlier times in history history), ), the Divine-human communication would be cut off. Tere seems to be, then, a problem o two ghaybas: one is the Divine ghaybah, the distance o God rom the Earth. Tis ghayb ghaybah ah is solved by the presence o Prophet’s Prophet’s and Im Imams. ams. Tis is reerred to in a hadeeth o Al-Kafi discussing the need or Divine “proos” (Prophets and Imams): Indeed, he who knows knows that that he has has a Lords should know that this Lord is pleased with certain things and angered by other things. Tis person should also be aware that he cannot know what pleased or angers his Lord except through through revelation revelation (wahy) or a Messenger (rasul ). ). He who does not receive revelation, then, must seek out a Messenger.13 Te second ghaybah is the ghaybah o the Imam himsel. Unortunately, no real solutions or this second ghaybah have been offered by the traditional Shi’a ‘ulama. On matters o law, the ‘ulama have traditionally granted themselves the position o explicating that law during the ghay ghaybah bah; but while the Shi’a ‘ulama have been airly successul in creating an ecclesiastical mechanism or dealing with the day-to-day legal needs o the community, no ways have have been offered or organizing the the spiritual spiritual lie o the community or giving people a way to take the spiritual spiritual benefit that the Imam is supposed to bring. Tis is not due as much to a lapse on the part o the clergy clerg y as it is a ear o arrogating too much power in in the hands o a clergymen. Still, it is not hard to see how any believer would reuse to 12: Generally, the idea o the Imam as waseelah has been based base d no the Shi’a interpretation o the ayat o �ur’an: “Seek a means o approach to Allah.” 13: Al Al-Kafi Kafi , vol. 1, p. 169. 5
accept that the means o approach are entirely closed during the Occultation. Te question then remains: How does that means o approach unction during the ghayb ghaybah ah? Te Shi’a uquha’s reusal to make any realm claims or claims or spiritual or mystical authority has lef this question question open. O course, this double-bind double-bind created created by the belie in a God who is not perceptible to sense-perception (and thereore Occulted in one sense), and the Occultation o the Imam Im am that should remedy that distance, distance, is not isolated to Shi’ism. It was an issue o proound importance to that body o sects se cts which have been broadly labeled as gnostic, and the way the idea o the Living Jesus was exemplified in many gnostic works (and in the Gospel o Tomas) have been an attempt to resolve that paradox. Some, such as Henry Corbin and Mohammad Ali AmierMoezzi, have argued that one o the inevitable implications o the Occultation is the “individualization” o Islam and Shi’ism. Indeed, some researchers such as Momen have argued that this individualism was one o the defining eatures o the Shi’a religion until the time o Imam Khomeini. 14 Tis attitude is already maniested inside Islamic law itsel, where we find that that those those aspects o fiqh related to social fiqh which are related matters have generally been held to be suspended (or at least no longer obligatory) during the ghaybah, and in some cases even prohibited. Tese include three three very important aspects: jihad , the imposition o legal penalties, and Friday prayers.15 Generally, the consensus on the issue o Friday Friday prayers has been be en that they cease to be obligatory oblig atory during the time time o ghay ghaybah bah, though some early scholars argued tha thatt it is wholly impermissible.16 Almost all Shi’ Sh i’aa uquha 14: Momen, Ibid. pp. 297-299. 15: Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali. Te Divine Guide in Early Shi’ism. r. By David Streight. Streight. Albany: Albany : SUNY, SUNY, 1994. p. 134. 16: For a brie survey o these positions in a standar standardd Shi’ite seminary text, see Maghniyah, Muhammad Jawad. Fiqh al-Ima al-Imam m Ja’ar Ja’ar as-Sadiq. �um: Ansariyann Publications, 1999. vol. 1, pp. 275-276. Ansariya 6
have been o the opinion that offensive jihad is impermissible during the ghaybah,17 including Imam Khomeini himsel. Only recently some scholars such as Ayatullah Fadlullah and Ayatullah Kazim Hairi have argued that such jihad is permissible provided it is led by the wilayat-e-aqih.18 Te act that, even afer many centuries, the Shi’a ‘ulama have been reticent about allowing a purely offensive jihad is indicative indicative o a kind o collective coll ective ear o going too ar and arrogating too many rights rom the Imam, a ear maniested by the widespread resistance to Imam Khomeini’s reorms ound amongst senior Shi’ Shi’aa clergy clerg y.19 In the current period, we find many Shi’a intellectuals in Iran returning to theme o an individualized Shi’ism, with thinkers like ‘Abd al-Kareem Soroush arguing or a secularism whose goal go al is to preserve the integrity o religion by reeing it rom the corrupting influences o power and politics.20 Iranian academic Hasan Aghajari was recently re cently sentenced sentenced to death or advocating just such an Islamic Protestantism, calling out or a religious revival that would rescue (in his words) Islam rom a clerg clergyy he views as corrupt, authoritarian, and backwards. 21 Mojtahed Shabestari has been particularly emphatic about the need or a purely personal relationship with God, one where God is known through indi vidual experience without the nee needd or a clerg clergyy, and one which cannot be based upon purely exoteric disciplines such as law and logic.22 Henry Corbin, however, seems to have presaged these 17: Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 253-255. 18: Hairi, Sayyid Kazim. Wilayat al-Amr fi ‘Asr al-Ghaybah. �um: Majma’ Al-Fikrr al-Islami, 1414 Hijri. pp. 67-72. Al-Fik 19: Keddie, Nikki. Roots o Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. p. 263 20: See Brumberg, Ibid., p. 206. 21: A large part p art o Aghajari’s Aghajari’s speech can be b e ound translated translated into in English in the article “In Iran, a Drive or Islamic Reormation.” New York York imes imes Dec. 5, 2002. 22: Brumberg, Ibid., p. 214. 7
contemporary Iranian reormers, arguing that the ghaybah creates a mode in history similar to the kind o Islamic secularism Soroush and others reer to: Te idea o the occultation o the Imam orbids all socialization o the spiritual, all mater materialization ialization o the spiritual hierarchies and orms which would identi identi y these with the constituted bodies o the external, visible history; this idea is only compatible with the structure o a spiritual sodality, a pure ecclesia spiritualis .23 Te Imam o the present-time does not have the political or dogmatic role which his predecessors held, as he is ruler over no one, and he is unable to teach. Does this mean that the Imam has no role, and is completely valueless during a state o ghayba ghaybahh? I there is such a thing as an ecclesia spiritualis led by the Imam, this would demand demand that that there there be more to to his role than than merely exoteric, exoteric, politicall leaders politica leadership, hip, and that he must have a spiritual presence which unctions unctions during during the ghayb ghaybah ah. Te �ur’an itsel describes the Prophet as being the one who purifies the believers by by giving giving them them knowledge knowledge and wisdom,24 and so one could easily that i the Imam is the inheritor o the Prophet (as welver Shi’ism is emphatic about), than the Imam must have a somewhat similar role in puriying those who seek spiritual advancementt whether he is physically present or not. advancemen Most scholars in the welver tradition, however, have not sought to deal with this issue, and have instead made elaborate attempts to justiy the idea o Imamate based on a purely exoteric understanding o that office. Some scholars, such as Shari al-Murtada, have attempted to salvage the position o the Imam during this period through through a theological theolog ical argument, based on the concept
23: Qtd. in Arjomand, Te Shadow o God , p. 163. 24: 62:2. 8
o Divine Grace (lut ).25 Arguing that takli (the imposition o legal commands), which is itsel a kind o Divine Grace (allowing people to achieve closeness closeness to to God thr through ough the the ulfillment o legal obligations and the perormance o good deeds), God must grace the people with someone who represents what he wants.26 Tat Grace, argues Murtada, is ulfilled once that person comes into place, and i that person is hidden (but still existent), then that grace is still existent as well.27 He argues, as did Sheikh al-Mufid,28 that i anybody really needs the Imam to settle some sort o legal question that he will come out o his Occultation and make his opinion known. Otherwise, the issue must be something that is lef up to reason. Finally, in terms o the Imam’s relationship to the community, Murtada argues that the collective awareness that the Imam is still physically present (albeit hidden rom view) and may may re-appear at at anytime will inspire the community to be better be tter Muslims, Muslims, and as a result good deeds will increase.29 Tis ormulation, which has become popular amongst the Shi’a theologians, does not really answer the question. On the one hand, i the Imam can be gone or centuries and centuries, than it would seem se em that the lut Murtada was speaking spea king about was never really needed to begin with. Secondly, the bulk o hadeeth literature literatu re says that the time o Occultation is one o conusion and strie, where most believers will become apostates. Te argument that belie and good deeds de eds will increase during the ghayb ghaybah ah stands in stark opposition to the prooundly Messianic understanding o 25: For a valuable discussion on Al-Murtada’s conception o takli and the grace (lut ) o Imamate, Imamate, see Sachedina, Abdulaziz. Islamic Messianism Messianism. Albany: SUNY Press, 1981. pp. 112-134. 26: Mu Murtada, rtada, Ash-Shari. Rasa�il , p. 310. 27: Ibid., Rasa�il , p. 311. 28: MacDermott, Te Teology o Al-Shaikh al-Mufid , p. 295-297. 29: C. Sachedina, Ibid., , p. 134. 9
