The debate between Mulla Tahir Qummi and Mulla Taqi Majlisi on sufism – Dr. Ata Anzali

Mulla Muhammad-Tahir Shirazi Najafi Qummi (d. 1689) was one of the most prominent religious scholars at the forefront of the attacks against Sufism. Biographical sources cite him as an eminent theologian and scholar of hadith.

He was born sometime in the early seventeenth century in Fars province to an ordinary household. For unknown reasons, his family moved to the shrine city of Najaf in modern-day Iraq when he was very young. We know nothing else about this important period of his life.

Some years later, around 1638, he fled Najaf for Iran, fearing the imminent Ottoman takeover of Iraq and its repercussions. Qummi’s literary activities seem to have begun soon after he settled in Qom.

It is clear from his earliest writings that, as a theologian, he had strong opinions about philosophical and mystical interpretations of Shiʿism, considering it his foremost duty to warn people of the dangers of such readings. His writings paint a picture of an erudite and knowledgeable scholar who was passionate about defending the teachings of the twelve imams, as he understood them.

Sometime before 1650, at a time when public and elite opinion was still favorably inclined toward Sufism, he wrote a short treatise attacking it. Qummi’s writings attracted the eye of Muhammad-Taqi Majlisi (d. 1659), one of the most charismatic and popular Twelver scholars of the era.

Majlisi was a scholar of hadith and a student of the legendary shaykh Baha al-Din Muhammad ʿAmili, otherwise known as Shaykh Bahaʿi (d. 1621), and Majlisi inherited many of the Sufi proclivities of his teacher. He took it upon himself to write a gloss on Qummi’s treatise, refuting the latter’s arguments against Sufism.

Qummi, never one to shy from debate, embraced his role as the underdog and responded to Majlisi’s counterarguments in a detailed supergloss. By the early eighteenth century, perceptions of Sufism had changed so dramatically that Majlisi’s prominent son, Muhammad-Baqir (d. 1698), was explaining away his father’s clear Sufi proclivities by casting them as a strategy to befriend misguided Sufis in hopes of converting them to the true religion.

THE DEBATE AS PRESERVED BY MIR LAWHI

This essay is comprised of a translation of segments of the debate between Qummi and Majlisi Sr. The debate has not survived in its entirety, but we are fortunate to have major portions available in a unique manuscript held at the Marʿashi Library in Qom. This manuscript was compiled by a zealot preacher known as Mir Lawhi (d. after 1671), another prominent figure in the anti-Sufi front of the time.

TRANSLATION

[Invocation]

In the name of God, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to God, Lord of the Two Worlds, and His blessings and peace on the best of His creation, Muhammad, and all his descendants.

Chapter 1, Section I

[Qummi says:] . . . I have seen that lack of acquaintance with knowledgeable people has caused many of the Shiʿa and friends of ʿAli b. Abu Talib, peace be upon him, to be deceived by monsters on the path of religion.

They have strayed far away from the path of law and religion, considering shouting, clapping, jumping, whirling, and love-play with beardless boys to be worship and obedience. Therefore, I saw it as incumbent upon myself to help and guide them and return them to the high road of the Prophetic Shariʿa and the ʿAlid path.

Chapter 1, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] If the aim of our master [Qummi] is to guide some of the laity, who engage in inappropriate behavior due to their ignorance, that is not bad. But their behavior does not blemish the praiseworthy path of the saints, just as the behavior of ignorant students of religion does not blemish the pursuit of knowledge.

It would have been more appropriate for you to first describe the praiseworthy path of the saints, and then engage in disparaging the behavior of those who are not of that path.

First of all, it is possible that some of their movements stem from their vision of God’s majesty, or perhaps they lose self-control due to . . . the passion of their love for God, and certain words or deeds rise spontaneously from them.

For example, it is said that Junayd raised his hand while in a state of agitation, and when the state subsided, he brought his hand down with the help of the hands of others, so that the act of bringing down his hand would not resemble that of raising it.

And even if they inadvertently do something, why do you assume that they consider it a virtue despite the fact that the greatest among them consider it a deficiency? Furthermore, it is not clear that these acts are religiously forbidden; it is merely common opinion [of the jurists]. And God guides toward the straight path.

Chapter 1, Section III

[Qummi responds:] . . . Let it be clear that I was hesitant to write a response to the respected cleric’s [Majlisi’s] discussions, so I resorted to [Qurʾanic] divination (istikharah). The divination to write a response was favorable, while the divination not to write one was unfavorable, and thus I decided to respond. . . .

Before commencing with the response, it is fitting for me to outline my views on love (mahabbat) and desire (shawq), which are necessary for the folk of gnosis (ʿirfan), so that my reason for writing the treatise is made clear to the respected cleric.

