Zulal-Irfan

Zulal-Irfan
Author: Mohammadreza Nekounam

Catalogue Details:

• Main Author: Nekounam, Mohammadreza (b. 1327/1948)
• Title: Zulal-Irfan / Mohammadreza Nekounam
• Publisher: Isfahan: Sobhe Farda Publishing, 2014 (1393 in the Iranian calendar)
• Physical Description: 132 pages
• ISBN: 978-600-7347-18-8
• Subject: Mysticism (Irfan)
• National Bibliography Number: 3502974
• Dewey Classification: 297/83
• Congress Classification: BP286/N8Z8 1393
• Status of Cataloging: FIPA

Preface

This book contains five interviews on the subject of mysticism (Irfan). These interviews were conducted by the Ethics and Training Group of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture at the Office of Propagation in Qom, the “Shining Figures” Conference, Radio Farhang, and the newspaper Khorasan. In the interview conducted by Radio Farhang, the discussion covers the mysticism of the Fourteen Infallibles (Ahl al-Bayt), the history of Islamic mysticism, and its differences from other forms of mysticism. It also addresses the mystical data contained in the supplication of Dua Arafah and the love found in the tragic battlefield of Karbala. The Khorasan newspaper interview focuses on the significance of Arafah Day, its associated rituals, and the profound mystical content of Dua Arafah. The “Shining Figures” conference, in its interview, discusses the essence of mysticism, the elements of authentic mysticism, and the conflict between reason and love, as well as between jurisprudence and mysticism. It is worth noting that this conference was held in the name of the renowned mystic, Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Agha Qazi Tabatabai (may his soul rest in peace), and discussions related to this eminent figure have also been included.

The first interview — conducted by the Ethics and Training Group of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture — addresses the shortcomings and challenges of theoretical mysticism and its impact on practical mysticism. This interview is published for the first time in this book.

Lastly, the concluding words of the book are “And our final prayer is: Praise be to God, the Lord of all the worlds.”

First Insight: The Relationship Between Theoretical and Practical Mysticism from a Philosophical and Practical Perspective

Introduction: The following text is an interview with the Ethics and Training Group of the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture at the Office of Propagation, Qom. The interview was conducted in July 2006 and lasted for two hours. The interview text is taken from the Research Institute for Islamic Sciences and Culture and is presented here with a new edit.

Mysticism is divided into two categories: theoretical and practical. From a philosophical standpoint, practical mysticism is a derivative of theoretical mysticism. This means that the value of any action depends on the understanding behind it. Therefore, both in philosophy and mysticism, the value of practical mysticism, as well as practical philosophy or wisdom, is determined by its theoretical counterpart. Based on this, practical mysticism by itself holds no intrinsic value; it is the theoretical mysticism — and its elevated nature — that provides value and meaning to practical mysticism and makes it effective.

For example, in the narration regarding the virtues of the actions of Imam Ali (peace be upon him), it is said that two rak’ahs (units) of prayer or a single strike of his sword on the Day of the Battle of Khandaq (the Trench) is more virtuous than the worship of all human beings and jinn. The superiority of all the actions of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) — as illustrated by these two examples — is not due to the quantity of prayer or the number of rak’ahs. Prayer, which is the act of specific bowing and prostration, is not inherently superior. The superiority arises from the profound knowledge that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) possessed regarding worship and its true essence. This knowledge is reflected in his own words:

“I did not worship You out of fear of Your fire, nor out of desire for Your paradise, but because I found You worthy of worship, and thus I worship You.”
(Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 41, p. 14)

The value of practical mysticism or practical wisdom is thus derived from the theoretical understanding that underpins it.

One reason that practical mysticism has not flourished and has yielded little fruit is that those who engage with practical mysticism often do so without having first worked on their theoretical understanding. Without a strong intellectual foundation and correct beliefs, practical mysticism is more susceptible to emotions and experiences than to profound knowledge.

Furthermore, the fields in this area remain weak. As a result, scholars, great figures, jurists, philosophers, and mystics are often unable to provide a coherent explanation of who and what God is. Their statements tend to be more about blind faith and imitation rather than rational thought and offering a proper understanding of God to their audiences. It is as though God is an unreachable concept, a “forbidden area”. We have even failed to present a clear image of God to children, leaving them in a state of confusion. Action depends on knowledge; without knowledge, action becomes meaningless and unfruitful.

Practical mysticism must be grounded in a proper theoretical foundation. The concept of God, for example, needs to be clear: is God universal or particular? Is He personal, legal, or absolute? Many scholars view God as an abstract, legal entity. Without resolving these fundamental questions, practical wisdom cannot yield meaningful results. Without a solid theoretical foundation, we fall into the trap of misguided interpretations, much like the example of the monk and the ascetic in Usul al-Kafi, who said: “I wish God would send His donkey to eat this grass,” an expression of misguided spirituality.

Thus, it is clear that Shia mysticism fundamentally differs from the mysticism of the Sunni tradition, which is characterised by love. Of course, Sunni mysticism has become widespread within the Islamic world and even among Shia communities, primarily because it has been supported by state authorities. These authorities have backed Sunni mystics and marginalized Shia mystics. Consequently, Sunni mysticism has infiltrated Shia circles, making it a foreign element in Shia tradition. The mystical texts currently taught in Shia seminaries are those written by Sunni mystics, and they do not contain the essence of Shia mysticism. Shia mysticism requires a scholarly approach, beginning with a thorough understanding of logic. This must be done with the precision that this science demands. Such precision is found in the works like al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat (The Book of Signs and Reminders), not in the common texts read in the seminaries. After that, philosophy should be studied—not the type found in works such as Bidayat al-Hikmah, Nihayat al-Hikmah, Manzuma, or Asfar. These texts were written during a period of taqiya (dissimulation), and they do not accurately reflect Shia philosophy.