the welfh Imam, who will re-appear at the end o a period o chaos in order to finally set the world right. Te question about the possibility or an independent, spiritual relationship with the Imam is one that Moezzi broaches in his Divine Guide Guide in Early Early Shi’ism Shi’ism. He has argued that the attempt to turn Shi’ism into a political ideology, combined with the institutionalization tuti onalization o a clerg clergyy based on taqlid , has marginalized those who would see seekk an individua individuall relationship with God brought about by an individual relationship with the Imam. 30 It would seem that the only traditionally oriented scholar who attempted to understand how one can have such an individual relationship with the Imam Imam was Sheikh Ahmad Ahmad al-Ahsa’i, al-Ahsa’i, who sought to build a mystical understanding o Imamate on the edifice o Shi’ism’s exoteric aspects. He never sought to deny the kind o magisterial Imamate which Corbin reers to critically, but rather seeks to integrate it into a complete understanding o spiritual guidance and the means or salvation. In the debate about how an individualized Shi’ism can unction alongside the office o Imamate, Imamate, Sheikh Ahmad’s works are o critical importance. Sheikh Ahmad Al-Ahsa’i Al-Ahsa’i (d. 1824) was perhaps p erhaps the only Shi’ite Shi’i te ‘alim to take up the issues we have presented so ar and attempted to synthesize them into a complete system. Tere have, o course, been a number o amous scholar who have attempted to take the mystical implications o Imamate and develop a school o philosophy around it, Mulla Sadra and Faid Kashani being the most amous names in that field. But the attempt to combine a mystical, “inspiration” based system o thought with the traditional dictates o jurisprudence, i.e., to combine the exoteric and dogmatic aspects o Imamate (what Corbin calls the “magisterial” or
30: Moezzi, Ibid. p. 139. 10
“pontifical” Imamate)31 with its esoteric counterpart, was unheard o until Sheikh Ahmad began to develop a wholly new understanding o religious authority in Shi’ism. Te dominant eature o his thinking was the attempt to add, alongside o naql and ‘aql (in the sense o reason), a third method by which a Shi’ite scholar would receive enlightenment: enlightenment: kash , or unveiling unveiling , that allowed or the possibility o a kind o ilham (inspirat (inspiration) ion) by which a scholar would receive religious knowledge. Nonetheless, Nonet heless, this kind o “u “unveilin nveiling” g” was directly linked l inked to the Imam, and the Imam remains the pivotal center center o his entire mystical cosmology. As such, he maintains a unique balance between the kind o magisterial Imamate elaborated by early scholars, and the kind o independent mysticism which has been reerred to in Moezzi’s study.32 Sheikh Ahmad was originally a native o Eastern Arabia, and an accomplished scholar in the traditional Islamic sciences. Te bulk o his work was written at the beginning o the nineteenthcentury, a time when the hierocratic authority o the usuli school o thought was nearing its triumph over its akh akhbari bari rivals, as well as its Sufi opponents in the orm o the Ni’matullahi order. Te rising power and prominence o the usuli mujtahid s brought to light the long simmering simmering tension within Shi’ite doctrine itsel, discussed above: What is the real relationship o the believer to his Imam, and how is this relationship to exist during the time o the Occultation? I the ‘ulama (in the broadest meaning o that term, not necessarily confined to the traditional uquhah) are in some way the inherito inheritors rs or represent representativ atives es o the Im Imam’ am’s authority authority,, then what kind kind o body does the ‘ulama constitu constitute? te? It was on this level that he borrowed rom the Illuminations o Suhrawardi to make 31: Corbin, Henry. Alone with with the Alone. Princeton: Princeton University Press,s, 1997. p. 83. Pres 83 . 32: Moezzi, Ibid. pp. 6-13. 11
kash , unveiling which leads to spiritual inspiration, a central part
o his doctri do ctrine. ne. In many ways, Sheikh Ahmad’s system is largely based on the cosmological themes ound in Ibn ‘Arabi. His commentary on the creation ion”” o the various various Na Names mes o Allah hadeeth which details the “creat reads almost identically to Ibn ‘Arabi’s own writings on the primordial creation o Allah, and he uses the same concepts o the “primordial cloud” ( al-‘ al-‘ama ama al-awal ) and the “merciul breath” ( an-nuus ar-rahmani ar-rahmani)33 which can be ound in Ibn ‘Arabi’s Fut Futuuhat Al-Makkiyah Al-Makkiyah. Yet while he may be willing to accept a large part o the cosmolog cosmolo g y o Ibn ‘Arabi, ‘Arabi, he is absolutely unwilling to accept Ibn ‘Arabi’s doctrines with relationship to the Perect Man ( al-insan al-kamil ) and the qutb (Pole, the one who is the center o the cosmos). Ibn ‘Arabi conceptualized this office as being something which can be earned by individuals who are triumphant in the cause o spiritual perection. Such an idea stands in complete contradiction to the Shi’a idea o Imamate, and to the adamant belie that the Imam is someone who is appointed by nass (designation) by Allah Himsel. Te Imam is the center o Sheikh Ahmad’s thinking, and the center o any attempt to reach Allah. He closely ollows those narra narrations tions ound in Al-Kafi which attribattribute an enormous cosmological unction to the Imams. Tey are both the cause (or purpose) o Creation, and the means by which it may return to the Creator Creator.. o o abandon aband on them is to abandon aband on all al l o religion itsel, and as such Sheikh Ahmad has very little patience or Ibn ‘Arabi’s Sunnism. Te incredible incred ible emphasis emphas is given to the Imams in Sheikh Ahmad’s Ahmad’s writings and thought is indicative o his relationship to the idea o the magisterial (the dogmatic, exoteric) Imamate. He does not, in any way, accept that spiritual progress or understanding can be 33: Al-Ahsa’i, Sheikh Ahmad. Rasa’il Al-H Al-Hikmah ikmah. Beirut: Dar al-`Alamiyyah, 1993. pp. 7-15. 12
achieved without the Imam, nor will he tolerate any difference o opinion or conflict with the words and teachings o the Imams. But accepting the privileged status o the Imams as the unique means o approach (waseelah) to Allah, he then sought to transcend this definition and bring it into a spiritual sphere. Tere, the Imam Im am ceases to be a mere explicator o law, law, though the legal leg al capacity o the Imam is very important in Sheikh Ahmad’s theology, and instead becomes the source o illumination (ishraq), through which spiritu spiritual al elite achieve nearness nearness to to Allah. Te Imams Imams become esoteric guides, whose unction is not limited to the times o their physical presence. He is adamant to assert the contin continued ued centrality o the Imam even during the ghayb ghaybah ah, and though he accepts the takli -oriented arguments o Shari al-Murtada, he attempts to deepen this understanding by presenting a methodology where the Light o the Imam operates during the period o Occultation. In this way the magisterial and esoteric Imamate are both entirely preserved in his writings. writings. Te Spiritual Authority of Imamate
Beore embarking on a study o how Sheikh Ahmad’s works present the possibility or an individual relationship with the Imam, we must understand the importance which Sheikh Ahmad gives to the Imam in his thinking. We must remember that i we speak about Sheikh Ahmad opening the way or a personal spirituality, he is not reerring to an entirely unmediated relationship with God. Te Imam always remains the medium, but what he creates the space or is a personal relationship with that medium that does not require clergy or Sufi tariqat . Te inspired knowledge which Sheikh Ahmad Ahmad argues comes as the result o kash was not a direct kind o inspiration rom Allah, in the way that Ibn ‘Arabi understood his sel-proclaimed position as the Seal o the Muhammad 13
saints, but rather comes through the medium o the Imam as God’s primary maniestation. Te centrality o the Imam in Sheikh Ahmad’s thinking, the same centrality which makes it impossible or their to be saints that operate independently o the true qutb (the Imam), is also what makes it impossible or Imam Imamate ate to be earned. In this way he takes Ibn ‘Arabi to task or his doctrine o the Perect Man, a position which (like Imam Khomeini later) Ibn ‘Arabi argued could be earned and reached by a proper believer. But this is impossible or Sheikh Ahmad, as Imamate is not something which exists merely in the temporal world ( al-‘ al-‘alam alam az-zamani az-z amani), on the plane o “actual” histor historyy. It has a cosmic existence in the nontemporal world, ( al), a world which is not entirely al-‘‘alam ad-dahr ), distinguished rom this level o existence, but exists in a kind o sympathy with it. Sheikh Ahmad is careul to distinguish the position o the Ahl al-Bayt with regards reg ards to these two levels, and he presents this distinction as part o his discourse on the nature o Allah’s Mercy (rahmah) and the means by which that Mercy enters into the world. Te office o Imamate is something eternal, something was decided upon beore creation, and or this reason it is the mediating reality between God and man. Tis understanding o Imamate is apparent in the Sheikh’s to Mirza Ja’ar An-Nuwab, where he attempts to explain the meaning o the ritual salawat (blessing) done on the Prophet and his amily: “O Allah send blessings upon the Prophet and his amily as you blessed Abraham and his amily.” Commensurate with Sheikh Ahmad’s Ahmad’s constant attempt to observe obser ve both the interior and esoteric meanings o Islam, he first presents a quite standard, linguistic meaning o this salawat , namely that it is a request to Allah to give His Mercy to the Ahl al-Bayt. But the actual meaning, he says, is based upon the mechanism by which Allah’s Mercy went to the amily o Abraham, and the salawat consists o a kind o 14