Let it be clear that what I believe, and what is evident from the teachings of the Prophetic Household, is that God’s servants worship him in three ways. Some worship Him in order to attain paradise, which is the worship of a hired laborer. Others worship Him fearing hellfire, which is the worship of slaves. Still others worship Him out of love and desire, which is the worship of free men.

The path of the gnostics and those close to God, and the goal of the wise and sagacious in their mortifications and struggles, is to reach this path. Followers of every religion have taken many pains and undergone many mortifications on the path toward reaching this high station, setting off in every direction in search of their goal.

However, only those who have followed the Prophetic Household, those guides on the path of love, have reached the final destination. Those who have failed to follow them due to the deception of the monsters on the path of religion have perished in the desert of misguidedness.

This humble servant has gathered many hadith reported by the Prophetic Household on the topic of love and desire. Some time ago I began compiling a book on the subject, which I have titled Maqamat al-muhibbin, and which I hope to have the good fortune of finishing.

However, the pious worshippers and practitioners of mortification among the Sunnis who oppose the Prophetic Household have issued misguided personal opinions (ijtihadat) and reveled in corrupt fantasies as they traverse the valley of divine love, adding misguidedness to deviance, and creating innovations on the path of obedience.

. . . In the treatise, I mentioned signs of Sunni practitioners of mortification who follow Hallaj and Bayazid. Among the signs that I did not mention is that [members of] this group call themselves ʿashiq (lit., lover) and attribute ʿishq (lit, love) to God Almighty.

The Household of the Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, who are the guides on the path of love, have avoided using this term in their supplications and hadith because it is the name of a melancholic illness (sawdavi).

Rather, they are content to use the terms mahabbat (lit., love) and shawq (lit., desire), and their followers do the same. The path of love and desire that this humble servant has chosen is the path of the perfect gnostic Shaykh Safi [al-Din Ardabili], as well as that of Shaykh Varram b. Abu Furas, Ibn Tawus, Ahmad b. Fahd Hilli, Mulla Ahmad Ardabili, and other Shiʿi gnostics, may God bless them.

It should be clear from what I have said that my aim in writing this treatise is not to reject love and desire [for God] as the respected cleric has supposed, unleashing words of derision upon me. . . . How could this humble servant believe such a thing when I have written quatrains like the following?

[Quatrain]

O Lord, capture me with your love.
Consume my body in the fires of purification.
Pluck all neglect of God from my wings and feathers,
That I might fly to the pinnacle of your love.

Moreover, what impelled this humble servant to undertake the writing of the treatise was that when I entered Qom, the city of believers, a group of people told me that some in the town were claiming to have ascended to the heavens, returning with reports of the skies and purporting that a group of jinn had become servants of their Sufi lodge, and many ignorant people had joined them.

When I heard those words, my religious zeal was awakened, and I took efforts to refute and destroy them. . . . Now that my aim in writing this treatise is clear, I will begin my response to what the respected cleric has said, and God is the source of help.

In his gloss on the previous page, the respected cleric says that some of the movements of the saints could be caused by visions of God’s majesty, and then he narrates Junayd’s story. In no way could the movements we see from the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid be caused by God’s love!

If that were the case, such behavior would have appeared among the companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, and among the companions of the imams, peace be upon them, who are the heralds of the gnostics and lovers, and it would have been recorded by the ʿulamaʾ in their books.

The respected cleric should first prove, via Shiʿi reporters of hadith, that Junayd was a Muslim and a believer, and then take him as his witness. And God guides whom he wishes to the straight path.

Chapter 2, Section I

[Qummi says:] O Shiʿites and friends of the Prophetic Household! Know that theabove mentioned path is the path of the followers of Hallaj, Bayazid, and others like them. Beware of these ways and means, and do not follow this path.

[Quatrain]

Beware of straying from the path of the Shariʿa.
Do not step foot on the path of Hallaj.
For all paths outside the bounds of the Shariʿa,
Come to an end at the gallows.

[Quatrain]

If you venture off the path of ʿAli and his descendants,
And fall in line with the followers of Hallaj,
If you wish to be a follower of Bayazid,
You will be resurrected tomorrow with Yazid.

Chapter 2, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] How strange that our master [Qummi] identifies the path of the realizers (muhaqqiqan) and the unifiers (muvahhidan) as that of Hallaj, despite the fact that all the Sufi ʿulamaʾ have disparaged Hallaj, and no one follows him.

Instead, all agree that this path is that of the Household of the Messenger of God. Because it is a highly difficult path, however, they [the imams] have not ordered everyone to embark upon it.

Instead, they provided guidance on this path to a [select] group among their apostles and close acquaintances, compelling them [to follow it], for it is not hidden from the insightful and knowledgeable.