Following this, mysticism must be approached. A mystic cannot be a layperson; only a person well-versed in advanced logic and philosophy—rather than popular or simplistic versions—can become a true mystic. Unfortunately, throughout history, mystics with a popular or general approach have often appeared as role models for the masses, and much of what people have adopted as mysticism from them has been subject to serious criticism. Even the Divan of Hafez, whose poetry is widely memorised and quoted, requires critique as it presents a popular form of knowledge. For example, when a mystic says, “I spent the night as a Kurd and woke up an Arab,” meaning that in the evening he was ignorant, but by morning, doors to knowledge had opened to him, this is not mysticism. True mysticism demands a foundation of evidence. Mysticism is considered the queen of the sciences only when it is more precise than physics, chemistry, and mathematics because it aims to provide guidance and oversight over these fields.

Although mainstream mysticism contains profound and valuable content, we should not dismiss it or relegate it to obscurity. However, it cannot be sufficient for a Shia individual. With God’s help, Shia mysticism should be systematised, explained, and propagated.

Systematisation of Shia Mysticism

Some critics ask, “Why do you refer to Fusus al-Hikam (The Bezels of Wisdom) or read Misbah al-Ins (The Lantern of the Human)? Several scholars have raised this concern with me.” My response has been: “We have no better text than Fusus or Tamhid at our disposal. You may reject the earlier works only if you can replace them with something superior.” This highlights a fallacy in some academic circles, where mystical texts are entirely rejected. On the other hand, there are some who revere these texts to such an extent that they treat them as divinely revealed. Even Ibn Arabi himself says, “This book was given to me by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).” I have identified at least a thousand objections to this book. If the Prophet had truly given it to Ibn Arabi, it should not contain so many issues. Such attitudes either reflect excess or an extreme form of neglect. These books should not be treated as if they are untouchable, nor should we be so proud to claim, “We have read Fusus.” Those who regard these books as sacred revelations are backward, and those who declare them entirely invalid are rigid and reactionary. One should approach these texts with the mindset of someone who speaks with greater authority, presenting evidence and offering critiques based on a framework rooted in Shia culture, not influenced by Sunni thought. Of course, acceptance comes only after understanding the text and thoroughly engaging with its content.

At present, the only book commonly read in Shia mysticism is the esteemed Maqamat al-Sa’irin (Stations of the Seekers). It is the best textbook, but it still contains many issues. We have read and critically analysed this book, and a detailed commentary titled The Red Journey is in preparation, which is expected to be published in twenty volumes.

It should be noted that the mystical ideas of the Infallible Imams (A.S.) are not found in mainstream mysticism, and scholars in Shia circles must fill this gap. As we have mentioned, mysticism is based on reason and Shari’ah, so neither Fusus al-Hikam, Tamhid al-Qawa’id, nor Misbah al-Ins can serve as a reference for a Shia individual. While these books contain profound ideas, they do not represent Shia culture. Shia Islam has always faced persecution, with rulers and imperial powers hindering its growth. However, now that the religious scholars hold power, the seminary must derive and promote the esoteric knowledge embedded in Shia culture and the teachings of the Infallible Imams (A.S.). Why is it that when we speak of mysticism, the names of Mansur al-Hallaj and Abu Sa’id al-Kharraz immediately come to mind? And when we talk about philosophy, we think of Aristotle, Socrates, and Hippocrates, yet the names of the Infallible Imams do not appear in the heights of mystical knowledge? History has not favoured the coin of Shia and the culture of the Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.), but now, one of the greatest tasks of the Islamic system is to make this culture and school widely recognised, so that whenever philosophy or mysticism is discussed anywhere in the world, it is the name of Imam Ali (A.S.) that illuminates hearts and minds.

If mysticism is limited to Mansur al-Hallaj, Abu Sa’id al-Kharraz, and others, one could argue that their mysticism is fabricated, akin to the legends of Rustam and Afrasiab, and that they have merely explored a narrow region. However, in the mysticism of the Infallible Imams (A.S.), any mystic, upon studying Dua Kumayl, realises that this prayer is the word of an Infallible Imam. This prayer does not require any further proof beyond its content. Unfortunately, our seminaries have historically distanced themselves from mysticism, leading those who were interested in it to turn to non-elite mystics, which led to more opposition from the outwardly religious. In both theoretical and practical mysticism, we must consider the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the primary sources, then consult the views of mystics. Mysticism does not form from stories, fables, hearsay, or embellishments. Regrettably, as the seminary withdrew from mysticism, it fell into the hands of popular mystics, and today, we see an influx of imported Indian, Chinese, and Samurai mysticism that has captivated the youth. The growing popularity of books promoting these traditions, especially among academics, is alarming.

(36)
This mysticism necessitates the examination of all existing forms of mysticism, from Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism to American and Western mysticism. Verification is always subsidiary to imagination, and unless you understand the words and claims of these mystics, you cannot determine whether they deviate from the truth. Years ago, we were in Zahedan during the holy month of Ramadan. The Sikhs there have a large temple and a place of worship. They invited us, and I, along with Mr. Ebadi and some students, visited them. They possessed a sacred book that they kept in that temple, but they themselves had never seen it. We had debates with them, but because I was familiar with their belief system, I knew their thoughts and practices. Of course, in the initial and intermediate stages of mysticism, there is no need to discuss imported forms of mysticism. If someone reads such mysticism at these stages, they may lose their orientation and become confused, leading to syncretism and distortion. As Imam Khomeini expressed, some children who start as Muslims end up as disbelievers. This harm does not exist in the higher stages of mysticism.

Today, we cannot prohibit people or the youth from anything, but it is also necessary that we do not refrain from explaining these matters in their proper context. Everything must have its own system and structure. Entering mysticism requires foundational knowledge, and one who does not understand logic, philosophy, or even jurisprudence and principles should not delve into it. For a student who has not studied logic, philosophy, or even jurisprudence, mysticism can lead to misguidance. We should not be fanatical. Mysticism requires foundational knowledge. Yes, in higher mysticism, we should not reject anyone and must engage with every mystic and mysticism.