cosmic “reciprocation.” Elsewhere he states that such a salawat is necessaryy insoar as it is inconceivable to demand the intercession necessar intercession and aid o the Ahl al-Bayt without offering something in return. 34 Te Prophet’s amily was the first maniestation o the Mercy o Allah, and act as a “container” or all o the Mercy o Allah. Because they are the first creation, they are the first to be embodied with the general Mercy ( ar-r ar-rahmah ahmah al-‘ammah ammah) which is given to all created create d beings. beings . Because they the y are the first “step” “step” which Mercy traverses, traverses, nothing is embraced by the Divine Mercy accept by and through them: Know that Allah, may He be Glorified, Gl orified, made Muhammad Muhammad and his amily amil y the vessel o His Mercy in the World World o Secrets Se crets beore he created Creation. As such, nothing rom His Mercy reaches anything in Creation because it is the right rig ht o anything in Creation, or because o any innate innate goodness go odness o those Created things, or because o any prayer on the part o anything else in Creation. Rather, the Mercy only connects [to Creation] Creation] because o the goodness g oodness which is connected to them and or which they are a medium.35 Sheikh Ahmad makes continual emphasis to this “primordial” Imamate whose primary role is cosmogenic. In a later letter, he discusses the chronology o creation that is reerred to in Al-Kafi, namely that the first thing created beore all else was the light o the Prophet, and rom his light was created the light o his amily, in light with the hadeeth o Imam Ali: “I am to Muhammad as a light rom a light.” Once the Fourteen Inallibles were created, they set out to worship Allah and sing His Glories or a period o a thousand “eons,” each eons then defined as being 100,000 years. Allah Alla h then looked at the light o the Fourteen Inallibles and saw that it consisted o 124,000 segments (or drops), and so then created each o the 124,000 prophets rom 34: Al-Ahsa’i , , Ibid., pp. 270-271. 35: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 32. 15
these drops o light. Finally, rom the “radiance” o this light was created the light o the believers.36 Tis cosmology establishes an intimate link between those who would become believers in this lie and the Fourteen Fourteen Inallibles, or the soul o every e very true believer (regardless o which prophet they ollowed) was “born” rom the light o Prophet Muhammad and his amily. Te pre-cosmic reality real ity o the Ahl al-Bayt necessitates the impossibility o him accepting both theses o Ibn ‘Arabi related to the qutb: the possibility o earning such a position, and the possibility o their being spiritual spiritual seekers who are not in need ne ed o his guidance g uidance and instruction. On this level, nothing is blessed as a result o its innate inna te goodness. goodne ss. First comes the Prophet and his amily, and they are then made a kind o path ( sabeel ) to the Mercy o Allah. Allah . Tey, and they alone, are the mechanism by which the creative Mercy enters into the universe, and as a result resu lt it is only through them that the rest o Creation comes into being. Te office o qutb cannot be earned because be cause it was already “assigned” long beore this world world came into being being , and was the waseelah (medium) by which the rest o the world came into being. As is almost always the case, Sheikh Ahmad is not straying ar rom the letter o many hadeeths. Te entire concept o tawasul , the act o seeking intercession rom the Prophet and his amily, is based upon the notions discussed above. In a number o sources tawasul , whereby one requests something rom Allah based upon the right (haqq) o the Prophet and his amily, is said to be the Abraham rom rom the the fire o Nimrod Nimrod and rescued du’a which rescued Abraham Jesus rom those who were attempting to cruci cruciyy him.37 Asking Allah by the name o the Prophet Prophet is considered to be the best way to open up His Mercy, Mercy, as they are the embodiments and the vessel o that Mercy rom eternity. 36: Ibid., p. 257. 37: See Wasa’il , vol. 16
All o this is rom the standpoint o the “hidden world” world” which exists in eternity. But i we look to the external world which exists in time, we find the same principle operating operating:: As ar as the maniest world, then insoar as Abraham and his amily existed beore the Prophet and his amily, so then Allah has blessed Abraham and his amily as a result o their goodness and the act that they deserve such blessing, and also because o the prayers o angels, men, jinns and others, and so he thereore blesses them rom the goodness g oodness o His Mercy, Mercy, but nonetheless the coming o this mercy is still through the medium o the Prophet and His Family. Te ormula o the salawat given above acts as a reciprocation o the Mercy which has already spread rom Allah, through the Prophet and his amily (in their cosmogenic role), to the rest o creation. It is an attempt to “close the circle.” For it is obvious that the unction o the Ahl al-Bayt is not merely creative; the obvious, exterior unction in all Shi’ite sects is guidance. As such they are the cause o the universe’s coming into being and the the cause o its return to its creator, and are thereore the possessors o both the general mercy ( ar-rah ar-rahma ma al-‘ al-‘ammah ammah), which is the existentiating mercy given to all things, and the special mercy ( ar-rah ar-rahma ma al-khassah) which is particular to the believers and seeks to draw the purified closer to Allah. He writes later that: “Nothing, in all o creation, passes rom the cosmos to Allah except by their medium.”38 Te understanding Sheikh Ahmad derives rom the salawat is basedd on the acknowledgement base acknowledg ement o the Ahl al-Bayt’s al-Bayt’s position in this regard, and the call or blessings to be sent down to the Prophet and his amily is an attempt to shif the path o that Mercy back through its original orig inal channel. channel . He sums this up in his own reormulareormulation o the salaw “interior” meaning mean ing o this prayer: salawat at , expressing the “interior” 38: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 33. 17
“O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad and the amily o Muhammad, whom You have made the vessel o Your salawat, Mercy and Blessing, and have made to be the path towards your bounty to all o Your Creation, who themselves are blessed by the goodness which You have given them and joined to them by Your Mercy, Mercy, a goodness go odness which you y ou passed on to Abraham and his amily, those whose names are praised prais ed in all al l the universe. So as You You blessed Abraham and his amily until You made them sincere shi shi’’a [partisans] o Muhammad and his pure amily, and made them Imams because o their sincere devotion, and gave them religion and guided them to the straight path, so bless Muhammad and the amily o Muhammad whom You have made the well-spring o Your Mercy, the treasure o Your Blessing, and Your Path to the Your Servants, Ser vants, those through whom You You blessed ble ssed Abraham Abra ham and his amily, glorified their position amongst Your Servants, and exalted them in Your Lands, all through Muhammad and his amily.” 39 Tere is no doubt that the works o Ibn ‘Arabi and the Shi’a philosophers philos ophers o the Isahan schoo schooll influence influencedd Sheikh Ahmad’ Ahmad’ss attempt to re-assert the cosmic significanc s ignificancee o the Imam. NonetheNonetheless, it is not proper to say that Sheikh Ahmad Ahmad merely “borrow “b orrowed” ed” the system o Ibn ‘Arabi and corrected those points which would contradict Shi’a doctrine, thereby sanitizing o its Sunnism and making it acceptable to those who championed the wilayat o Imam Ali above all else. For the concepts which Sheikh Ahmad reerred reerr ed to are embedded in the earliest Shi’a Shi’a works. It is not only in Al-Kafi that such concepts can be ound; the pre- ghaybah ghaybah text o Kitab al-Mahasin also details these same ideas, in spite o the act that it is primarily a work on ethics above all else. Instead, it seems that the system o Ibn ‘Arabi gave Sheikh Ahmad a rame work with which wh ich to approach these narrations, narrations which were mostly mostly ignored by the uquha and the scholars o kalam. 39: Ibid, p. 32-33. 18
We can also see part o the reason why Imam We Imamate ate place such a critical role in the Sheikh’s thinking i we analyze the way he ollows a number o the Neoplatonic themes related to the primordial nature o ‘aql , coming to similar conclusions as many Ismaili philosophers. On this level his writing becomes quite gnostic (in ( in the sense o the Christian gnosticism o o Valentinus Valentinus and others, not general mysti mysticism). cism). In his commentary on the hadeeth about the creation o the names, already reerred to above, we find Sheikh Ahmad ollowing a long tradition o mystical writing on the ultimate origins o the universe. Te text o the hadeeth under discussion, ound in Al Al-Kafi Kafi , is as ollows: Indeed, Allah the Blessed and Glorified Glorifie d created a Name, Name, ormed o letters unpronounced, words unspoken, a person without orm, and a vague orm (tashbih) without color or dye. Tis Name was denied space or limit, and it was veiled rom the senses o any who would seek to imagine it, hidden without having been hidden. Allah made it a complete compl ete word, situated on our parts together tog ether,, not one part preceding prec eding any other. other. He maniested rom it three names, three names which Creation would be dependent upon, while one o these names remained hidden and protected. Tese three names which were maniested, they were maniested as Allah, Te (g lory be b e to Him) subordinated subordinated to Blessed , Te Exalted . Ten, He (glory each one o these names our pillars, making twelve pillars in all. For each pillar he created 30 names which related to it in actuality, and these names were: Te Merciul, the Mercy-Giving, the King, the Former, the Eternally Living Who takes no rest or sleep, the Knowledgeable, the Aware, Aware, the Hearing, the Seeing, Se eing, the Wise, the Mighty, the Impeller, the Proud, the High, the Most Glorious, the Dominant one Who gives order, the Source o Peace, the Source o Security, the Sovereign, the Grower, the Originator, the Sublime, the Glorious, the Noble, the Sustainer, the Lie-Giver, the Lie-aker, the Raiser, and the Inheritor. All the Names rom 19
