About this entry
In the name of God, the Beneficent,
the Merciful.
Here is a
paper I wrote for a Study of Religions module entitled ‘ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib: the
Esoteric Caliph (Khailīfah al-Bāṭinah)
and Source of Spirituality (Taṣawwuf)’
as part of my final year for a joint honours BA in History and the Study of
Religions at SOAS, University of London.
The aim of
this paper is not to disprove that Abū Bakr (Allāh is pleased with him) is the
first caliph in succession to the blessed Prophet (upon him and his family salutations and peace), rather it seeks to expand the discourse and highlight the nuances extant around this debate. The reader is reminded that this
is an academic paper based on Sunnī sources pertaining to various disciplines.
It is also recommended that the evaluation of this paper should only be
considered once one has read the complete paper. Opinions formed about the
paper and/or author, otherwise, would be most unjustified. Questions are
welcome, if they concern the topic at hand.
This piece
is by no means free from error. A university word limit of 5,000 words cannot
do justice to such a rich and complicated issue. Indeed, a more thorough
investigation could result in an entirely different conclusion. It is possible
that one may find discrepancies in either dates, names and religio-political
contexts, I ask that suggestions for correction be put forward. If the reader
simply disagrees, such disagreements will, of course be taken into
consideration, if responded with an, equally, academic response.
Jazākallāh khair.
@hqmaasim
 |
| FB | T | IG @hqmaasim |
Presenting the Field:
An Introduction
Principally, the terms
Caliph (khalīfah) and Caliphate (khilāfah) pertain to the temporal
succession that institutionalised upon the death of the Prophet Muḥammad in
632CE. Henceforth, successors to the Prophet were considered his vicegerents (khalīfatu rasūli ‘l-Lāh) and served as
‘Leader of the Faithful’ (amīru
‘l-muʾminīn). Although neither of these terms were officially promulgated
until 634CE, both classical Islamic and Western scholarship suggest that they
may be applied retrospectively.[1]
The aforementioned scholarship also notes that there exist various definitions
in the classical Arabic lexicon, and that over time, these terms have been
appropriated to fit various religio-legal and socio-political models.[2]
One discourse that remains neglected, however, is how these terms may relate to
the idea of the esoteric caliphate (khilāfah al-bāṭinah) and from whom did it actually begin. A possible reason for such
neglect may be associated to the intensely polemical nature this discourse
possesses. As such, the controversy that arises from this subject has divided
Islamic scholarship into three sub-categories: firstly, those who associate
both temporal/exoteric and spiritual/esoteric caliphate[3]
(khilāfah al-ẓāhirī wa bāṭinī) with
ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (d. 661CE); secondly, those who only recognise him as the
fourth temporal caliph in succession to Abū Bakr (Abdu ‘l-Lāh ibn Abī Quḥafah, d.
634CE), ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 644CE) and ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān (d. 656CE); and finally,
those who associate exoteric caliphate in succession to the aforementioned
caliphs but consider him as the first esoteric caliph after the death of the
Prophet Muḥammad. The first assessment is largely discredited in Sunnī
scholarship and will therefore not feature in this paper. The second
assessment, however, is one which has received increasing popularity in recent
scholarship in an attempt to render the final assessment redundant. This said,
the former assessment would then fail to explain why all ṣūfī paths (ṭuruq, sing. ṭarīqah) and chains (salāsil, sing. silsilah) trace their lineages to ʿAlī and not Abū Bakr. In this
essay then, I will focus on the final assessment, that ʿAlī is both fourth
exoteric caliph and first esoteric caliph; I will define the esoteric and
exoteric caliphates; observe the relationship between vicegerency and sainthood
(wilāyah) and will critically consider
the evidence for ʿAlī’s esoteric caliphate. I shall substantiate the
aforementioned by using primary sources, namely the Qur’ān, Tradition (ḥadīth), exegeses (tafāsīr, sing. tafsīr),
biographical dictionaries (asmāʾ al-rijāl)
and Ṣūfī manuals. Various lexical techniques will also be employed in order to ascertain
a richer explanation of some complex terms, and in doing this, will reveal
important layers that will establish a thorough understanding of this discourse.