We must test our own mysticism, just as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) tested himself against all forms of disbelief, and Imam Ali (peace be upon him) tested himself with all adversaries, and to this day, people affirm that the truth lies with Ali, and it is Muawiya who is in error. Similarly, Imam Reza (peace be upon him) tested himself with representatives of all religions. We must also be impartial in the seminaries, behaving as the infallible Imams did, always seeking the truth in the Qur’an. The Qur’an treats its adversaries with dignity and excellence. For instance, the Qur’an’s approach to Satan, disbelief, or polytheism is conducted with great respect and nobility, never resorting to insults.

If such a foundation is established, the field will be open for examining prominent figures, distinguishing between those who possess insight and those who do not. True mystics—whether Eastern or Western—will be easily identifiable.

I once told one of the self-proclaimed mystics: “The difference between mysticism and jurisprudence is that a jurist says: ‘I am the interpreter of Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), and I have nothing of my own,’ but mysticism is not like that.”

Some individuals, under the guise of mysticism, prevent people from engaging in work, life, reasoning, intellect, vitality, and freshness. (1) We must resist those who pursue eccentricities, deviations, extremes, or negligence in society or in seminaries, to safeguard the cultural integrity of the community. Those who merely claim mysticism provide no results other than loss and misery. Counteracting them is in fact a service to the true religion and the pure mystical knowledge.

If this task is carried out, the way will be blocked for exploitation by some, preventing them from engaging in anything in the name of mysticism. Accepting a teacher or guide in mysticism does not mean one should blindly follow them like a beast, ignoring the gift of intellect.

1. A seminary student who had also studied at a university fell into the trap of a false mystic and developed a psychological disorder. He performed strange rituals, praying, fasting, and eating burnt bread to avoid waste. Later, I heard that he strangled his wife, claiming that she had sinned, and applied the legal punishment to her. It seemed as though he considered himself the guardian of the Muslims. In reality, he had gone mad. The one who led him to such a state should have been punished in his place, for he was corrupting the earth.

(37)
A disciple can only master mysticism if they possess strong comprehension and analytical skills to critique their teacher’s actions. Mysticism should never hinder anyone’s freedom or independence. During the occultation, anyone who claims to be a mystic of the Qur’an, a guardian, and an heir of the prophets, must possess a trace of the Qur’an and the fragrance of the prophets. Merely engaging in acts of worship without the foundation of reason and knowledge is insufficient.

Seminaries should not become disheartened or perceive themselves as powerless. The seminaries have the assistance of Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance), and in fact, the seminaries are his house. He can pursue his religion himself. However, to the extent that we can, we should help, and if we cannot, at least avoid damaging or disrupting it. We do not manage the seminary; the seminary is much greater than us. The seminaries are the centres of divine grace. This is a definite and evident truth. However, if we are negligent and complacent, it could lead to the downfall of the seminaries, just as the seminary in Najaf faltered due to its focus on irrelevant issues. We should not assume that the seminary in Qom is much more stable than Najaf. The situation there is very dire! Najaf and Karbala, which once hosted figures like Sheikh Tusi, have now deteriorated. May God have mercy on Imam Khomeini, who once said: “If Islam suffers a blow, it will not be able to recover for a long time.”

(38)
Islam is this revolution, and this revolution is Qom seminary, as other seminaries are branches of Qom. If we neglect Qom, God forbid, we may see deficiencies, neglect, or selfishness, and some may say, “We are not concerned with others’ problems; let them solve their own issues.” If a cleric says, “We are not involved; they should solve their problems themselves,” that is a great oversight. If we are narrow-minded and say, “Islam is only what I say,” then Qom will face the same fate as Najaf. This is not a matter of assuming, “Whatever we do will have no effect.”

Furthermore, seminaries should invest in guiding billions of people. Investment in seminaries should not merely involve building schools or increasing the number of students, but rather investing in the development of individuals. As I have stated before, when ninety percent of students are in debt and must pay instalments, constructing charitable buildings is not justified. We must focus on nurturing individuals. The national budget should be directed towards individuals, not the construction of grand governmental or banking buildings. The seminary must invest academically, focusing on human and financial development. Today, the world has lost its true knowledge and is searching for it, awaiting a revolution to alleviate its existential frustrations. However, our revolution has become more of an executive cadre, and the seminary has yet to emerge as the intellectual force, ideologue, and theorist of the system.

(39)
If the seminary cannot become the intellectual nucleus of the system, it will become empty of content, and society will easily distance itself from it, causing damage to Islam. Without content, the system loses its effectiveness, and its functions become merely governmental.

Our seminaries still sit at a table set seven hundred years ago, consuming the same stale and worn-out food. If someone like Ibn Arabi were to return today, he would fall short even before beginner students, but he would make an effort to write a new book to dominate the mystical culture for years to come.

Today, Shi’ism must reach unprecedented heights in history, and if, God forbid, the seminaries continue in their current state, we will be condemned in the future. I must state clearly and truthfully: If the seminary does not make efforts and take action, the system will become unstable and will ultimately be lost. The system must be preserved in the seminaries, but not in the current form! It must be a truly academic and modern seminary, capable of providing the best and most precise answers to contemporary needs and designing solutions for problems.

(40)
Our seminary, in comparison to the world, must engage academically, with precision, in both its curriculum and its online presence. Currently, it focuses more on rural areas than on global academic centres. It has a minimal presence on the internet, and the websites of the seminaries are scattered and inadequate, failing to meet the needs of the audience. The current websites often promote individuals, rather than the religion itself. Even the seminary’s newspaper lacks research articles and mostly features pictures of religious scholars instead of valuable and academic content.

Our revolution has awakened a small part of humanity and removed their fear of thinking and action. Now, if the seminaries—ranging from young students to senior scholars—fall asleep for even one night, they are negligent. It is unclear what will happen in the world tomorrow. If the seminaries are to be the spiritual leaders of the world, they must stay awake, contribute, design, and think, which requires effort and struggle. We must undertake this task, even if it means sacrificing our own food and water.