the Most Beautiul Names, and there are 360 o these, are related to the [original] three [maniested] Names and their pillars. And He has hidden the Unique, Hidden, Protected Name by means o these three names, and to this end He has said: “Say: Call upon Allah or call upon the Merciul. Whatever you call Him by, to Him are the most Beautiul Names.” 40 Te gnostic nature o this hadeeth is clear. Allah is described as having made Himsel known by creating an initial maniestation rom an original, “complete” Name which remains absolutely indescribable. Sheikh Ahmad describes this name as being that which encompasse encompassess all the levels o existence. It is the “greatest name” ( al-ism al-akbar ), ), which cannot be considered to be an actual phrase (laz) o any kind, and as such cannot be depicted by any alphabet.41 Tis name is said to rest upon our “parts” which, according to Sheikh Ahmad, consist o: the Will, the Universal Intellect ( al-‘ ), the Universal Soul ( al-nas al-kull ), ), and al-‘aql aql al-kull ), the Universal Universal Body ( al-jism al-kull ).42 al-kull ). From these our parts there comes our Names, with three o these Names maniest and one hidden. Te three maniest names are Allah, the Blessed, and the Exalted . Because these are three maniest names, this means that they are neither identified with the ourth, hidden name, nor with the original name rom which “sits” upon these our parts. In line with this our-old taxonomy, Shaikh Al-Ahsa’i goes on to ollow the Ismaili ollowers in inter preting preti ng the true true reerent reerent or the the name Allah: Te attribute o the Noble Name, which is Allah, is a reerent to the First Intelligence ( al-‘aql aql al-awwal al-awwal ). Tis Name cannot be a reerence to the [original, primordial name in the series], because that Name is made up o letters which are not vocalized, whereas 40: Al-Kafi , vol. 1, p. 113, hadeeth #1. 41: Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 18. 42: Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 19. 20
this Name Name [Allah] is vocalized vocalize d by letters, and expressed in speech. Nor can the meaning be the Essence o Allah which is described by Divinity, but rather reers to the place o His Maniestation [mazhar ], ], which is the ‘aql . Tis is something He reers to when He, may He be Glorified, says: “Allah is the Light o the Heavens and Earth...”43 Te name “Allah,” then, is what is maniested by this original come s about afer the original, primordial Will which ‘aql which comes brought the cosmos into being - the original, primordial Name o God remains orever hidden. Te ‘aql is not the first epiphany in this context; or the first epiphany is, properly, the level o the Will,, which Sheikh Ahmad als Will alsoo desc describes ribes (using Ibn ‘Arabi’s terms) as the primordial Cloud . But the Cloud is precisely what its name implies: a nebulous, unshaped orm which embodies all a ll the orms o the cosmos, but has yet to undergo any kind o separation or specification which would open the way or the concrete shape o those things which would later exist in the cosmos. Te ‘aql , then, is the first “determination” ( ta’yun al-‘awwal ) which comes about inside this cloud, rom which other determinations and specifications appear, appear, eventually progressing to lower levels o existence until until our own crude, physical world.44 In this way the ‘aql becomes the first actual place p lace o maniestation, maniestation, or in its existence as a specified and determined being it acts as a proper epiphany orm o which the Cloud is only a preliminary, a nebulous vapor o existence which cannot be called a “creation “creation”” as such. Te act that the name “Allah” reers to this first individuation, rather than to the Godhead itsel, leads Sheikh Ahmad in another discussion to reer to Allah as the complete unknown ( almajhul al-mutlaq). Tis leads to a later discussion whereby the Imam Im am becomes the only way o making contact contact with this complete 43: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 20. 44: Corbin, Alone with with the Alone, pp. 187-189. 21
unknown, the only way that God becomes known, giving new meaning to the idea o waseelah (mediation). It is also important to realize that, in the hadeeth, the office o the Imam is linked with the idea o this primordial Universal Intellect, o which the Imam becomes the maniestation in this world. Tis is alluded to in an important hadeeth in Al-Kafi , where Imam Musa ibn Ja’ar says: “Indeed, “I ndeed, Allah has two proos (hujjat , the word ofen used or the Imam) over mankind, an exterior proo and an interior proo. Te exterior proo is the Prophets, Messengers, and Imams, peace be upon them. And the interior proo are the Intelligences.”45 In the same ashion as gnostic Christianity and many strands o Ismailism, the Godhead itsel is, by definition, entirely unknowable. For the Godhead is that level o existence e xistence which was eternal, beore God sought to make Himsel Maniest. Once He Maniested Himsel, he hid Himsel, in a same way that the light o the sun, while making it visible, also renders it impossible to see the actual physical orm o the sun behind that light. In a letter entitled “A Response to a Number o Gnostics [‘uraah]” ]”,, he see seeks ks to answer the ollowing question: When a person is in the ritual “You alone salat , and is reciting the verse o atiha atihahh where one says: “You do we worship, and You alone do we serve,” what should be the intention o the person in reciting this? Should they be intending to speak towards the Essence which cannot, actually, ever be reached, or should they be seeking something else? 46 Sheikh Ahmad begins his discussion with a re-assertion o the absolute impossibility o knowing Allah in His Essence, a consistent theme as part o his general attem attempt pt to reute those Sufis who claim annihilation ana’ ( ana’ ) and union with the Essence o Allah. Rather, he says (mirroring Ibn ‘Arabi’s discussion on this subject), Allah is only known in the way that He makes Himsel known 45: Al-Kafi , vol. 1, p. 19. 46: Al-Ahsa’i, Rasa’il Al-Hikmah Al-Hikmah, p. 60. 22
to individual creatures through those same creatures.47 However, even though everything may act as a locus o maniestation or Allah, at the same time such things act as a veil upon Him. Tey both reveal Him, and clothe Him. It is or this reason that reaching the Essence is impossible, or everything which makes Him Known also makes Him Unknown. Tis is an important theme in Ibn ‘Arabi’s Arabi’s discussion on veils, veils , which always paradoxical p aradoxically ly serve ser ve as loci or the Divine maniestation. maniestation.48 Tis applies, perhaps most especially, in the situation o direct address to Allah which occurs in that part o the at atihah ihah quoted above. He embarks upon a discussion o semiotics and the natu nature re o signs with this regard: Whenever someone addresses somebody else, they are only “reaching” that person rom the standpoint o however that person has been called. I somebody says: “Hey you sitting there,” then the person is being called to is only reached to by virtue o the attribute sittin sitting g . In direct address, even when the person is being addressed by the very direct pronoun “Y “You, ou,” the situation situat ion remains the same: same : When you say “Y “ You alone do we worship,” you have made the intention to reer to the one being addressed. But the one who is addressing is actually limiting (or condition, qayyid ) the one being addressed, and the one being addressed is not reached except rom the standpoint standpoint o the one who is addressing him.49 Based on the gap g ap between the signifier sign ifier,, the sign, and the signisign ified, there is an impossibility o reaching the Essence o Allah. Alla h. He is, then, the complete unknown. Tis is because anything which makes Allah known, any attribute or description, is also something other than Him, and as a result hides Him beneath that description or attribute. Te Essence is always that which remains 47: Ibid. 48: 49: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 61. 23
un-maniest because that is its essential definition; it is the eternal “substance” which remains the same and subsists amidst the semiotic “betrayal” o the signs (even when these signs are created entities as opposed to mere linguistic orms) which seek to name Him. Te impossibility o reaching Allah in His Essence, then, requires a medium, and the medium or Allah’s Mercy has already been described as being the luminary, eternal souls o the Ahl alBayt. Tis medium does not lead one to the Essence; it is rather a barzakh where the Divine can meet the human in an area o cosmic overlap. In his treatise on the hadeeth o the creation o the Names, Sheikh Ahmad describes each one o the “our parts” with many many names. Te first is described described as being the Will, the PriPrimordial Cloud, but also (as Ibn ‘Arabi also described it) as being the Merciul Breath ( an-nuus ar-rahmani). Tis Breath was the first epiphany o Divine Mercy, the Mercy o which the Ahl alBayt become the “vessel” or “receptacle.” When the reality o the Imams is identified with that o the original or universal Intelligence, the need or Imamate becomes clear: For the figure o the Imam is as ar as the spiritual seeker may go. He is the ultimate maniestation and sign o Allah, and in act is the only way that He was ever maniest to begin with. Without the Imam, all that remains is the Essence, a reality which remains eternally hidden, and can only be called “the complete unknown.” Te Imam, then, is as ar as the believer can “see” Allah, because he is the one who makes the the Imam Imam seen. Tis is reerred reerred to in the the hadeeth o AlImam as-Sadiq says: “Without “ Without us, us, Allah would not be Kafi where Imam worshipped.””50 worshipped. Te role o the Imam as a barzakh, as an area o overlap overlap between the Divine and the human, is made explicit in a treatise where Sheikh Ahmad describes the Imams and Prophets as a “translator” 50: 24