An important observation that will be made is how certain sources and their
manuscripts have been altered to exclude the idea of esoteric caliphate and its
association with ʿAlī. The conclusion will be threefold: firstly, that esoteric
caliphate actually exists; secondly, that all schools of Sufism (taṣawwuf) trace their lineages to ʿAlī, whether directly or indirectly;
and finally, considering ʿAlī as the first esoteric caliph does not interfere
with the pre-existing Islamic structure of the caliphate and that both,
esoteric and exoteric, institutions should be considered and treated separately,
in their respective fields.
Defining the Field:
Analysing the Terms Khilāfah and Khalīfah
Lexically and Exegetically
In the Arabic
lexicon, the term khilāfah means ‘a
building’ or ‘monument’ and is derived from the triliteral root kh-l-f. The term khalīfah is also derived from the same root and means ‘vicegerent’,
‘inheritor’, ‘representative’ or ‘ruler’;[4]
we can then take these terms to mean ‘a vicegerent in charge of an
institution’. The foundation of the temporal caliphate (khilāfah al-ẓāhirah) has already been discussed above and for the
purpose of this discourse the aforementioned detail will suffice as the focus
here is the concept of the spiritual caliphate (khilāfah al-bāṭinah). However, it is important to locate the idea
of the temporal caliphate in the Qurʾān as this serves as our main primary
source. In light of this, it is considered that the root kh-l-f occurs one hundred and twenty seven times, in the Qur’ān, in
eighteen derived forms,[5]
of which only one clearly refers to the concept of vicegerency: the Qur’ān
[2:30] states, “I will create a vicegerent on earth.” In relation to this
verse, exegetes agree that the khalīfah being
referred to here is the Prophet Ādam. An important requisite that features in any
caliphate is the vicegerent’s capability to act as caliph and this relies upon
his knowledge (ʿilm) and
understanding (fahm) of his position (manṣab). Hence, the Qurʾān [2:31] states, “And He taught Ādam the
names of all things […]”. That the Qur’ān features the word asmāʾ (names, sing. ism) confirms the exoteric nature of this knowledge. In light of
this, the exegete Ḥaqqānī writes in his Tafsīr Fatḥu ‘l-Mannān that the term al-musammiyāt, the second particle of construction (muḍāf ilayh), is hidden,[6]
which means Ādam was ‘taught the knowledge of things named’.[7]
Ādam also possessed esoteric knowledge, but his knowing is not attributed to
his caliphate, rather his prophethood (nabuwwah),
as the term prophethood in the Arabic lexicon means, ‘the teller of the unseen
as esoterically taught by God’.[8]
This does not influence the position of the Prophet Muḥammad, however, as the
polymath Shahābu ‘l-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Ālūsī al-Baghdādī (d. 1854CE) points out in
his exegesis, Rūḥu ‘l-Maʿānī, under Qur’ān [2:30]:
“And it is not hidden
that the secret of al-Rabb is the
first particle of construction towards his [Prophet Muḥammad], upon him
salutations and peace, personal pronoun which is the second particle of
construction by means of the first person address […][9]
and removes it from the ordinary, towards the extraordinary […] making it clear
that he [Prophet Muḥammad], upon him salutations and peace, in reality is the
greatest caliph (al-khalīfatu ‘l-Aʿẓam)
in creation and is the head leader (imam)
upon earth and the heavenly skies; and otherwise Ādam would not have been
created.”[10]
Thus the very first
inheritor of [the greatest] caliphate, was the Prophet Muḥammad. The
chronological discrepancy that is evident here is clarified by a Prophetic
Tradition (ḥadīth al-nabawī) that
states:
“Verily I was, with
Allāh, the first to be written as the final prophet when Ādam was still a body
of clay. And soon I shall reveal the explanation to this. I am the prayer of my
father Ibrāhīm (Abraham), and that tiding which ʿĪsā (Jesus) gave to his people
and that dream of my mother in which she saw light omit from her, by which the
palaces of Syria were enlightened.”[11]
It is also related,
“I am the father of division, Allāh gives and I divide.”[12]
Thus the aforementioned Traditions clarify two important things: firstly, Muḥammad’s
prophethood and messengership precede that of Ādam’s; secondly, the Prophet Muḥammad
is the divider and distributor. That there is no apparent lexical restriction
present in the latter tradition suggests that the Prophet Muḥammad is the
divider and distributor of whatever God may give. It was thus the Prophet Muḥammad
who acted as distributer of the esoteric caliphate to ʿAlī just as he was the
distributer of prophethood (qāsimu
‘l-nabuwwah) to Ādam.