(41)
Our system has advanced in many scientific fields, but in the seminary and in the social sciences, it still operates at a domestic level. The seminary must not focus solely on building schools or increasing the number of students; instead, it should have dozens of academic websites. It must measure its knowledge through global interactions, just as international competitions serve as a benchmark for contenders. The seminary should lead the system, not follow it; it must take on the leadership of the system. In jurisprudence, law, philosophy, and theology, the seminary should produce systematic knowledge. If not, it will lose its influence and credibility.

He speaks. Mysticism does not discuss concepts, secondary matters, or individual entities that are not real. If mysticism is a truth and knowledge, and it speaks of the Truth, this truth should not be contaminated by other things. Even Sufism, asceticism, and the path of the dervishes may not necessarily lead to knowledge or mysticism. There may be adornments that accompany mysticism under various names, which must be identified and tested. The measure of this test is infallibility.

Today, belonging to Imam al-Jawad (peace be upon him), we wish to follow the mysticism of the infallibles (peace be upon them). The foundation of knowledge is servitude to God. This servitude, the fruit of the divine lordship – meaning divinity – has effects. Divinity in creation, i.e., the presence of divinity in a human being, is referred to as “Wilayah” (authority), and its secondary manifestation is “Infallibility” (Ismah). Its social and public manifestation is “Caliphate.” Caliphate has an initial vessel, which is “Prophethood” and “Messengership.” It also has a vessel for continuity, which is “Imamate.” Hence, the mysticism of the infallibles (peace be upon them) is an “appointed” mysticism. “Appointed” in the sense that we do not know who possesses complete “servitude” and who reaches complete “lordship,” “Wilayah,” “infallibility,” and “general caliphate.”

Radio Farhang: Mr. Hajj Agha Nakoonam, it is stated that in your speeches, you mentioned that when we speak of mysticism, we refer to the Truth, knowledge, and something truly real, unlike philosophy, which you consider to be a general matter and essentially subject to rational argument. Regarding the example you gave, comparing philosophy to a plastic flower and mysticism to a natural flower, it is sometimes said that mysticism involves unveiling and insight, which, when presented to the community, requires a rational language. In other words, when we present that mystical experience to others, does it lose its natural essence and become artificial? Is this a kind of descent or degradation in mysticism? In other words, if a mystic wants to convey this to his disciple or follower, does he withhold the true experience from them?

Your question is very thoughtful and insightful. We were following the same idea, and your well-formed mind has rightly brought us to its focal point. Whatever truth exists in the world, if it does not reach our hearts and minds, we do not truly know it. Therefore, all of existence, even the Divine, must have access to us for us to say: “I know Him.” When you say “I know,” it means that truth is present within you; however, this vessel of knowledge has both an indicative aspect and a referential aspect. When you say “water,” “fire,” “earth,” or “sky,” you have a concept in your mind – this is what we call the “indicative.” But when you say “water,” what you mean is not the concept in your mind, but the water that exists outside, in a bowl, a jug, or the sea. Thus, we have an indicative aspect and a referential aspect. The indicative refers to what is in our existence, and the referential is the truth that is evident both in us and outside of us. Now, how does this differ between mysticism and philosophy? When we say “philosophy” is like a “plastic flower,” in reality, the philosopher’s referential is his own indicative, meaning it is entirely theoretical. This mentality, this conceptualisation, is abstract. It turns the mental existence into verbal existence, and the verbal existence is the indicative, while the mental existence is the referential. However, the mystic speaks of what is in his heart, which is the truth, and not simply in his mind. When the mystic says “the Truth,” he refers to the outside reality. The Truth means “existence in the external world,” not merely the mental concept he holds. Therefore, the difference between mysticism and philosophy is that if you focus on the indicative, it becomes the mind and general philosophy. However, if the referential is important, it is the reality. When you say “water,” it is the sea you mean, not the mental form of water; this is mysticism.

In this way, when we speak of “knowledge,” it does not require language. Whether in the depths of existence, in the Truth, in the human being, or in the universe, knowledge is real, inherent in the essence of all beings, and thus does not require language. But to transfer it to someone else, we require language. What you hold in your heart does not need an alphabet; however, when you wish to convey it, you must use reasoning and proof, meaning you need words and language. This is where we turn to the indicative. If we wish to express something to someone, we must use the “indicative” – that is, the general reasoning and proof. This is how we differentiate between mysticism and philosophy in terms of reasoning: “True mysticism” is that which comes either from true reason – that is, pure intellect – or from true religion (pure and unadulterated), or from discovery, vision, witnessing, and insights that are untainted; in other words, anything claimed to be from reason, religion, or experience cannot be called “mysticism” unless it is genuine. Mysticism and knowledge are never accompanied by weakness or deficiency. In fact, the true religion, truth, reasoning, and insights that are free from mistakes are what constitute proof.

Radio Farhang: Hajj Agha Nakoonam, regarding the “adornments” that you mentioned being associated with mysticism, we will need to discuss what these adornments might be at another time. But continuing with our previous discussion, as mentioned, knowledge essentially starts from the “Truth,” which we discussed earlier as servitude to God, which then leads to lordship, and lordship produces its effects. The person who attains servitude reaches Wilayah (authority), infallibility, and then prophethood, messengership, and eventually caliphate, which is the subject of leadership in society.

We must take infallibility and true authority as the criteria for determining the validity of knowledge. Any person whose knowledge and understanding align with infallibility is valid, and anything that deviates from infallibility – that is, from purity – is problematic. Today, in the mysticism that exists, we find figures who are notable and revered, such as Bayazid Bastami, Abū Sa’id Abul-Khayr, Mansur al-Hallaj, Hafiz, Saadi, and others. But even with their fame, their expressions cannot be fully validated and they have their own shortcomings. However, when you speak of “Imam al-Jawad,” “Imam Sadiq,” and “Imam Ali” (peace be upon them), these figures were true mystics. Of course, they were not seeking “bells” or “staffs” (traditional symbols of dervishes and ascetics). I want to clarify the difference between the existing mysticism and the mysticism of the Imams. This narrative comes from the Sunnis: Abu Nuaym, a scholar of the Sunni tradition, compares the mystic Bayazid Bastami, who was a great figure, with Imam al-Jawad, who was four years old.