Only some, however, bore this heavy burden and attained eternal felicity (saʿadat), like Rushaid Hijri, Kumayl b. Ziyad Nakhaʿi, Qanbar, Salman, Jabir Juʿfi, and other companions privy to the secrets of the guiding imams.

The exoteric ʿulamaʾ called into question the character and integrity of these people because they could not comprehend their status, though it is not hidden from those who search. And God guides whom he wishes to the straight path.

Chapter 2, Section III

[Qummi responds:] The respected cleric expresses surprise that I identified the path of saints with that of Hallaj, and he further claims that all the Sufi ʿulamaʾ have disparaged Hallaj. It is apparent from such statements that the cleric has not read the books of this group, not even Miftah al-Falah, nor has he heard Shaykh Shabistari say in Gulshan [Raz]:

If it is permitted for a tree to say, “I am God,”
Why is it not permitted for the good-fortuned one [that is, Hallaj]?

This book, Gulshan, is highly regarded by these people, so much so that Lahiji, one of their great scholars, wrote a commentary on it. In addition, Rumi, who is a prominent member of this group and whom you [Majlisi] consider to be your spiritual master, alluded to the greatness of Hallaj. . . . If you do your research, you will know with certainty that these people whom you emulate are all followers of Hallaj.

You have also said that this path was taught by the blessed Commander of the Believers, peace be upon him, and by his descendants, peace be upon them, to Rushaid Hijri, Kumayl [b.] Ziyad, Qanbar, Salman, and Jabir Juʿfi.

The respected cleric may deceive the laity with such statements, but when would they ever deceive those who have read the biographical literature (rijal)?

It is incumbent upon the respected cleric to inform us which of the words and deeds of this group, who are followers of the Household, are in accordance with the words or deeds of the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid. . . .

If the path of the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid is correct, and if it is taken from the teachings of the Household, then it must be the case that the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid trace their path back to these few holders of the secrets of the Household.

On the contrary, however, we see that the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid do not trace their path back to such people. The names of Jabir, Rushaid, Kumayl, Qanbar, and Salman are not known among them and are not mentioned in their books.

Chapter 4, Section I

[Qummi says:] . . . It is reported in the book Tazkirat al-Awliyaʾ that one day a disciple of Bayazid said, “It is mentioned in a report from the blessed Messenger of God, may God bless him and his descendants, that [the Prophet said], ‘on the day of resurrection, God, almighty and exalted is He, will kindly bestow upon me the flag of praise, and under that divine flag all the believers will gather.’ ”

The above-mentioned shaykh [Bayazid] replied, “By God, my flag is greater than the flag of Muhammad, may God bless him and his descendants.” God’s curse be on he who spoke those words!

It is also reported that someone asked Bayazid, “Why don’t you pray the night prayers?” He replied, “I don’t have time for prayers, I hover in the heavenly realm, and wherever I find a fallen one, I take his hand.” He also said, “I saw God in my dream. He asked me, ‘what do you want, Bayazid?’ I responded, ‘I want what you want.’ He said, ‘I am for you as you are for me.’ ” . . .

O Muslims! Consider these statements and be mindful of your own fate. Don’t follow these destroyers of God’s religion.

Chapter 4, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] I have mentioned that accusations leveled by ignorant people against the divine ʿulamaʾ are not worthy of being heard, so it is not in accordance with the shariʿa to pay attention to such statements.

Furthermore, ʿAllamah Hilli, may God bless him, reported in his commentary on Tajrid that Bayazid was the water bearer of the blessed Imam Jaʿfar Sadiq, may God bless him. Because it is relevant, [I will relate] a story that I heard from my mentor, Shaykh Bahaʾ al-Din Muhammad, may God bless him.

He said, “I was with the late king, Shah ʿAbbas, and we visited the imamzadah in Bistam. After that visit, we decided to pay a visit to the tomb of Bayazid. A Shirazi scholar was with us. ‘Why are we visiting the tomb of this Sunni?,’ that scholar objected . . . saying that Bayazid was the cause of the imamzadah’s death.

I replied, ‘O my king! ʿAllamah Hilli has reported in his commentary on Tajrid that he [Bayazid] was the water bearer at the home of Imam Jaʿfar Sadiq, peace be upon him, and because he did that duty for a prolonged time and the blessed [imam] considered him capable of guiding the populace due to the mortifications and struggles that he underwent during the length of his service, he released him from his service and entrusted him to take his son with him to Bistam.