Locating the Field:
Esoteric Caliphate and Its
Relation to Spirituality (taṣawwuf)
Although the
aforementioned is evidence for the existence of exoteric caliphate, there is
still, however, the matter of locating the concept of esoteric caliphate and
its relation to ʿAlī, who is the primary subject of this entire discourse. We
thus look at Qur’ān [5:55] which, according to al-Baghdādī, not only
establishes the idea of esoteric caliphate (khilāfah
al-bāṭinah) but also demonstrates its relationship to spirituality (taṣawwuf):
“Your friends are Allah,
His Messenger, and the believers, - those who establish prayers and give charity,
and they bow down.”
There are three
things that must be discussed here. Firstly who does the term ‘believers’ (ʾāmanū) refer to? Secondly, how does
this verse establish the concept of esoteric caliphate? Lastly, how does it
relate ʿAlī to spirituality? To explain this, I have chosen three exegeses: the
first is written by al-Ṭabarī (d. 923CE) and has been chosen due to his reputation
as one of the earliest exegetes; second is al-Sayūṭī (d. 1505CE) as he is
largely accepted in most denominations of Islam and belongs to the late
classical period of Islamic scholarship; third is al-Baghdādī (d. 1854CE) as he
belongs to the Naqshbandī Ṣūfī order.[13]
As such, al-Ṭabarī writes:
‘Muḥammad bin al-Ḥusayn
said, “Then they informed […] they are all the believers, however, once a
questioner [beggar] came and ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib was bowing in the mosque (wa huwa rākiʿun fī ‘l-masjid) and he
gave him his ring.” Hunād bin al-Sirrī said […], “I asked about this verse […]
ʿAlī is from the believers.” Ismāʿīl bin Isrāʾīl al-Ramlī […] said about what
is in this verse, “ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib.” [a]l-Ḥārith said […], “This has been
revealed about ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib, he gave alms when he was bowing.”’[14]
Similarly, al-Sayūṭī
writes:
‘Imām ʿAbdu
‘l-Razzāq, ʿAbd bin Ḥamīd, Ibn Jarīr, Abū ‘l-Shaykh and Ibn Marduwayh related
from ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Ibn ʿAbbās, that he narrates, “This verse was revealed in
favour of ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib.” Imām Ṭabarānī in Awsaṭ and Ibn Marduwayh relates
from ʿAmmār bin Yāsir, that he narrates, “A questioner [beggar] came and stood
next to ʿAlī whilst he was performing the supererogatory prayers. ʿAlī took off
his ring and gave it to him and that questioner [beggar] went to the Prophet, upon
him and his family salutations and peace, and told him what had happened. Then
this verse was revealed to the Prophet. The Prophet recited this verse to his
companions and said, “Whomever I am a friend to ʿAlī is friends with. O Allāh!