(tarjuman). On the one hand, the “translator” stands upon the highest level, with relationship to the Law and the obligation o the law (takli ) upon the people. At the same time he stands on the lowest level, in order that he can spread the message ( tabligh) and make people understand it ( ta’ree ).51 Tis role o mediation, however, also makes the Godhead entirely unknowable. For a translator, in actual lie, is the arthest a person can “reach” the words o the person who is being translated or. Te translat translator or is both the source o making a oreigner’ oreigner ’s words comprehensible, comprehensibl e, but also veils those persons actually words by standing in their place, and by the translator becoming the tongue or the other person. Sheikh Ahmad does not make specific mention o the Imam in his commentary on the hadeeth o the Creation o the Names. But the role o the Imam as the first determination within the Primordial Cloud is reerred to in other treatises. Like many mystics, Sheikh Ahmad makes wide o letter-based symbolism.52 Te Universal Soul, which emanates rom the Universal Intellect, is described as being in the shape o the letter ba (the Arabic letter or B). Tis letter is in the orm o a horizont horizontal al line with the ends stretched up, and a dot underneath: . Fou Fourr other letters share this shape, which are differentiated d ifferentiated rom each other by the number and arrangement o its dots. In a amous hadeeth o Imam Ali, he is quoted as having said: “I am the dot under the ba,” i.e., that he is that first “dot” which differentiates one letter rom another. Tough the ba can be said to be derived rom the ali (because the written as , is a straight line and is thereore thereore the basis by which ali , written all other letters are ormed), the dot is something new which leads to differentiation inside the alphabet. While Whil e the Primordial Primordial Cloud 51: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 201. 52: For a good discussion o Sheikh Ahmad’s use o letter-mysticism, and the general use o such a schema in other mystical systems such such as the Kabbalah, Kabbala h, see Cole, Juan R. I. “Te World as ext: Cosmologies o Shaykh Ahmad al-AlAhsa’i.” Studia Islamica 80 (1994): 1-23. 25
remains the first true epiphany o the Divine Being, its orm is entirely indeterminate, and, thereore cannot serve as a locus o maniestation to the rest o the creatures. It is, rather, the locus o the locus o maniestation. It requires determination and individuation, and this hadeeth o Imam Ali reers to him being that being which gives determinate determinate orm orm to the nebulous Cloud.53 Such a position is clearly something that cannot be earned, as Ibn ‘Arabi would argue or his concept o the qutb, or the reality o the Imamate is something that descended downward rom the Divine reality beore any created beings came into existence. Beore any concept o earning the avour o Allah can be conceived, conceived , this initial act o determination (ta’iyun) must have occured. Such is the impossibility o having a qutb who is not appointed appointed by nass. Te Imam, then, becomes that area o barzakh where Divine may communicate with the human. Without the mediation o the Ahl al-Bayt, who were the first determinations inside the Primordial Cloud, the ability o the Divine Mercy to reach the cosmos (and this includes even the general, existentiating Mercy) becomes cut off. Creation itsel would cease to exist, and in this way we find an interpretation or the hadeeth: “No, the Earth cannot remain [without an Imam]; otherwise, it would be destroyed.” Sheikh Ahmad and Unveiling (Kashf ( Kashf )
Te degree to which someone can receive rec eive some kind o revelation revelation or inspiration directly rom God is at the heart o any mystical system which hopes or an individual relationship with God, and it is this idea o such unveiling ( kash ) and its relationship to the Imam where Sheikh Ahmad unifies the idea o Imamate with the idea o an individual relationship with God. where Here we find Sheikh Ahmad borrowing most heavily rom the prevailing 53: Cole, Ibid., p. 10. 26
influence o Suhrawardi over Shi’a theosophy. For here he explicitly uses the concept o ishraq, but puts a distinctly Shi’a spin on it: ishraq is ultimately the product o the Imams existence. It is the Imam’s Light which is radiated throughout the world and enters into the hearts o those who are prepared or it. Here we see Imamology, the ontology o Light, and the philosophy o Illumination all overlapping into a single system. For the Imam is, ultimately, a being o light in his actual existence as logos, and he can never be reduced to a mere composition o low matter in the orm o a physical person. But with the Imam Imam becoming light, l ight, one becomes prohibited rom accepting Suhrawardi’s doctrine that the true sage who has received Illumination Illumination becomes the caliph o his time, becomes the qutb and the spiritual center o the world. For the Imam is not so much the being who receives illumination but is rather the means o it, something only intelligible with an understanding o the way that the Imam becomes identified with the Universal Intellect in Al Al-Kafi Kafi . In spite o this enormously important difference, the role o Imamate, does bare certain similarities with the Christology o Christian gnosticism. Te mission o Christ was to bring human beings back to that Divine home, to liberate them rom the prison o material being. Te goal o Christ was to bring gnosis which will allow people to find the Divine spark with in them and let that spark become the center o their being. As such, gnosis is something which comes rom within, and is not a matter o creating a meeting between the Divine and the human. Sheikh Ahmad conceives o Imamate, as the vehicle o Allah’s special Mercy, being merely a matter o awakening, and that whatever knowledge one gains is something that comes rom within. Tis belie returns to the concept o the primordial Covenant between the souls and Allah, where they were asked: “Am I not your Lord?” to which they responded “Yes!” Te taking o this covenant orms the basis 27
or a kind o eternal knowledge which is present inside all beings. Guidance is a means through which people, afer being given the existentiating Mercy at the moment o their creation, receive that special Mercy and then traverse the return-leg o the path they have already trodden. eachers seek only to awaken the “past memory” o this covenant, covenant, the spiritual collective conscience o all people, and do not in any any way bring bring some kind kind o new knowledge knowledge to people. As a result people will only accept that which subconsciously accords to their memory o that covenant, and will reject what is discordant with it.54 Te world o terrestrial lie, then, is not a prison in the way that it is in Christian gnosticism. It is, rather, a place o orgetulness, which thereby occasions the need or Prophets and Imams. Tis pre-eternal knowledge is the ruit o “unveiling”, kash . Te main reormulation which Sheikh Ahsa’i offers or Islamic law and doctrine is the assertion o kash (un (unveiling veiling)) as a canonical source o o law. law. In the usuli school, the sources o law are considered to be our: �ur’an, sunnah, ‘aql , and ijma’ (consensus). In Sheikh Ahsa’i’s ormulation, ormul ation, the �ur’an, sunnah, and ijma’ all come under the rubric o naql . ‘Aql , in the sense o reason, remains a canonical source, as will be discussed in the section below. But unique or Sheikh Ahmad is the elevation o mystical inspiration to a source o knowledge which a scholar may rest upon. Kash reers to the removal o veils which may exist over one’s soul, and prevent people rom attaining spiritual knowledge. It is not something which can just come to anybody, in the sense that one might speak o a “poet” receiving inspiration. It is only open to the spiritual elite. Once such kash occurs, then a person becomes open to ilham, spiritual inspiration. inspiration. Once again, ag ain, it must be asserted in this context that the knowledge which comes in such a context is not something purely external. It is something 54: Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 28. 28
that comes rom within, and is ultimately a kind o sel-knowledge. Sheikh Ahmad writes: Know, may Allah support you, that kash means the removal o the veils which exist over the rational and holy soul, the soul which, once known, gives knowledge o one’s Lord. 55 Te Sheikh then goes on to list eight levels o veils which exist over the soul. Once these eight veils are removed, ...then you will know your Lord, and the Lord will maniest Himsel Himse l to you inside your own heart, through through His His Glorious Glorious Light. Light. 56 Te “internality” “internalit y” and primordial nature o this knowledge is, as is usually the case with Sheikh Ahmad, on a specific narration. He bases his discussion on the hadeeth o Imam Ali: Knowledge is not in the heavens, so that it would descend to you, Knowledge and it is not in the Earth, E arth, so that it would rise to you. R ather ather,, this knowledge knowled ge ormed ormed inside your your hearts. hearts. 57 �
Tere is a real difference in emphasis here between Sheikh Ahmad’s ormulation o kash and that o Haydar al-‘Amuli and other Shi’a theosophists. For Al-‘Amuli, kash involves the lifing up o veils which block blo ck the servant’ ser vant’ss access to the Preserved Preser ved ablet, ablet, where revelation has been inscribed. But or Sheikh Ahmad, the kash is more internal. It involves breaking down the barriers inside o an individual person which blind bl ind them to the Divinity within, 55: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid. p. 27. 56: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 28. 57: Qtd. in Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid. 29