Eventually the people of Bistam quarreled over where the imamzadah should settle in their town, and this led to a fight. A stray stone hit the imamzadah, and he was martyred. It is not even clear if the people of Bistam are to blame for this, because what happened, happened because of their love.’ ”

Other stories were also related about Bayazid’s virtues that are too long for this gloss. After those stories, [Shaykh Bahaʾi remarked], “I took the king to pay a visit to Bayazid’s tomb. As luck would have it, there on the gravestone was Rumi’s Masnavi. I said, ‘My king, let’s inquire about Bayazid’s status from Rumi’s divan.’ As we opened the book, the first line in the page we opened was:

Outwardly, you accuse Bayazid,
But inwardly, you would shame even Yazid.

After that, the king asked me to recite the ziyarat for him, and I did.”

In summary, if someone appears to be included among the righteous, it is against the shariʿa to repeat the gossip of unknown people and cause him to be cursed.

Even if such statements were made by this person, they are subject to interpretation, just as Shaykh Ruzbihan of Fars has done in his book, Sharh-i Taʿvilat [sic] in which he reports such statements made by Sufis.

In most cases, these were expressed in the madness of love. Therefore, leaving aside other possible interpretations that are too long for this gloss, in accordance with reports and hadiths, it is obligatory to attribute [problematic] statements by the believers to precautionary dissimulation (taqiyyah) or other proper interpretations whenever possible.

[Furthermore,] if a group of people had faith in Bayazid, thinking that he was a servant of the blessed [imam] and that he was a Shiʿi, they would be rewarded even if, in reality, Bayazid was a cursed Sunni. This is especially true for the times of dissimulation, when they had to conceal their [religious] inclinations. How is it in accordance with the shariʿa to curse such people? . . . .

Chapter 4, Section III

[Qummi responds:] The respected cleric, while praising the status of Bayazid, mentions that ʿAllamah Hilli, may God bless him, has said that Bayazid was the water bearer of the blessed Imam Jaʿfar Sadiq. How strange that the respected cleric does not understand that being a water bearer does not make someone virtuous. Has he not heard of ʿAisha, Hafsa, Noah’s son, and Jaʿfar the Liar? . . .

He then narrates popular stories attributed to the Shaykh [Bahaʾi], may God bless him. . . . Doesn’t he know that prognostication (fal) means to seek knowledge of the unseen, and to seek the unseen from Rumi’s book or other books, without the permission of God, the Messenger, and the imams, peace be upon them all, is not allowed? . . .

As for divination (istikharah), we do that because the Household, peace be upon them, have permitted and taught it. Divination is different from prognostication, as is clear to any intelligent, insightful person. And God guides whom he wishes to the straight path.

. . . . The point made about their time being the time of dissimulation is true. Yet even during the time of dissimulation, the Shiʿi ʿulamaʾ and luminaries can not practice dissimulation in a way that Sunnis recognize them as saints while they remain unknown to the Shiʿites.

Chapter 5, Section I

[Qummi says:] The author of Tabsirat al-ʿAvam divides the followers of Hallaj into six groups and reports many of their heresies. In addition, he says in that book that Sunnis recognize this group [the Sufis] as saints and miracle workers. There is much evidence of the truthfulness of what this knowledgeable man has said.

First, the Shiʿi ʿulamaʾ of the past wrote books in which they gathered the names of [prominent] Shiʿites and lovers of the household. In these books, they did not mention the name of any [prominent] Shiʿite who was a denizen of a Sufi lodge, who engaged in ecstasy, samaʿ dancing, howling, or love-play, or who was said to have subscribed to a belief associated with the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid.

This is evidence that this path has never been known among the Shiʿites. If it had been, they would have said so. Rather, this path has always belonged to the Sunnis. Sunni kings of all ages respected them [the Sufis] and built lodges for them.

Second, a handful of towns are known to be centers of Shiʿism, such as Astarabad, Sabzavar, Jabal ʿAmil, Hilla, and Qom, the city of believers. None of these towns contains an ancient Sufi lodge, even though in Qom there are many ancient domes.

In Sunni towns, however, there are several ancient lodges. This is evidence that this path was not known among the Shiʿites.

Chapter 5, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] The fact that there have been many Sunni Sufis is no cause for dismay. There have been many destroyers of knowledge and the ʿulamaʾ, but this does not blemish Sufism or knowledge. As for the fact that there was no Sufi lodge during the time of the imams; there were no madrasas then either!

If these are innovations, they are either permissible (mubah) or praiseworthy (mustahabb) innovations, as the martyred shaykh, may God bless him, has mentioned in his Qavaʿid. As for retreats and seclusions, they are desirable for their role in reforming the soul that is susceptible to temptation (nafs-i ammarah).

If a group of people, especially seekers of knowledge, decide to undertake retreat and seclusion and engage in a struggle against their carnal soul with the aim of purifying their soul from the illnesses that surround the people of the world, this is the greater jihad and would not be reprehensible. Instead, it is the most important obligatory duty.