The narration goes that Bayazid Bastami was about to travel for the pilgrimage to the Ka’bah. In Damascus, he saw a four-year-old child playing on a hill. Bayazid had a dilemma: should he greet the child or not? Would the child know how to respond? Eventually, he greeted him, and the child revealed his inner state, saying: “Had it not been for the obligation of responding to a greeting, your greeting would not have been answered.” Bayazid did not know whether to greet the child, yet the child, at four years of age, had knowledge of this. The child was in possession of an unseen truth that Bayazid could not access. Later, Imam al-Jawad (peace be upon him) revealed the hidden mysteries to him, demonstrating that even at such a young age, the Imam had access to the unseen, knowledge of creation, and could transcend space. This demonstrates that the true mystic is someone like Imam al-Jawad, whose understanding of existence encompasses both the divine and the worldly realms. When we speak of mysticism, we speak of figures like him. True mysticism is the recognition of the Truth, where one does not err or make mistakes – something only found in the beauty of the Imams and the great prophets and saints. Others, even great mystics, must align themselves with this true path.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity. We are very grateful to you. I understand, however, how difficult it is to discuss mysticism, particularly the mysticism of the Imams (peace be upon them), in the limited time we have, especially in a phone conversation. However, we will be at your service again next week, Haj Agha Nokonam, and we will continue this discussion. More time is needed. Although the time was limited, we heard very useful insights from you, Haj Agha Nokonam. We bid you farewell.

Ayatollah Nokonam: I too bid farewell to both you and the dear listeners.

Radio Farhang: May you be successful and victorious. May God protect you.

(67)

Third Insight:
The Conflict between Reason and Love with Reference to the Supplication of Arafah
The Conflict between Reason and Love with Reference to the Supplication of Arafah

Introduction: The following is a conversation from Radio Farhang, discussing the mystical content of the Supplication of Arafah and the love found in the bloody battlefield of Karbala. The first part of this interview was not recorded. The continuation of this dialogue is provided below.

In mysticism, the foundation is knowledge, and a mystic cannot be blind and deaf. Therefore, love must stem from knowledge, and in fact, the active force of truth is seen in love. In mysticism, we view the journey, movement, and existence as expressions of love; however, not a love that signifies madness or blindness and deafness.

The true knowledge of love is very profound; unfortunately, however, in poetry or mysticism, sometimes instead of promoting love, madness is glorified: for example, it is said, “I am mad, I am mad, I am estranged from religion and belief,” or “I am a chained madman, bind me with chains,” some of these sayings emerge when these mystics are under pressure and in distress. There is a belief that when we surpass reason, we reach madness, yet reason itself is a level of love. Love is the blossom of reason; it is the “most intense love for God” (2:165), and all of this is within the realm of knowledge.

What I now want to present as the knowledge of love, to enrich our previous discussion and not just be a baseless claim – considering these days, as we are close to Arafah and the Day of Sacrifice – is the Supplication of Arafah of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him). This supplication encompasses all stages of mysticism and the stations of mystics; whether you call them “thousand stages,” “hundred stages,” or “seven stages,” or, as we say, three stages: rising “from oneself,” “from the people,” and “from God,” or it can be viewed as a single stage: the “cutting off of desires.” Compare this supplication with all mysticism books to find the difference between the mysticism of the beloved and the mysticism of the lovers.

Although all our mystics are students of this verse, the way they sometimes glare at each other, claiming they have walked the path, while another says they are in a different path, is similar to the brothers who, after their father’s death, quarrel over inheritance, each claiming they received less, and the other denies them.

Radio Farhang: Of course, here they claim they have received much.

Now, we need to see whether they have received much or not. Some say:

“A beauty illuminated my heart,
And reason took from me both strength and awareness.”

In this context of love, those who advocate reason – and by extension, Shariah – claim that they are stuck in the path and have not yet reached their goal. In fact, they have no share in the father’s inheritance. In this discussion and the example we provided, we do not intend to compare the brothers with each other; instead, we aim to compare them with the father. Now we are not talking about “Shariah” or “Tariqah”; these each complement the other. We are comparing the children with the father; in other words, we aim to compare these mystics with Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) and see what distinguishes them from him. What does each child lack, and how much have they inherited? We do not want to defend them, but when we speak of love and knowledge, these two stages are involved: first, being able to articulate the direction of knowledge through words and expressions, and technically, being able to map the twists and turns of mysticism and introduce it, providing evidence for it, and practicing what you read in the science of practical wisdom. It is not like someone who says, “I am very courageous,” but when they hear a roar, they are filled with fear. Courage is someone who embodies courage.

The Supplication of Arafah of Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) presents theoretical mysticism as knowledge and theory, teaching both the stations of mystics and practical mysticism.

I will explain both in short phrases that are suitable for a phone conversation so you may see the position that Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) describes. It is a position where, like Prophet Abraham and his son Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon them), they are small, let alone those in schools or monasteries who are mere followers of the way.

This is not due to infallibility, as both Prophet Abraham and Ishmael were infallible. However, what is important is that Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) is the “Prophet of Love,” and in another sense, all the Imams (peace be upon them) are manifestations of Imam Hussein’s love. Consider the words of that noble figure in the Supplication of Arafah.

Radio Farhang: Haj Agha, allow me to offer a statement during this interval. You mentioned that Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) is the “Prophet of Love,” which is agreed upon. However, some mystical paths, which claim to be independent of Shariah and state that a worshipper should be in love:

“The old wine-seller gave the fatwa that it is necessary,
Without love, anyone who prays should consider their prayers void.”