Be friends with the friends of ʿAlī and be enemies with the enemies of ʿAlī.””’[15]
The aforementioned
excerpts establish that there is overwhelming primary evidence to suggest that
the Qur’ānic verse [5:55] has been revealed vis-à-vis ʿAlī. Concerning this
matter and that of his esoteric caliphate, al-Baghdādī, in the ‘section of
indication’ (bābu ‘l-ishārāt), writes:
‘And this verse
according to the great Traditionists (muḥaddithin)
was revealed [in favour of] ʿAlī, may Allāh bless his face. And the Imāmiyyah
[Shīʿah], as you know [use] this as evidence for the immediate succession to
the [right of exoteric] caliphate of ʿAlī, after the Messenger of Allāh, upon
him salutations and peace [...]. And praise be to Allāh, glorified is He, that
[discussion] has been refuted. And many of the spiritualists (ṣūfiyyah), may God sanctify their
secrets, indicate towards the [idea] of his, may Allāh bless his face,
immediate caliphate in succession to the Messenger, upon him salutations and
peace, as well, except that according to them it is an esoteric caliphate (khilāfah al-bāṭinah). The esoteric
caliphate is to coach succession, education, assistance and spiritual exercise.
The exoteric caliphate [exclusively] deals with exoteric [state] boundaries,
mobilising an army, defending the shell of Islam […]. And the difference
between both caliphates is that of the shell (al-qishr) and the core (al-lubb).
Thus the esoteric caliphate is the core of the exoteric caliphate and with it
[esoteric caliphate] the reality [core] of Islam is defended; and with the
external [caliphate], the image [shell of Islam] is defended. And this is the
position of the Pole (al-quṭb) in
every era and verily this [esoteric caliphate] unites with the exoteric
caliphate as it united in ʿAlī, may Allāh bless his face, in his days of
[exoteric] caliphate; as it will unite in the Mahdī in his days of appearance.
That and Prophethood are like the breast [and its] nipple; and this is
indicated towards with the response of the Messenger, upon him salutations and
peace, from his saying, “ʿAlī and I have been created from one light.”’[16]
Here, al-Baghdādī first
establishes that the verse [5:55] was revealed in favour of ʿAlī. He then
explains that although the Shīʿah may claim right to ʿAlī’s immediate
succession to exoteric caliphate following the death of the Prophet Muḥammad,
majority of other denominations do not suppose this. That said, the spiritualists
do, however, clarify the issue of immediate succession by dividing the
institution of the caliphate into two categories: that of exoteric and esoteric
caliphate. This is also where al-Baghdādī implies the connection between esoteric
caliphate and spirituality. He first does this by discussing the verse under
the heading ‘section of indication’ (bābu
‘l-ishārāt). This is significant
as ‘indications’ (ishārāt) is an
independent genre of exegetical writing that is unique to spiritualists (ṣūfīs), however, some polymaths employ within their writing if they are of that
leaning. The second connection, he implies, is through the definition of esoteric
caliphate and its duties. That this particular caliphate is concerned with
‘spiritual exercise’ is an important implication as is the fact that the
esoteric caliphate is the core (al-lubb)
and the exoteric caliphate is the shell. In Bayāna ‘l-Farq Bayna ‘l-Ṣadr wa
‘l-Qalb wa ‘l-Fuād wa ‘l-Lubb, a book attributed to al-Ḥakīm al-Tirmidhī (d.
869CE), it states that the sadr is
the chest, qalb is the heart, fuād is the inner heart and lubb is the intellect.[17]
As such, the term intellect is from the Latin intellegere, which means to ‘understand’. This is noteworthy as understanding is an internal process of
something external, i.e. it is an esoteric process of its exoteric other. It is
apparent then, ʿAlī does have right of immediate succession to the caliphate,
but this is a spiritual position, not a temporal one. It is also apparent that
where the temporal caliphate could only begin at the Prophet Muḥammad’s death,
the spiritual caliphate, however, began with ʿAlī’s creation, just as Muḥammad’s
prophethood and messengership did.[18]
In addition, a lexical analysis of the term wilāyah also demonstrates the
relationship between ʿAlī, his esoteric caliphate and spirituality. In Arabic, wilāyah means ‘government’, ‘a
monument’, ‘sultanate’ and ‘those regions upon which one has control’. One will
note here that one of the various meanings of caliphate (khilāfah) is ‘a monument’, thus demonstrating a similarity in
definition despite the dissimilarity of their respective triliteral roots. It
is also interesting that caliphate has been described as an institution under
the control of its caliph, as has wilāyah
which is to have a region under one’s control. Another term that shares the
same triliteral root with wilāyah is tawallā which means ‘to take
responsibility’. One will again note that one of the definitions of caliph (khalīfah) is vicegerent and although
there is a clear difference in both triliteral roots, there is an obvious similarity
in meaning. The final lexical observation is that of the word walāʾ which means ‘to be close’ or ‘to
become close’. The end of al-Baghdādī’s excerpt above, states that the Prophet
Muḥammad and ʿAlī were created from one light (nūr). That the Prophet Muḥammad was the first in creation, as his
Prophethood and Messengership preceded that of Ādam’s, has already been
established by the mentioning of an earlier tradition. It is significant here,
however, that if ʿAlī was created from the same light as the Prophet Muḥammad,
then he too preceded the creation of Ādam. This would be the same for his
spiritual faculties.