Chapter 5, Section III

[Qummi responds:] . . . It is true, as the respected cleric says, that seclusion aimed at struggling against the carnal soul is not reprehensible, but only on the condition that it does not involve abandoning the traditions of the blessed Refuge of Prophecy, may God’s blessing be upon him and his descendants, such as communal prayers in the mosque or attending to the needs of other believers.

The forty-day retreat customary among the followers of Hallaj, however, causes many of the traditions of the blessed Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, to be abandoned. Furthermore, it damages the brain and causes melancholia. Therefore, it should be avoided, and the path of the Household should be taken up in its stead. . . .

Chapter 8, Section I

[Qummi says:] An ignorant person might say that the path and beliefs of this group [the Sufis] are the religion of the Messenger and the Household, peace be upon them, but that they [the latter] did not share them with everyone because they were secrets, and thus they did not become widely known among the Shiʿites.

In response, I would say that anyone with the slightest shred of intelligence knows that if this were the path of truth that held the secrets of the sect, these secrets would have been withheld from the Sunnis. Our imams, who are the Household of the Messenger, would have not taught such secrets to non-Shiʿites.

But on the contrary, we find that this path is famous among the Sunnis and those foreign to the Household, while at the same time, the friends of the Household and the Shiʿi ʿulamaʾ are ignorant of it. Thus it is clear that what the ignorant person has said is false and a lie.

Chapter 8, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] The correct belief is that the Sunnis do not share in this path, and that all who have shared in it have been Shiʿites, including Ibrahim Adham, Bayazid Bistami, Sanaʿi, Rumi, ʿAttar, and others. They have also disparaged Sunni Sufis in their books, as is clear to the insightful person. And God guides whom He wishes to the straight path.

Chapter 8, Section III

[Qummi responds:] The respected cleric is bold to make such unsubstantiated claims. If you make a claim, you should furnish evidence for it and stop acting like a layperson. And God guides whom He wishes to the straight path.

Chapter 16, Section I

[Qummi says:] Additional evidence [of their misguidedness] is that it is reported that their spiritual masters, Rumi and others, would bring reed flutes and other instruments to their sessions. This is said even now about the Mawlavi House in Baghdad. Such things are forbidden in the school of our imams. It is strange that some of the Shiʿi people have complete faith in Rumi despite the fact that he was an Uzbek and, as it is reported, a Sunni judge.

Sunnis have a firm belief in him and consider him their exemplar and respect his poetry enormously because they consider him a Sunni and do not see anything in his poetry that indicates he was a Shiʿite.

It appears that some among the Shiʿites, due to Rumi’s great praise for the Commander of the Believers, peace be upon him, have thought that he was a Shiʿite, forgetting that this is not evidence of Shiʿism.

In fact, the Sunnis known as the tafzili have written many books about the virtues of ʿAli b. Abi Talib, peace be upon him, and the rest of the imams. They love them very much and consider ʿAli b. Abi Talib to be most virtuous. At the same time, however, they love Abu Bakr and ʿUmar and consider them their caliphs. . . .

Chapter 16, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] It was noted above that what is commonly said by laypeople cannot be trusted. If Sunnis, according to their own belief, consider a Shiʿite to be a Sunni, that does not make that Shiʿite a Sunni. For example, Sunnis consider Muhammad b. Yaʿqub Kulayni, who was among the greatest hadith scholars of Shiʿism, to be a Sunni, and they visit his grave, which is adjacent to the Mawlavi House in Baghdad.

In fact, they consider all of our Imams to be Sunnis, and they have faith in them and visit their tombs. If some Sunnis believe that various instruments are permissible or carry out reprehensible acts and tell lies about the Messenger of God to the effect that he listened to instruments and held ʿAisha on his shoulder to see them being played, then why should it be surprising that they tell lies about Rumi?

The respected Rumi has expressed his devotion to the infallible imams, may God bless them all, in many of his odes, rejecting any association with their enemies and making his true religion clear. If, due to dissimulation, he praised some of the damned, he followed it immediately with lines like this:
I tell you a myth, be it false or true,
That it might highlight the truth.

Chapter 16, Section III

[Qummi responds:] The respected cleric has erred tremendously here, because none of the Sunnis consider Muhammad b. Yaʿqub Kulayni to be a Sunni. Rather, they know him as a propagator of the religion of Shiʿism. . . .

As for the claim that [Rumi] has mentioned the twelve imams in some of his odes, if that is true, it was noted above that merely mentioning the twelve imams and expressing friendship with them is not evidence of Shiʿism. Rather, a Shiʿite is someone who is well known as such among the Shiʿites, or who has disparaged the usurpers of the rights of the Household.