In fact, they are trying to claim a connection to Imam Hussein (peace be upon him); however, in practice, we must examine whether this is true. I was referring to the words of the Supplication of Arafah. Fortunately, this supplication is well-known in our country. When Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) enters this supplication, he says: “O God, make me fear You as though I see You.” He then says: “And grant certainty in my heart, and sincerity in my deeds,” followed by a lengthy, passionate phrase in which he states: “O One who knows how He is, except He Himself, O One who knows what He is, except He Himself…” He then reaches a point of love that, if we did not know for certain that this supplication belongs to Imam Hussein (peace be upon him), we would assume it was said by a mystic: “You are the One who has bestowed, You are the One who has beautified, You are the One who has favored,” and so on. See how elevated his expressions are? He then continues: “I am, O my God, the one who confesses my sins, and forgive my situation. I am the one who has wronged…”

(72)

And continues, reaching an even higher station when he says: “There is no god but You, glory be to You, I was one of the wrongdoers, there is no god but You.” This means, neither “I” nor “You,” but “Glory.” Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) elevates the discussion to such an extent that you wonder whether it is Arafah or Sacrifice. That is, on the Day of Sacrifice, we must offer a sacrifice – that is, we must slaughter ourselves. Prophet Abraham and Prophet Ishmael (peace be upon them) reached a station where they were ready for sacrifice, but we saw that this did not lead to actual slaughter. But you see, Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) was a mystic who said these words, words under which blood is lying. You see, instead of the Day of Sacrifice, Karbala rises. Imam Hussein (peace be upon him) in Karbala proves the Supplication of Arafah until he reaches the station where he says: “O swords, take me.” In truth, Imam Hussein (peace be upon him), shortly after the Day of Arafah, taught theoretical mysticism to the people, and then, about a month later, he taught this mysticism in its most complete, practical form to all of humanity – a form more complete than even the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his honorable father, Imam Ali (peace be upon him).

Radio Farhang: Yes, indeed, it is also true that: “There is no god but You.” Now, which mystic could say: “O swords, take me”? In truth, this raises a deep intellectual issue that helps those interested in Islamic mysticism. Many people ask why the number of mystical stations seems scattered across different books. Sometimes it is said that there are seven stations, starting with repentance. Others say there are ten, starting with repentance and ending in contentment. Some say they end with “Oneness” or even speak of forty or a thousand and one stations. Some scholars even count one hundred and ten stations. Mystics such as Rumi discuss repentance in depth, and Hafiz has over thirty-two verses on repentance. Khwaja Abdullah Ansari describes repentance as the path, a key to the treasure of all that is. In this supplication, lofty expressions and meanings are presented, and the fervour and love continue. The supplication begins with the speaker calling out “I am,” as the speaker confesses: “I am, O my God, the one who acknowledges his sins; I am the one who hoped; I am the one who made mistakes; I am the one who harboured desires.” It is like the exchange between a lover and his beloved, where the speaker speaks of God and of himself, until this prayer reaches a stage where neither “you” nor “I” remains, and the speaker declares: “There is no god but You.” Only You exist. “Glory be to You, I have indeed been among the wrongdoers. There is no god but You, Glory be to You, I have indeed been among those seeking forgiveness.” No, God! “I” is no longer; only You remain.

We observe that the prayer, with its depth and eloquence, articulates the stages of spiritual ascent without omission or deficiency. It culminates in phrases such as: “O You who have no partner and no minister;” You, O God, are the one who needs no partner, no help, You are self-sufficient. “O You who owns all and has control over all.” These phrases, upon closer reflection, reveal the true nature of mysticism and knowledge.

In our society, certain truths and meanings are distorted, and one of the most misinterpreted terms is mysticism (irfan) and knowledge (ma’rifa). Mysticism is not about long beards, begging bowls, or ostentatious displays; rather, it is about Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) who engages in the game of love on the Day of Arafah, understanding knowledge as grandeur and perfection, and presenting mysticism without defect. If we wish to comprehend the true meaning of a mystic and knowledge, we must seek them from the perspective of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them) and the Prophet of Love, who is Imam Husayn (peace be upon him).

In the magnificent and elevated Du’a Arafah, Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) presents mysticism, its stages, and its realities in a manner that is both clear and precise. It is not merely words, but actions. At times in our society, the term “mysticism” is used with distortions and misconceptions. When we hear “mysticism,” figures like Rumi, Bayazid Bastami, and Abu Said Abul Khayr come to mind. Indeed, they followed the path of the infallible Imams (peace be upon them), but they cannot be compared to these great personalities. They should not be placed in comparison with Imam Husayn (peace be upon him), the Prophet of Love.

The Day of Arafah is the Day of Knowledge. The 10th of Dhu al-Hijjah is the Day of Eid al-Adha, the day of sacrifice. What does sacrifice mean? It means transcending oneself, drawing the sword to cut the desires of the soul, to tame it. When we sacrifice a sheep, whether it is obligatory in Mecca or recommended in other places, two important aspects emerge from this act. The first is personal; it signifies that when one slaughters the animal, it is important to see the blood, to see the sword, and to be able to offer one’s life for the sake of truth. Sacrifice means selflessness.

The second is that when you sacrifice, your good should reach others. Thus, the meat of the sacrifice should not be kept for personal consumption but shared with the believers, the weak, and the poor. We observe that when Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) speaks of “mysticism,” he is referring to a tangible, true mysticism, not a hypothetical or verbal one. Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) engages in mysticism, follows the night of Arafah, and also embraces Eid al-Adha. It is this very Du’a Arafah and the knowledge of Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) that leads to the uprising of Karbala. This prayer transforms into Ashura. Arafah brings knowledge. The 8th day, the Day of Tarwiyah, initiates the journey. The 9th day, Arafah, follows with the pursuit of knowledge. The 10th day, Eid al-Adha, brings the sword to the fore.

Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) prepared to sacrifice his son Isma’il (peace be upon him) on Eid al-Adha, but neither Isma’il (peace be upon him) was sacrificed, nor did Ibrahim (peace be upon him) sacrifice his son. Ibrahim (peace be upon him) took him to the place of sacrifice, but his heart trembled, and God spared him. Yet, the one who followed through without hesitation was Imam Husayn (peace be upon him), and because he did not doubt for a moment, God accepted his sacrifice, and Karbala was set in motion.

In reality, Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and his son Isma’il (peace be upon him) were students of the path of love and children of the path of love. Though Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) is a descendant of Ibrahim (peace be upon him), Ibrahim (peace be upon him) is, in truth, a descendant of Imam Husayn (peace be upon him). For although Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and Isma’il (peace be upon him) did not proceed beyond the sacrifice site, their lesson was Eid al-Adha, where the sacrifice of Isma’il (peace be upon him) is substituted by an animal. But we see that the prayer of Arafah and the knowledge of Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) does not end with a sheep. He moves beyond Dhu al-Hijjah, entering Muharram, and bringing forth Karbala and Ashura.

Karbala is where Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) plays the full game of love, drinks the cup of love, and we call him the Prophet of Love. If the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Seal of the Prophets, and if his father, Imam Ali (peace be upon him), is the first Imam and the foundation of Wilayah (divine authority), Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) is the Prophet of Love. The Karbala that Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) witnesses is not the result of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) nor of Imam Ali (peace be upon him), but it belongs to Imam Husayn (peace be upon him), who on the Day of Ashura, expresses such love that nothing remains of existence. Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) gambles with his entire being for love, as his very existence becomes the embodiment of divine presence on Earth.

In the context of gambling, we encounter two types: one where players simply play for fun, and another where true gamblers risk everything. Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) plays such a gamble that by noon on Ashura, his blessed face becomes so beautiful that it seems as though God has brought Himself to Earth. Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) engages in the ultimate sacrifice, declaring: “O swords, embrace me.” This is the prayer of Arafah and Eid al-Adha embodied! When Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) says, “O swords, embrace me,” it is God who descends to the Earth in Karbala. Here, there is no room for Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and Isma’il (peace be upon him), where a sheep is sacrificed in place of a son. In this day, Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) empties himself of all love and brings the fullness of truth to Karbala. The entirety of Imam Husayn’s Du’a Arafah manifests in Karbala.

When we speak of mysticism and knowledge, we refer to the expression of Imam Husayn (peace be upon him) and his path. Mysticism is not about external signs like beards, bowls, or poetic recitations, but rather it is the place where one sacrifices one’s blood for the sake of truth. Unfortunately, the true essence of mysticism is sometimes lost in our society. The true mysticism and knowledge are to be found in those who walk the path of truth and knowledge, reaching a state where they can declare: “Certainty in my heart, sincerity in my actions.” They engage in the dance of love, affirming: “Glory be to You, O there is no god but You.” Everything is You: “He is the Creator and the created, He is the knower and the known, He is the inheritor, He is the originator.”

In our society, the terms mysticism and knowledge are often reduced to mere words, books, and poems. One can recite verses, but when faced with oppression, injustice, and falsehood, they submit, unwilling to stand up and offer their life for God. Many truths are reduced to mere concepts, and if we seek the real spiritual truths, especially in the days and nights of Arafah, the prayers, and supplications should not be mere verbal exercises. The phrases in this prayer reflect high levels of mysticism and knowledge and should be taught in schools, universities, and academic centres so that individuals may reach their highest human potential.

The society will lose its defensive tools; however, by investing in these areas, Inshallah, with the grace of Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance), who is our master and the master of our society, these risks will be alleviated.

I speak plainly without any caution in presenting this matter. Our society has made great scientific progress, and it no longer accepts empty rhetoric and subtle provocations. We must speak openly. If, after having given so many martyrs, we still hesitate to speak openly, it is clear that we have many personal struggles to overcome.

The continuation of the process of religious revival requires effort and scientific jihad in the realm of religious knowledge. The first area we must invest in is to stop promoting the idea of “reading books.” I say do not read books. Of course, our people do not read much, and this is a sign of their high understanding. Promoting the idea of reading more books is, at present, like promoting over-eating. The reason for this is that many of our books are polluted, infected, and contain viruses, and reading any of these books can cause harm. Someone who reads these books sometimes becomes so disillusioned with the religious culture that they cannot correct themselves. Reading these books is like a person having an accident with a car, which robs them of their health, and they can never be restored to their previous state. The unconscious understanding of our people realizes that these books are not beneficial. Both religious and mystical books are like this. However, the unconscious mind of our people, who are very insightful and intelligent, guides them away from reading books without them being consciously aware of it. Right now, a lot of speech is being made about religion, and society is flooded with statements that speakers, writers, and speakers are making about religion. But, honestly, without trying to deceive ourselves, how much of this actually results in anything? Is it not the unconscious mind of our people that critiques these statements, and they realize that the speaker is actually speaking from their own opinions, not from the true and essential text of religion? The speaker speaks, and those who listen become uneasy; in psychology, this means that the unconscious mind is critically evaluating the words they hear. Our people are very clever, smart, and alert, and they cannot be deceived by a thousand and one reasons, especially since our society is young— not aged and frail— and its vitality and youth do not allow anyone to deceive them. Our Islamic Revolution is the cradle of youth, and it is a fortunate coincidence that the strengthening of the foundations of this revolution coincided with the youthfulness of the society. One of the elements that can be used in the fight against secular and Western culture is precisely this. However, this is a double-edged sword; if the Western culture controls it and guides it, it can inflict irreparable damage on the body of the revolution and the Shiite culture. This means that it could cause great losses during the peak and vitality of some Shiite youth. But if our religious scholars exert effort and dedicate themselves to scientific jihad, and instead of engaging in administrative and financial disputes with institutions that have mushroomed in recent years, they maintain the humility of being students and children of Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance), and they focus on writing and publishing healthy books that have been collectively produced, and protect the boundaries of Shiite culture as it truly is, with its purity and inner integrity, we will witness a great rise in the promotion of Shiite culture, with the help of the society’s youth.