which blinds them to their actual role as a place o Divine Maniestation (mazhar ). ). One can see how this doctrine is intimately related to the downward movement o existentiating, general Mercy which comes through the Imams, and the special Mercy, also mediated by the Imams, which brings believers bel ievers into an awareness o the true state o things. For since the ultimate goal o the spiritual journey is a return to this primordial primordial knowledge, it would make sense that the Imams (as eternal entities existing beore the creation o all else) and only the Imams would play the most pivotal role in the guidance o believers. be lievers. For the souls o the believers are ormed directly rom the light o the Imams, and returning to the state o knowledge and aware awareness ness they possessed p ossessed in that time o luminous existence would require a return to their cosmic source in the “oceans o Light” ormed by the Fourteen Fourteen Inallibles. Te person who reaches this level o spiritual potency does not , in Sheikh Ahsa’i’s ormulation, in any way become the Imam. Rather, he has become open to a communication with the esoteric knowledge o which the Imam Imam is the embodiment. Te close identity between the interior aculty o ‘aql and the exterior position o Imam Imam does not seem to be picked up by Sheikh Ahmad, who is very anxious to assert the exaltedness o the Imams over all other people. But even i one accepts the supreme position given to the person o the Im Imam, am, there is no doubt that Sheikh S heikh Ahmad uses the concept o the “light o the Imam” being present within the believer. Te Imam himsel is not present within the believer, as has been claimed by some mystics who believed that they had been inused with w ith the spirit o the Imam. Imam.58 Tis kind o hypostatic union o believer and Imam is entirely denied. Rather, Sheikh Ahmad’s thesis is one o ishraq, illumination, which is closely in line with 58: See Se e Arjomand’s Arjomand’s discussion o some o these individuals in Shadow o God , pp. ** 30
the language o the hadeeth: For the light o the Imam is not the same as the Imam himsel, just as the light o the sun is not the same as the sun o itsel. Nonetheless, there is certainly a kind o inseparability between the light o an object and the object itsel, and in this way the Imam Imam can be seen as “pr “present” esent” to the believers belie vers during the ghayb ghaybah ah. He would most certainly not accept language such as coming into the Imamate or mahdiyyah o one’s one’s being, being , not so much because he would reject the concept (which would seem to be acceptable in the light l ight o his underst understanding anding o Imamate), Imamate), but rather because it would contradict the exoteric understanding o Imamate Im amate which is confined to a single individu individual. al. In this vein, Sheikh Ahmad and his ollowers are keen to assert that in absolutely no way can the kash which is recei received ved by a believer belie ver be in any binding on another person. Sheikh Ahmad takes a very usuli position in this regard. On the one hand, taqlid in matters o doctrine (o which esoteric knowledge would be a part) is orbidden. All believers must make the greatest effort to come to their own conclusions about their belie system. However, taqlid is necessary (as will be discussed below) with regards to the laity. But in that case one may only make reerence to a proper mujtahid who isis able to give judgments judgments on matter matterss o Isla Islamic mic law law, judgments judgments which must always be in accordance accordance with the the �ur’an �ur’an and sunnah. I a mujtahid cannot provide proper evidence rom the �ur’an and sunnah, but only something that he has understood through kash , than one would not be allowed to do taqlid o him on that issue.59 Kash is only binding on the person who receives it. On this basis, Sheikh Ahmad becomes extremely angry with the Sufis. While the clerical technocracy, who perceive only the 59: See Cole, Cole, Jua Juann R. R . I. “Individualism and the Mystical Path Path in Shaikh Ahmad al-Ahsa’i. al-Ahsa’i.”” Occasional Papers in Shaykhi, Babi, and Baha’i Studies . No. 4 (September 1997), pp. 9-10, and Al-�uraishi, Sheikh Sai’ Sa i’d. d. “Al-Sheikh “Al-Sheikh Ahmad wa Nazhriat al-Mu’ariah, al-Mu’ariah,” p. 8. 31
exoteric side o religion, are certainly an object o (at least indirect) attack in Sheikh Ahmad’s writings, he is quite open in his dismissal o the Sufi groups existing at his time. Te obedience which Sufi masters require o their students is seen to be, b e, on the one hand, an attempt to usurp the spiritual station o the Imams with regards regards to esoteric esoteric guidance and ta’wil . On the other hand, it involves people who are wholly unqualified as scholars assuming positions that a mujtahid should in matters o law. In the same treatise where he declares Ibn ‘Arabi to be a disbeliever, he goes on to make a blanket assessment assessment o all the Sufis, based upon a number o narrations o the Imams. Sufism is seen, by Sheikh Ahmad, to stand in eternal opposition to the teachings teaching s o the Imams. Imams. Some o the narrations narrations he quotes are: Imam as-Sadiq was asked: “A people have come in this time, and they call themselves Sufis. What do you think o them?” Te Imam said: “Indeed, they are our enemies. Whoever inclines towards towar ds them, he is amongst them, and he will be destro destroyed yed alongal ongside o them.” From the Prophet: “Te Hour [o Judgment] will not come to my nation until a people emerge who call themselves Sufis. Tey are not rom me, and, indeed, they are the Jews o my nation. nation. Tey sit in circles or the remembrance o their leaders, and they raise their voices or the sake o such remembrance, believing that they are the people o good. But indeed, they are the most misguided o disbelievers, and they are the people pe ople the fire.” fire.”60 Such Sufis do not really receive any kash , but are only ollowing their own delusions. Tey are described elsewhere in this treatise as being the true ollowers o Shaitan. Tey engage in 60: Both qtd. in Al-Ahsa Al-Ahsa’i, ’i, Ibid., p. 189. 32
anciul interpretation o the �ur’an, twisting it rom its proper meaning. I any o their interpretations are to be accepted, says Shaikh Ahmad, then we would have to dispense with the whole o the �ur’an. For casting doubt on part o the exoteric meaning o the �ur’an necessitates casting casting doubt on the whole text, and as such the methodology o Ibn Arabi and other Sufis can only lead to misguidance.61 rue kash requires true knowledge o the exoteric sciences, something open to the mujtahid s who are both well-versed in the law and pious in their own souls. Sheikh Ahmad and his ollowers are very clear to limit the scope o kash even with regards to the one who receives it himsel, and not just anything that comes as a kind o “inspiration” should be treated as a religious proo (hujjat ). ). Tey are equally intent upon limiting the role o ‘aql in their ormulations o ijtihad . Kash never takes the place o naql or overrides it, and i anything gained through kash contradicts the clear meaning o the �ur’an and the hadeeths, then it is to be abandoned as the influence o the Devil or some other ancy. ancy. Four conditions are presented presented or the proper use o kash : Tat one is in possession o all their aculties. As such a small child whose body and mind are not properly matured cannot receive kash . Nor can the person be oolish or otherwise mentally retarded. “Cleanliness” rom all spiritual impurity, resulting rom the consumption consumpt ion o orbidden things such as pork and alcohol, alc ohol, or the perpetration perpetrat ion o any any other type o sin. Te absence o taqlid or prejudice. A person whose mind is not open is not able to receive kash . He must be willing to accept acc ept what he receives, even i it is something he may dislike. He also must not be given to blindly ollowing in others in matters o doctrine 61: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 190. 33
(though Sheikh Ahsa’i, as will be discussed below, asserts the need (though or taqlid in areas o fiqh as do other usuli scholars). Here, we see the need or an individual attitude towards God that is not colored by any spiritual spiritual guide g uide other than the Imam. Te ability to distinguish truth rom alsehood. A novice may receive a kind o inspiration that is incorrect, and perceive it as right, or he may receive a kind o inspira inspiration tion which is correct bud decide that it is wrong. Here the critical point is made: made : Whatever comes to the gnostic through inspiration must be compared to the Qur’an Qur’ an and the sunnah. I what was revealed to him is in conflict with the explicit, clear meaning o the canonical canonica l sources, then he will know that he is wrong. wrong. I it accords with what he finds in the texts and only provides a deeper understanding that reveals the “true meaning,” then he may accept it. 62 Rather than contradicting the idea o a pontifical Imamate, all o Sheikh Ahmad’s thinking on this issue helps to buttress such a concept. For the words o the Prophet and the Imam are the only way that the intention and desires o Allah can be understood. Tere is absolutely no room or afad who act independently o the cosmic Pole. Te naql o the Ahl-al-Bayt, then, is o the most critical importance, and it is the pillar or the rest o his system. Even though Sheikh Ahmad shares a great deal with Ibn ‘Arabi, he is staunchly critical o what he argues are Ibn ‘Arabi’s contradictions o the apparent meaning o the �ur’an and the hadeeths. One o the conditions by which “unveiling” can be judged as sound, as already mentioned, is that it does not contradict the apparent meaning o the canonical sources. Tis is something that Ibn ‘Arabi is considered to be immensely guilty o by Sheikh Ahmad. For example, the doctrine that everything is in, reality, a maniestation o God, has led Ibn ‘Arabi to argue that their was a certain correctness in the Children o Israel’s worshipping o 62 Al-�uraishi, Ibid., p. 3. 34