Chapter 17, Section I

[Qummi says:] Another issue with the misguided one [Rumi] is that he was a disciple of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din (Ibn Arabi), and the latter is first and foremost among the damned. Further evidence [of their misguidedness] is that this group believes in determinism, and this is contrary to Shiʿism. Some ignorant people have complete faith in Mahmud Shabistari despite the fact that he says in his Gulshan [Raz]:

Whoever chooses a religion other than determinism,
Is said by the Prophet to be a Zoroastrian.

This couplet indicates that Shiʿites are Zoroastrians because they do not believe in determinism. On the contrary, determinism is the belief of Sunnis, because they say whatever a servant of God does is caused by God, and that the servant has no choice in it.

In Favatih, [the author says that] Shaykh Muhyi al-Din has indicated that all the Sufis follow the school of determinism. It is truly surprising that some people, despite all their boasting about their Shiʿism, have utmost faith in Shaykh Muhyi al-Din (Ibn Arabi). This man has said things in Futuhat that cannot be reconciled with Islam. . . .

In Favatih it is narrated that in chapter seventy-three of Futuhat this wretched man said, “Two pious men of the Shafiʿi School of law, whom no one suspected of Shiʿism, were in the company of a Rajabi saint whom I had met before in Diyar Bekir. The latter said, ‘I see you in the form of pigs, and this is a sign between me and my God, for he reveals the Shiʿites to me in such a form.’ They repented in their heart of being Shiʿites. ‘Now that you have repented,’ he said, ‘I see you in the form of humans.’ They confessed [that they had indeed been Shiʿites] and were very surprised by this experience.”

O friends, do you see how much enmity this leader of the wretched has toward the friends of the Household? How could one consider him a Muslim?

It is also narrated in Favatih that he said, “Sainthood has been sealed with me,” and the commentator on the book Fusus narrated that, “Shaykh Muhyi al-Din went on a nine-month retreat and did not eat anything. Then, he was ordered to come out and was given the good news that he was the Seal of Muhammadan Sainthood. . . .”

Chapter 17, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] . . . It is not known whether Shaykh Muhyi al-Din (Ibn Arabi) was evil, but signs of his Shiʿism are apparent in his Futuhat. In his treatise titled Inshaʾ al-Davaʾir, he has explicitly confirmed the truth of the sect of Shiʿism. There, in several chapters, he elaborates on the prophetic hadith “my community will be divided . . .”.

And then he says that the true religion is the religion of the twelve imams, and he described his revelations, saying, “In the realm of revelation, I saw the names of each of the infallible imams written on different portions of the holy quarters (hazaʾir al-quds).” Finally, it is not farfetched to say that he praised some of the damned due to dissimulation.

In short, the knowledgeable man who has the capacity to understand the statements of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din will know the degree of his virtues and his status.

For example, our master Jalal [al-Din] Davani in Sharh Risalah-yi Zawraʾ went out of his way to praise him. Our master Shams al-Din Khafri, Shaykh Bahaʾ al-Din, and Maulana Sadr al-Din Muhammad Shirazi (Mulla Sadra) did similarly. Rather, all the realizers (muhaqqiqin) and meticulous researchers (mudaqqiqin) followed his footsteps.

lso, given that “to a believer, wisdom is [like something precious] that is lost,” and that [we are to] “look at what someone says, and not who says it,” no one should be deprived of his [Shaykh Muhyi al-Din’s] words of wisdom. If their intellect is unable to understand some of them, they should attribute that to shortcomings in their own understanding.

If he narrates some senseless thing that a group of people said on the topic of religion, it should be attributed to dissimulation so that people can benefit from the light that overflows from him.

Furthermore, these discussions are not suitable for the laity, and the consensus of this group [the Sufis] is that laypersons should not be allowed to read their books. Similarly, it is not permissible for them [the laity] to read the books of philosophers. Only those who have extensive knowledge can benefit from the writings of this group, for “man is the enemy of what he does not know.”

Chapter 18, Section I

[Qummi says:] It is mentioned in Favatih that in his commentary on Fusus, Jandi narrates that Shaykh Sadr al-Din heard this liar (khazzab) of a shaykh [Ibn ʿArabi] say,
“When I reached the Mediterranean Sea from al-Andulus, I decided to board a ship. Suddenly, all the details of my inner and outer states up to the end of my life were revealed to me.

After intense concentration and complete meditation, all of your states from birth until death, and after death in barzakh, as well as those of your father and your followers, were made clear [to me].”

O Shiʿites and friends of the Household! See how these apostate irreligious people spread lies and destroy the religion of the Messenger? It is fitting that you rend your collars and cry tears of blood in mourning for religion. . . . It is ironic that a group of ignorant people who know nothing of their religious obligations wish to inform us about heavens.

In Kulayni’s book, he narrates a hadith report [to the effect] that the sign of a liar is that he brings news about heaven and earth and east and the west, but when asked about what is forbidden (haram) and what is permissible (halal), he does not know.