ʿAlī: the Source of
Spirituality (taṣawwuf)
Three things have
been critically observed so far: first, the idea of esoteric caliphate; second,
how ʿAlī was the first successor to the Prophet Muḥammad in esoteric caliphate;
finally, how esoteric caliphate relates to the idea of ʿAlī’s relationship with
spirituality. What now follows is an attempt to ascertain the credibility of
ʿAlī as the source of all spirituality.
This seems sensible for if the immediate spiritual successor to the Prophet Muḥammad
is ʿAlī and if ʿAlī and Muḥammad were created from one light, it would mean
that just as the Prophet Muḥammad was the distributor of prophethood and
messengership (qāsimu ‘l-nabuwwah),
ʿAlī would be the distributer of spirituality and sainthood (qāsimu ‘l-wilāyah). For this I shall be
using three sources. First: a ṣūfī manual
entitled Kashfu ‘l-Maḥjūb by ʿAlī Hujverī (d. 1077), one of the earliest ṣūfī masters to have lived in India.
Second: the Maktūbat of Imām Rabbānī (letters of Imām Rabbānī) written by Aḥmad
Fārūqī Sirhindī (d. 1624), a naqshbandī ṣūfī.[19]
Third: an exegesis written by Qāḍī Thanā Ullāh Pānī Pattī entitled Tafsīr Maẓharī.
He is one of the disciples and main vicegerents of Mīrzā Maẓhar Jān-e-Jānān (d.
1781), making him sixth in order of spiritual lineage to the aforementioned Sirhindī.
In light of this,ʿAlī Hujverī writes about ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib:
‘He is from the
companions, Allāh is pleased with them. Brother to the Prophet Muḥammad, upon
him salutations and peace, diver in the river of difficulty, a flame of the
fire of spirituality and leader of all the friends of Allāh (awliyāʾ Allāh) and elders of religion (bazurgān-e-dīn). His position in the
[ways of the] Order (ṭarīqah) is very
high. He has every involvement in disclosing the Reality of Recognition (maʿrifat-e-ḥaqīqat) and discussing
difficult excerpts, to this point that Junayd, Mercy of Allāh upon him, says in
his favour, “He, ʿAlī al-Murtaḍā, Allāh is pleased with him, is our leader in
principles (uṣūl) and difficulties.”