the golden cal, and Pharaoh’s claim to be the most high God, as such acts o polytheism pol ytheism were nonetheless acts o worship directed towards God. Te difference is that polytheism is not legislated by Allah as a proper means o worshipping Him, and as such the polytheists will be punished.63 Nonetheless, Ibn ‘Arabi goes a step urther,, arguing that Pharaoh himsel had a genuine belie in God, urther even though he was clouded cloude d rom this belie by his love o worldly affairs.64 Sheikh Ahmad was asked about this in another o his h is treatises. treatises. He responds with the most harsh criticism o Ibn ‘Arabi, and seems to be very ver y angry angr y at the act that the person asking asking him about Ibn ‘Arabi reerred to him by his title, Mu Muhiy hiy ad-Deen ad-Deen (the reviver o aith). He reers to Ibn ‘Arabi, instead, as Mum Mumit it ad-Deen (the killer o aith), and even goes so ar as to detail the reasons why such an appellation is appropriate in this context. His criticism o Ibn ‘Arabi highlights his unshakeable belie in the magisterial nature o the Imamate: Know that the the lie o religion is based bas ed upon the truth, because, in reality, it is the Water rom which Allah made all living thing. And it is the truth that Pharaoh was a disbeliever, and those who were with with him, and those who ollowed him. Te narration narrationss indicate that whoever denies the explicit meaning (nass) o the �ur’an is a disbeliever, and there is consensus (ijma’ ) on this issue as well. As such, since Ibn ‘Arabi has said this, so he was o this class o people pe ople [the disbe disbelie lievers], vers], and he is the killer o aith (mumit ad-deen).65 Te importance o adhering to the strict words o the text is clear.. Sheikh Ahmad always sees an underlying unity between the clear exterior and the interior, with each level existing on its own terms. 63: 64: Ibn ‘Arabi. Futu Futuhat hat al-Makk al-Makkiyah iyah, vol. 3, p. 178. 65: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 187. 35
Understanding the interior meaning o a verse never necessitates denying that external meaning; meaning ; rather, rather, esotericism involves a deepdeep ening o a meaning which has already been established. As a result, we see se e that in spite spite o his hefy hef y writings writings on the esoeso teric nature o Imamate, this does not lead him to deny or even downplay the more traditional aspects o Imamate which are related to law. He ully accepts the link with Shari al-Murtada makes between the concept o takli and the need or an Imam who will preser preserve ve and make possible that takli . His treatise on doctrine, Hayat an-N an-Nas as [Te Lie o Souls], is scarcely distinguishable rom any other traditional traditional text o doctrine, such as a s those o Sheikh as-Saduq or even Allamah Muzzaar, a century later. With regards to to takli , he writes in Haya Hayatt an-Na an-Nass: Based on what has been narrated by both sects rom the Prophet: “He who dies without knowing the Imam o his time dies the death o ignorance [polytheism]”, we see that the meaning reers to these two sects, because it applies to what is happening in our own time. So whoever dies in our own time and does not know the Imam o his time dies the death o ignorance, and this idea is not correct unless the Imam is present, because he is a lut [grace] so long as there is takli , and so long as there is takli it is not correct or the lut to be absent. Tis is because the lut is a condition o the takli , and the takli ceases once its condition is removed.66 In this way, way, Sheikh Ahmad never ne ver seems to contradict the ‘ulama and uquha who have come beore him. h im. Unlike some o the akhbaris o his time, who made vicious attacks upon some o the most respected early scholars such as Sheikh at-usi, Sheikh Ahmad ully accepts their doctrines and ideas. He has only attempted to add a third component alongside the use o naql (accepted by all) 66: Al-Ahsa’i , , Sheikh Ahmad. Haya [ publisher unknown], Hayatt an-Nas an-Nas. Beirut: [publisher 1420. p. 57. 36
and the use o ‘aql (accepted by the usuli): the use o kash and inspiration as described in the previous section. For this reason Corbin has dubbed the system o Sheikh Ahsa’i as “the “the theosophy o Shi’ism.”67 It is interesting to note the degree to which Sheikh Ahmad seeks to preserve the systems s ystems o thought and understanding which came beore him. Sheikh Ahmad’s goal was to create a kind o third way, beyond the rigid thinking o the akh akhbari bari and the technocracy o the usuli ‘ulama. Arjomand writes that Sheikh Ahmad was “the champion o Akhbari traditionalism, traditiona lism,”68 but this is not correct. Sheikh Ahmad was, undoubtedly undoubted ly,, an usuli in terms o his fiqh methodology, and placedd a great emphasis on the role o the mujtahid . In a debate place with the akh akhbari bari scholar Al-‘Asur, he makes a vigorous attempt to deend the permissibility o speculative inquiry in matters o Islamic law.69 ‘Aql , in the sense o reason is considered to be a ull canonical source as well. Like most uquha, however, he is keen to assert the impossibility o ‘aql ever reaching legal conclusions on its own. As he argues in the case o kash , ‘aql itsel must also be in conormity with the appare apparent nt meaning o the �ur’ �ur’an an and and sunnah as well as the common understanding o the Muslims. He writes: Te condition or correctness o a deduced statement is that it must be witnessed to [i.e., in conormity with] the �ur’an and sunnah, without any kind o interpretation. Te second condition is that that it be in conormity with the clear meaning o the words used by the laity [in this regard] rom the believing belie ving Muslims Muslims [the Shi’a], though not in accordance with w ith their 67: Corbin, Henry. “Imamologie “Imamologie et Philosophie” in Le Shi�isme Imamite Imamite, p. 154. 68: Arjomand, Shadow o God , p. 252. 69: For a thorough discussion o the Sheikh’s argument in this regard, see Cole, Juan R.I. R .I. “Shaikh Ahmad Ahsa’i Ahsa’i and the Sources o Religious Relig ious Authority” in Waldbridge, Linda. Te Most Learned o the Shi’a, pp. 88-89. 37
interpretations, since as we have mentioned their understanding o such things is against the truth, even though the apparent meaning o their words is correct.70 Te Sheikh is speaking in somewhat elitist terms here, in line with both a clerical clerical elitism (characteristi (characteristicc o the usuli school) and a mystical elitism. For the Sheikh, the common people do not understand underst and at all the inner meanings o the Islamic mission. Tey do things that are apparently correct but, in act, are grossly misunderstood. Te Shaykhi scholar ‘Abd al-Mun’am al-‘Imran uses the ollowing example: When most Muslims supplicate, supplicate, they raise their hands up to the sky. Tis is a correct action. Nonetheless, i the laity were to be asked why they do such thing, they would respond that it is because Allah is in the sky, something which is grossly incorrect. As such the exoteric act is correct even though the internal understanding is wrong. o understand the true meaning o that act requires recourse to naql or kash , and the authorr then goes on to quote a hadeeth o Imam Ali explaining the autho significance o the supplicatory gestur g esture. e.71 Even Ev en in his mystical writings, we find a great deal o fiqh fiqh interspersed. In the treatise treatise where he discusses d iscusses the creation o the lights o the Prophet, he also embarks upon a discussion as to whether or not the urine and stool o the Ahl al-Bayt are ritually impure (najis). He presents a very usuli argument in this regard regard:: insoar as the waste o the Ahl al-Bayt al-Bayt are classified as waste in language, and since all such waste is considered to be impure, one must thereby ollow the apparent meaning o those verses o �ur’an and those hadeeths which deal with impurities and apply that classification to the waste products o the Ahl al-Bayt. 72 Furthermore, he says, 70: Qtd. Q td. in Al-‘Imran, Sheikh Sh eikh ‘Abd ‘Abd al-Mu a l-Mun’ n’am. am. “Munabi’at Ma’riat Ma’riat ashSheikh,”” p. 6. Sheikh, 71: Al-‘Imran, Sheikh ‘Abd al-Mun’am. “Te Sources o the Sheikh’s Knowledge,” p. 7. 72: Al-Ahsa’i¸ Rasa’il al-Hi al-Hikmah kmah, p. 259. 38
there are many narrations which indicated that the Prophets and Imams Im ams would remove any impurities impurities rom their body as would be required by Islamic law. Nonetheless, he offers the possibility that since the impurity o waste is the result o sin and impurity in the soul, and that since the Ahl al-Bayt were sinless, it might mig ht be illogical to assume that their waste was impure. Tose narrations which indicate that they would clean themselves according acc ording to the shar sharii’ah would merely merely indicate indicate that that such an act was was recommended on their their part, as it would be inappropriate inappropriate to pray, or example, with even e ven ritually pure waste products on one’s body. 73 Te rigid adherence to the canonical sources required by Sheikh Ahsa’i Ahsa’i is probably the reason why people such as Arjomand Arj omand would consider him to be an akhb akhbari ari. But his traditionalism in this regard is never turned against the usuli ‘ulama, o whom he considers himsel to be a part (he held a certificate o permission in ijtihad rom one o the most important usuli scholars o his time, Allamah Najafi). In reality he is a conservative usuli, who argues or extreme caution with regards to any deviations rom the canonical sources, in contrast to the many deviations which were occurring in Iran. In many ways his own master, Allamah Najafi, made similar types o criticisms in his own works, especially with regards to issues like Friday prayer, and it was only in this way that Sheikh Ahmad departed rom the mainstream Usuli community. Following his assertion o the need or ijtihad , Sheikh Ahmad is also keen to assert the necessity o taqlid . He wholeheartedly believes that the uquha as a body are the inheritors inheritors o the knowledge and authority o the Prophet, at least the exoteric body o knowledge, and that as such they are endowed with the same legal authority autho rity as the Prophet. He He discusses this issue in a commentary on the hadeeth o the Prophet: Prophet: “Te “ Te ‘ulama o my nation (umma) are like the prophets o the Children o Israel,” and the hadeeth that 73: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 260. 39