Chapter 18, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] If our respected master [Qummi], were cognizant of his own state, he would surely rend his own stomach, let alone his collar! I swear to God that I have no bias in favor of Shaykh Muhyi al-Din or others, but our master does not differentiate between concern for religion and concern for [his own] ego. If he better examined his own state, he would engage in reforming his soul.

Why is it so impossible to believe that someone, through extensive struggle and mortification, could acquire knowledge of the states of himself or others? It has repeatedly been reported that the infidels of India gain purity of soul as a result of mortification, and hadiths also report this.

So if a pious believer receives heavenly and earthly revelations as a result of self-mortification and struggle, by God it is true! Many great revelations happened to this servant [of God, that is, Majlisi] and many of the servants who were with me.

If our master is concerned with religion, he should engage for a while in mortifications, and if it avails him nothing, then he can write ten more books refuting this group. Unfortunately, love of position and prestige gets in his way.

When [mental] illnesses become chronic, extensive mortification is especially needed to rid oneself of such deadly traits so that the light of divine manifestation, and divine majesty and beauty, make themselves known.

Finally, all these stupid things that the Sunni has reported from some of Ibn ʿArabi’s books, even if they are true, should be attributed to dissimulation. . . . Shaykh Muhyi al-Din’s time in Egypt was a prime time for dissimulation, because it was the period when Abbasid caliphs overcame the Ismaʿilis and more than one hundred thousand Shiʿites were killed. If you and I had lived in such times, we would have dissimulated far more!

Chapter 18, Section III

[Qummi responds:] Let it be clear to the respected cleric that my lifestyle is comprised of following the Household of the Messenger and their hadiths. It appears that this lifestyle does not sound appealing to the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid.

Oh, Refuge of Justice (ʿidalat-panaha)! Why do you use these rude and unpleasant words? Are you not ashamed before God? How can someone who has reformed his ego in such a manner [that is, who says such rude things] give advice to others?

Besides, I mentioned that Muhyi al-Din (Ibn Arabi) numbers among the destroyers of religion, and thus finding a valid interpretation of his false statements only results in destruction to religion. Are you not ashamed before God for thinking so highly of this lost and misguided person?

The blessed Master of Prophets needed Gabriel to come down to inform him about the past and the future, and the blessed Commander of the Believers, peace be upon him, depended upon the Prophet to teach and inform him. . . . It follows that the respected cleric considers this wretched person more perfect than prophets.

Even more surprising is the attribution of revelation to the infidels of India, even though the consensus of Muslims is that receiving news of the unseen is a miracle of the prophets and their successors.

That is what the Qurʾan says, that God Almighty does not inform anyone of the unseen except for prophets: “Knower of the unseen, he does not reveal His unseen to anyone except a messenger of His choosing.” (72: 26)

Regarding the respected cleric’s claim of [receiving] revelations, it appears that this does not happen without causing damage to the brain. It seems that such revelations happen after the mortifications common among the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid, because their brains are damaged and the initial stages of melancholia kick in. Then they close their eyes and imagine another realm. They undertake journeys in that realm of imagination, and whatever they see they believe to be true.

If this were the path of truth, the Household of the Prophet, may God bless him and his descendants, would have taught it to their companions.

Also, you have claimed that I love prestige and position. Can you tell me how you ascertained this? If it is among the things that have been revealed to you, beware of trusting your revelations, for they are the opposite of the truth.

In fact, if love of position had overtaken my soul, I would have refrained from talking about Hallaj and Bayazid to avoid the entire world entering into debate with me, because the majority of the laity are deceived by these people and infatuated with love for them.

Chapter 22, Section I

[Qummi says:] You should also know that this group, when they ostensibly achieve perfection, consider evil and good and faith and unbelief to be the same. That is why Rumi called the pharaoh Moses:
When the colorless fell captive to color,
One Moses went to battle against another Moses.
Anyone who gives this any thought would certainly conclude that this school is something other than the school of Shiʿism.

Another argument is that they consider love-play with girls and boys to be a virtue and a means of unification with God Almighty. In Favatih, love-play has been attributed to the masters of this group, like Najm Kubra and Shaykh Ruzbihan.

However, in the school of our imams, it is known that love for this world and being attached to anyone other than God Almighty are condemned.

Moreover, this group of people has no interest in mosques, communal prayers, or other traditions of the Messenger, may God bless him and his descendants. Instead, much of the time they ruin their prayers by offering them in a Sufi lodge. The way of our imams is known to be contrary to this. It is reported that the prayers of one who lives near a mosque and performs his prayers at home will not be accepted.

Chapter 22, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] . . . If what you have said about love-play being the religion of this group is in reference to the laity, and the laity who seek knowledge are included in this group, then the behavior of the laity cannot be considered evidence.