As I mentioned, I speak without caution, and I say that our religious and mystical fields are lagging behind society. Our mosques no longer have the vibrancy they once had, and the Sufi monasteries, which claim to have mysticism, can scarcely attract any power. Although these environments are largely unhealthy, since they are a manifestation of mysticism, I will mention them. In contrast to sports clubs, which sometimes attract hundreds of thousands of people to watch a game of football—because these hundred thousand people clearly understand what they are watching is a football match—mosques cannot explain to them the concept of God, the levels of existence, and the concept of divine leadership. In Tehran, there are hundreds of “lamp-bearers,” referring to mystics and Sufis. Their mystics wear sheepskin beneath them and take pride in it, considering it like the throne of Solomon. They sit on the skin and speak four words about love, drawing in revolutionary tired souls or spiritually abandoned individuals. He attracts those who are exhausted by science or religion and have not gained results from them, whose spiritual thirst has not been quenched by a suitable or pure answer. In every field—whether religion or mysticism—we must engage with awareness. Religion calls us to awareness and understanding. The prophets speak of revelation and miracles, which means awareness and ability. Ability must also be conscious; we must have the ability to distinguish between a miracle and magic to be able to believe in the miracle of a prophet, and we never believe in something that is unclear to us.

Currently, the country’s information and operations sector is more concerned with avoiding polluted words than with religious words. The Ministry of Information should identify and carefully monitor those who speak about mysticism and religion because the cultural and scientific domain is in the hands of unqualified and unaware individuals. We say that books produced in this field are infected, and we must avoid them.

Books should first be read by intellectuals, who should critique and re-examine them and prepare their healthy data for public dissemination. Freedom in publishing does not mean that you can throw yourself from a rooftop. There must be selection in study, and for someone who lacks expertise and wishes to trust a book, if they are not qualified, it is like an accident, and reading it would damage their body and especially their mind.

The discussion of the points I’ve raised would take too long and would stray from the topic of the current interview; therefore, I will return to the subject at hand. If you have any questions, I am at your service.

Symposium: Our next question is about the relationship between philosophy and mysticism, their mutual influence, and the impact of mystics such as Ibn Arabi, Suhrawardi, and Mulla Sadra on each other. Could you please elaborate on this?

The relationship between philosophy and mysticism—which is sometimes referred to as the conflict between reason and love, or their interaction—is an extensive and complex discussion, and given the limited time we have, we cannot explain all its aspects and dimensions. Those who set reason and love against each other create a popular spectacle. In our view, the human being has three stages of movement; in other words, three engines for movement have been placed within the human being: The first stage is the soul of the human being. All people move in this stage, which has little light. This stage even exists in non-Muslims. The second stage is the intellectual stage, and the third stage is the heart and knowledge stage, which is where true mysticism lies. Just as in the second stage, the human brain acquires things and reason can explore some of the darkness, the heart and soul of the human being also have the power to encompass some matters. In the second stage, some do not have light, and it is not the case that the motor of everyone is illuminated in this stage. Many people are described by the verse, “They have hearts, but they do not understand with them,” (Quran 7:179), referring to those whose hearts are closed. Similarly, “They have eyes but do not see with them; they have ears but do not hear with them; they are like cattle—rather, they are more misguided” (Quran 7:179). They have ears and eyes, but they cannot hear or see, and their motor is turned off.

The third stage is the stage of the heart and knowledge, which is higher than all of this. A person in their movement can possess all three or some of these stages. Philosophy corresponds to the second stage, and mysticism corresponds to the third. Knowledge, which is the science of being, is higher than philosophy and reason (which is the science of description):

“O love, your abode is much higher than reason. Only someone who has their head in the sleeve can kiss the threshold!”

It is true that love is higher than reason, but it must be understood that love and the third stage of knowledge are the fruits of reason. That is, when reason becomes purified, it is called “love.” Reason is the second engine that can propel the human being into the third stage, which is love. Therefore, love is the result and the blossoming of reason, and it is from philosophy that mysticism arises. Thus, our great scholars, when they delved into philosophy and wisdom, became stronger and then entered the domain of mysticism. For example, Avicenna, a brilliant philosopher, in the final stages of his philosophy, wrote about the positions of mystics and the ninth and tenth levels of al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat (The Book of Directives and Remarks). He realized that medicine and philosophy could not quench the thirst of his soul, and it was reason that ultimately led him to mysticism. Therefore, mysticism and philosophy are not in conflict but exist sequentially; philosophy is the lever and the springboard that propels one from the second stage to the third.

The problem here is twofold, which I will briefly touch upon: one, what do we mean by mysticism and philosophy, which I have already explained, and once their essence and identity are understood, it becomes clear that these two fields are not in conflict with each other. The claim that they are in conflict is made by those who, without understanding or considering philosophy, make baseless statements and cause confusion between reason and love. A philosopher or mystic who makes such statements does not yet understand the identity of philosophy and mysticism, let alone consider themselves a philosopher or mystic. They are merely a theologian or layperson who has limited knowledge and ideas. They are like a philosopher who only knows about the logic of Aristotle, or like someone who has only read the writings of Plato. They only think about philosophical matters without having insight.

The discussion revolves around the fact that beloveds, whether in mysticism or jurisprudence, possess unique abilities that others do not, and their actions always contribute in a way that enriches and brightens the world around them. In this context, the late Ayatollah Qazi is presented as an example of a beloved, whose life was characterised by simplicity and seclusion, yet he left a profound impact on both mysticism and jurisprudence.

An important point highlighted in this text is the emphasis on quality over quantity in academic and cultural spheres. The critique is directed at cultures that rely on quantitative assessments, such as grades and academic rankings. Here, the text stresses the need to identify and support the geniuses and beloveds within society, so they can grow in the best possible way and lead the community toward progress.

This text serves as a call to re-evaluate traditional criteria and to focus on the quality of individuals rather than the quantity of achievements, suggesting that the recognition and cultivation of these unique figures is essential for societal development.