In other words, ʿAlī is our leader in the principles of spirituality and
withstanding difficulties in order to protect the religion of the Prophet.”’[20]
ʿAlī Hujverī attributes spiritual leadership to
ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib himself and quotes Junayd al-Baghdādī, an earlier ṣūfī master, who also ascribes ʿAlī as
the leader in the principles of spirituality as well as withstanding
difficulties, which is a popular feature of spirituality. It is interesting
then, that in comparison, whilst discussing Abū Bakr (the first temporal
caliph), although Hujverī attributes elements of spirituality to him, he is not
as forthcoming in calling him a leader of this field.[21]
As such, the later naqshbandī ṣūfī master,
Sirhindī writes:
“The paths to God are two […] the second path
is that which is connected to ‘closeness of friendship’ (qurb-e-vilāyat). All poles (aqṭāb),
pegs (awtād), replacers (abdāl), specials (nujabāʾ) and common friends of Allāh (awliyāʾ Allāh)[22]
are included within this […] the fountain and leader of the representatives of
this path is ʿAlī, may Allāh bless his face […]. According to me, ʿAlī was in
this position even before his physical manifestation as he was after, I mean,
before his birth and whoever has benefitted from this path have done so only
through him as he is the last dot of this path and the epicentre of this
position is connected to him.”[23]
Here Sirhindī points out two important things:
firstly, that ʿAlī is the leader of all those who follow the path of
spirituality, irrespective of their ranking; secondly, he mentions his opinion
concerning ʿAlī and his spiritual leadership. That ʿAlī was in the same
position even before his physical manifestation, i.e. before his birth alludes
to the Prophetic Tradition that was mentioned earlier, “ʿAlī and I are from one
light.” Adding to this concept, in commentary to Qur’ān [3:110], Pānī Pattī
writes:
“I say that there is more affect in the
guidance of this nation than previous nations as it pulls people and guides
them towards Allāh. ʿAlī, may Allāh bless his face, is the pole and sultan of
spirituality, no person from the previous nations could attain or reach a rank
in spirituality until spiritually aided by him. After him, his children were
situated on this position that reached ʿAbdu ‘l-Qādir Jīlānī through the
lineage of Imām Ḥasan ʿAskarī.”[24]
This excerpt quite clearly places ʿAlī at the
forefront of spiritual leadership, in other words, esoteric caliphate. It
suggests, as did Sirhindī, that ʿAlī’s esoteric caliphate did not only exist
during his physical existence on earth but he also distributed sainthood to
members of previous nations belonging to older prophets and messengers. It is
appropriate to mention here why some authors have been preferred over others in
this discourse. In specific, there are three authors that are noteworthy: first
is Sirhindī; second, Pānī Patti; and third, al-Baghdādī. All share one thing in
common, they belong to the naqshbandī ṣūfī
order. This is significant as after observing various records of naqshbandī lineages, both oral and
written,[25]
they trace their spiritual ancestry to Abū Bakr, unlike the qādrī, chishtī and suharwardī orders who trace theirs to ʿAlī.[26]
Assuming that this discrepancy exists, it would seem fitting to provide
evidence from such authors and their texts as it would provide an unbiased
source. In connecting the aforementioned together then, Sirhindī sits six
generations before Pānī Pattī,[27]
who is one of the main disciples and vicegerents of Mīrzā Maẓhar Jān-e-Jānān.
ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Shāh Ghulām ʿAlī Dehlavī (d. 1824), was the main vicegerent to
Jān-e-Jānān and was succeeded by Khālid Shahrazūrī Kurdī (d. 1827);
al-Baghdādī, known by his full name as Abū al-Thanāʾ Shihābu ‘l-Dīn Sayyid Maḥmūd
al-Ālūsī al-Baghdādī, was Kurdī’s student thus connecting him to the naqshbandī order.[28]
Deliberate Corruption in
Later Sirhindī and al-Baghdādī
Texts
Sirhindī’s
Maktūbāt Imām Rabbānī:
The aforementioned Sirhindī excerpt has been
taken from two separate editions. The 1977 edition was printed in Turkey in the
original Persian language whereas the 2007 edition has been translated from
Persian to Urdu by Qāḍī ʿĀlimu ‘l-Dīn Naqshbandī Mujaddidī. There are two