If you mean the elite, then they consider loving nothing but God to be infidelity. And if a Sunni reports an accusation about a group of people without legal (sharʿi) proof, it is not permissible to quote him . . .

Chapter 23, Section I

[Qummi says:] . . . Dear ones, it appears that some have been deceived by this group because they have waxed eloquent about piety and asceticism in their books and explained how to struggle against the carnal soul and offered remedies for each of the illnesses of the soul.

They think this is what Sufism is, and they know nothing of their false beliefs, and they do not realize that there are some in every religion who engage in self-mortification and struggle against the carnal soul, especially among the Christians, including the Franks (farangi) and Armenians.

Another argument for the falseness of this group’s path is that they believe in Oneness of Being (vahdat-i vujud). That is, they think nothing exists but God, and that whatever exists is identical to God. They use the metaphor of the sea and the waves; God is like the sea, and all creatures are like the waves of the sea. Though each wave appears in our imagination as something other than from the sea, in reality it is identical with it. What we know of the path of our imams, peace be upon them, indicates the falseness of this statement.

It seems that the followers of Hallaj have learned this belief from the Christians. I heard that some Armenian ascetics are said to have said, “In our religion, Oneness of Being is similar to [the beliefs of] your hermits (ghushah-nashinan).” Also, I heard some Frank ascetics of Baghdad express beliefs that were identical to the beliefs of this group.

Chapter 23, Section II

[Majlisi responds:] There is no doubt that the monsters on the path are many, and it is necessary for everyone to stay far from their sayings and deeds. Such monsters have always been there, on both sides of the path [that is, on the Sufi path and the path of the jurists].

It is incumbent upon the disciple of God Almighty to follow a person whose appearance is adorned with the light of the shariʿa and whose soul is purified internally from wickedness, someone clothed inwardly and outwardly with the ways of the Household who does not consider himself safe from the deceptions of the carnal soul. Such people are extremely rare in our time. As [the hadith says], “my saints are under my cloak; no one knows them except for me.”

Furthermore, it is not permissible for the laity to read most books by Sufis, because some of them were Sunnis, and thus Sunni and Shiʿi are mixed up together; this in addition to the fact that the Shiʿis practiced dissimulation.

It is therefore incumbent upon all to seek religious knowledge from the divine ʿulamaʾ. After acquiring this knowledge, [they may] turn to the purification of their soul via mortifications and struggles under a perfect spiritual master.

They must also avoid making statements about Oneness of Being and the like, because such statements are, on their surface, equivalent to disbelief and apostasy. They have very nuanced and precise meanings that not everyone can comprehend — so much so that it is not clear whether even the knowledgeable ʿulamaʾ who believed in it, like Mawlana Jalal [al-Din Davani], Mawlana Shams al-Din Muhammad Khafri, and others, in fact understood it.

This is because understanding such meanings is beyond the reach of reason. Until the unveiling light is acquired after much mortification and struggle, one cannot hope to receive a glimpse of it. Shaykh Bahaʾ al-Din Muhammad, may God bless him, . . . said,
“One day, a virtuous person in town named Mawlana Khajah Jan came to me and said, ‘Last night I pondered extensively until I understood the meaning of the Oneness of Being.’ I replied, ‘Who is your spiritual master (pir)?’ He responded, ‘What does that word mean?’ I asked, ‘How many mortifications have you undergone?’ ‘None,’ he answered. ‘Clearly,’ I said, ‘the meaning that you have understood is different than that which the Sufis have in mind, because they all agree that the meaning of Oneness of Being can only be revealed to someone who has served under a perfect master and undergone mortifications for forty years. It is clear that what you have understood, without a spiritual master and without mortifications, is different from what Sufis say. Please do not tell others about this so as not to cause complications.’ ”

Chapter 23, Section III

[Qummi responds:] This is a discussion that the respected cleric has already had, and the response is that it is true that the ʿulamaʾ can be divided into two groups.

One group is beautified with the adornment of shariʿa; these are the guides of religion and the trusted people of the Lord of the Two Worlds.

The other group has been infected by their love for this world and follows their tempting soul; they are the destroyers of religion. As for the followers of Hallaj and Bayazid, they are all monsters on the path. May God Almighty protect the followers of the Household from the evils of this group!

Download Usul Fusul al-Tawzih edited by Rasul Ja’fariyan

Source: Anzali, Ata. “Opposition To Sufism In Safavid Iran: A Debate Between Mulla Muhammad-Tahir Qummi And Mulla Muhammad-Taqi Majlisi”. The Empires of the Near East and India: Source Studies of the Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Literate Communities, edited by Hani Khafipour, New York Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press, 2018, pp. 128-149.