“Te ‘ulama are the inheritors o the prophets. prophe ts.”” In spite o the act that the hadeeth at least partially p artially reers to the Imams Imams themselves, It is permissible that the meaning o this narration may reer to the ‘ulama o the Shi’a, i their knowledge is derived rom the �ur’an and the sunnah, and that they are knowledgeable about the knowledge o the Ahl al-Bayt. As such, the obligation to obey the ‘ulama is the same as the obligation o the Children o Israel upon their own Prophets, with regards to all those issues which pertain to the law lawul ul and the prohibitive.. prohibitive....Te meaning o the Chil dren o Israel, with ‘ulama being similar to the prophets o the Children regards to the obligation obli gation o obeying obe ying them, is that Allah, may He be glorified, has made them a medium in this regard. 74 Sheikh Ahmad makes it clear, however, that the authority o the ‘ulama is derived rom the degree to which they cling to the narrations which come rom the Ahl al-Bayt and to the �ur’an itsel, in contrast to the ormulations given or wilayat-e-aqih which completely c ompletely negate neg ate such a need. ne ed. Te status o the ‘ulama is merely that o a medium between the teachings o the Ahl al-Bayt and the people, in times and situations situations when the common people ( al al-‘uwam ‘uwam) are unable to have a direct contact with the Imam. Te modern Sheikhi ‘ulama have, however, differed rom their more mainstream usuli counte counterparts rparts in one key area o taqlid : the obligation to ollow “the most learned” o the Shi’a. Especially today, almost all maraja’ have ruled that the laity must do taqlid o the scholar regarded as a s most knowledgeable in the jurisprudential sciences, especially usul al-fiqh. Te current Sheikhi marja’ , Ayatullah Mirza ‘Abd ar-Rasul al-Ihqaqy al-Ha’iri, discusses this issue in his collection o atwas, Ahkam ash-Shari’ ash-Shari’ah ah. He first argues that distinguishing the most learned is something difficult, and that the hadeeths which he argues reer to taqlid make no reerence to the “most knowledgeable” or any such concept. 74: Al-Ahsa’i, Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid., p. 256 40
I there is a most knowledgeable scholar, then it is certainly best to reer to him, but it is no ways an obligation. 75 But he then goes on to give a at atwa wa that could probably only be ound in a Sheikhi book: that taqlid o the most ascetic, most pious, and most spiritually insightul scholar is always superior to ollowing the most knowledgeable, especially in the current time which is filled with sin and corruption.76 Te technocratic elitism o the usuli school has always meant that technical skill outweighs piety; but in the Sheikhi school piety remains the more important consideration, because it is such piety that opens one to the truth o which the Imam is the bearer. Te cosmogenic relationship o the Imam to the believers is a special bond, and the act that the Imams are ultimately the source o all existence does not mean that disbelievers share in this unique relationship. All o the narrations in Al-Kafi which speak o this issue make it clear that there were two substances rom which beings were ormed: ormed : one is t hat o the ‘illiyyeen , rom which the Imams and their Shi’a are ormed. Te other is sijjeen, rom which the enemies o the Ahl al-Bayt and the shi shi’’a o these enemies were ormed. Tis commentary comes in the orm o a tasir o the sur surah ah al-Mustaffi al-Mustaffieen een, where the two terms o ‘ illiyeen and sijjeen are employed: “Indeed, Allah created us rom above the ‘illiyeen, and ormed the hearts o our Shi’ Sh i’aa rom the same. He then created their bodies rom another substance. As such, their hearts will seek us out, because their hearts were created rom the same thing we were created rom.” Ten the Imam read this ayat : “Never, indeed the book o the good is in the ‘illiyyeen. And what is this ‘illliyeen? It is a book inscribed, borne witness to by the ones who are near.” [ Te Imam continued]: continued ]: “And “And our [the Ahl al-Bayt]’ a l-Bayt]’ss enemies were 75: Al-Ihqaqy Al-Hairi, Mirza ‘Abd ar-Rasul. Ahka Ahkam m as-Shari’ as-Shari’ah, pp. 75-76. 76: Al-Ihqaqy Al-Hairi, Al-Hairi, Ibid., p. 76. 7 6. 41
created rom sijeen, and the hearts o their shi created rom shi’’a were created the same. He then created their bodies rom another substance. Ten he read this ayat : “Never, indeed the book o the evil is in sijeen. And what is this sijeen? It is a book inscribed.” 77 Te disbelievers not would not receive rec eive kash , because kash is a Divine knowledge knowledge whose medium is always the Imam. Imam. Because Be cause the disbelievers are created rom a different substance substance and their hearts are thereore turned away rom the Imams, they would not be able to receive the illumination which travels through their path. Worse, W orse, since kash brings to light a knowledge which is present within the heart, tha thatt would assume assume tha thatt the the person person who is seeking in his pre-cosmic state. state. But But those who kash was an actual believer in die as disbelievers, in the Sheikh’s ormulation, were always disbelievers, whose hearts were closed to the inspiration that comes rom the path o the Imams. o return a “sleeping” believer to his original state would involve awakening him to his primordial state o belie; but the disbeliever was never in such a state, and as such there is no original state o belie to return to. Does this mean that Sheikh Ahmad believes in pre-destination? Not exactly. In another treatise he discusses the nature o the primordial covenant. Tough all the souls responded in the affirmative when they were asked to assert the Lordship o Allah, Sheikh Ahsa’i argues that some o these souls were not sincere in their affirmation. Teir disbelie which is maniested in the real world is, thereore, a result o that initial insincerity. insinc erity. Cole describes describe s that as a kind o “karma” as opposed to pre-destinationism, whereby the decisions made by a person in a “past lie” define the way one’s present lie will be.78 However However,, this does not really answer the question, or it is necessary that the covenant reerred to in the �ur’an would 77: Al-Kafi , vol. 1, p. 390, hadeeth #4. 78: Cole, Ibid., p. 10. 42
come afer the creation o the souls themselves, and those souls were already ingrained with with belie or disbelie. Te ability o a true believer to receive kash leads to another major doctrinal reormulation in Sheikh Ahsa’i’s thought: the socalled “ourth pillar,” or the Perect Shi’a, a ormulation implicit in his works but not made a ormally explicit doctrine until later thinkers. raditionally, the body o doctrine inside Shi’a Islam is divided into five categories, each one o which it is necessary to believe in or a person to be considered a believer. Tese five usul ad-deenn (bases o aith) are: Monotheism, Prophecy, Imamate, ad-dee Justice Just ice (o Allah), and the Resurrection/Aferlie. Many Many Sheikhis have argued that these five principles can be reduced to three, three, since the doctrine o justice is really part o the oneness o Allah, and the doctrine o resurrection is merely a teaching o the Prophet, and so can be classified as part o prophethood. Alongside o these three pillars is added a ourth: the concept o the “perect Shi’a” ( ash-shi ). Such a person becomes a kind o mirror by ash-shi’’a al-kamil ). which the teachings teachings and will o the the Hidden Imam Imam becomes maniest. Tis type o scholar-gnostic is in ull receipt o the Light o the Imam. Imam. Nonetheless, he does not become a Sufi master, master, and his esoteric visions do not become binding upon anybody else. But it is through this figure (or figures) that the “work” o the Imam continues. Te opposite holds true as well: Without the light o the Imam, without the esoteric Imamate reerred to in our previous discussion, then the world itsel will be plunged into darkness darkness and their can be no path towards salvation. salvation. Te Sheikh was asked about the nature o the ghayb ghaybah ah, and how such a thing can be possible i one believes there must always be an inallible guide. He writes in in his conclusion: Wee have mutawatir narrations which state that even i he [the W Imam] is hidden rom the eyes, his Light will still be present in the hearts o the Shi’a. In a reliable narration it is narrated that 43
the Imam benefits the people in ghayba ghaybahh in the way that the sun benefits the people even when it is hidden beneath clouds. For the day is present insoar as the light o the sun is present, and i the sun’s light is gone, then there can (at least normally) be no day. As such one cannot do without Inallibility, 79 whether this be rom the locus o this inallibility [the guide, the Imam] and the light which comes rom it, as a s is the case with the “translator” “translator” [the Imam, as discussed above] or the sustainer, or whether it only be through the light, as is the case with the ‘ulama who derive their knowledge rom him. I this Inallibility were gone completely, then there there would be no path to success, or there would be no light at all, and “he whom Allah does not give light, shall never have light.”80 Conclusions
Te school o Sheikh Ahmad has not received that much attention in recent years. In a period where many Iranian intellectuals are seeking to build a new, n ew, reormed understanding o Shi’ism that does not involve sheer obedience to a technically oriented uquha, the question o how to preserve the idea o Imamate which is central to Shi’ism has been largely side-lined. Sheikh Ahmad’s teachings on this doctrine, as we have seen, provide the grounds or an individual relationship with the Imam as spiritual guide, one that is not confined to the period o the Imam’s presence or absence. In the present present debates which are raging rag ing amongst intellectuals and clergy clerg y in Iran, the reormist movement movement could find many o their aspirations already realized in the Sheikh Ahmad’s Shi’a theosophy. 79: Here the Sheikh seems to be using the word “Inallibilit “Inallibility” y” to reer to the reality o the Imam. 80: Al-Ahsa’i, Ibid .,., pp. 203-204. 44