points of textual corruption that are evident in the later edition which is why
the earlier print had to be consulted. Firstly, the earlier 1977 edition has
essential marginal notes that the later edition does not include at all. These
marginal notes quite intriguingly name twelve personalities (Imām ʿAlī, Imām Ḥasan,
Imām Ḥusayn, Imām Zaynu ‘l-ʿĀbdīn, Imām Muḥammad Bāqir, Imām Jaʿfaru ‘l-Ṣādiq,
Imām Mūsā Kāẓim, Imām ʿAlī Riḍā, Imām Muḥammad Taqī, Imām Muhammad Naqī, Imām Ḥasan
ʿAskarī and Imām Muḥammad Mahdī). The intrigue lies in the fact that in popular
Western scholarship these personalities are associated to Twelver Shīʿism,
however, this Sunnī, ṣūfī text,
originally produced in the early seventeenth century, presents them as
inherently Sunnī. Unfortunately, these marginal notes did not make it in the
later 2007 edition. Another point of textual corruption, in the later edition,
is the mention of ‘Muʿāwiyah’[29]
after the second occurrence of the word ‘amīr’ (leader). When compared to the
earlier edition, there is no such addition, it simply states ‘amīr’. This could
be a compositional accident, however one would have to consider why, of all
names, this particular one found its way into this edition. Historically, there
has been tension between some Sunnī denominations concerning the praising and
censoring of oral and/or literary material in favour of the family of the
Prophet Muḥammad (ahlu ‘l-bayt). In
his biographical dictionary, writing about ʿAlī, al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 1448CE)
states:
‘He has
many virtues, in fact, Imām Aḥmad said, “No one else has as many virtues as
does ʿAlī.” Others say, “This is the reason why the Banī Umyyah[30]
used to hate him. And so, whomever from the companions knew the praise of ʿAlī,
they would mention it, whilst these people (Umayyads) would suppress them and
would scold the person mentioning the praise and virtues of ʿAlī.”’[31]
It may be assumed then that this tension still
exists today. That Sirhindī’s later edition has been published by a
predominantly Barelvī orientated publisher is of interest as contemporary
Barelvī’s suggest that overpraising (ghuluw) of the Prophet Muḥammad’s family is
fundamentally a Shīʿah construct.[32] This
assumption is supported by the analysis of another translated version of
Sirhindī’s text, by Sayyid Zāwar Ḥusayn Shāh, published by Idārah Mujaddidiyyah
in 1993. Although this text has omitted the marginal notes extant in the 1977
edition, it does not, however, add the word ‘Muʿāwiyah’ with the second
mentioning of ‘amīr’.[33]
al-Baghdādī’s
Rūḥu ‘l-Maʿānī:
Earlier in this paper, I referenced two
separate al-Baghdādī texts. The later edition was printed in 2007 by Maktabah
Rashīdiyyah, a Diyobandī publishing company; whereas the earlier edition was
printed somewhere in the late twentieth century,[34]
by Idārah al-Ṭabāʿah al-Munīriyyah in Beirut. The excerpt from the ‘section of
indication’ is extant in the latter edition, however, it has been completely
deleted in the former. One possible reason for such deletion is that the "naqshbandī, the major Sufi cult in
Pakistan, consists mainly of the Deobandis."[35]
As mentioned earlier, contemporary naqshbandīs
tend to trace their spiritual lineage to Abū Bakr, not ʿAlī. Hence total
deletion of a section that puts ʿAlī at the source of all spirituality may be
conducive to their propaganda. However, this is not the first instance of
textual corruption in al-Baghdādī’s text. Although it is suggested that
al-Baghdādī was a Wahhābī,[36]
his, ‘writings are rather impressive evidence of his anti-Wahhabi stance’.[37]
His son Nuʿmān al-Ālūsī, however, is accused of stronger Salafī and Wahhabī
leanings and has been accused of tampering with his father’s exegetical
commentary: Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī (d.1951CE) writes, “He cannot be trusted
over the publication of his father's commentary.”[38]
Concluding the Field:
Esoteric Caliphate, a Sunnī Notion
In this extended discourse, I have critically
assessed the evidence for ʿAlī’s esoteric caliphate and have found that such a
category of leadership does actually exist. I also observed how all ‘orders of
spirituality’, eventually, trace their lineages to ʿAlī thus placing him at the
core of spiritual leadership. I did this by defining the terms khilāfah and khalīfah lexically and exegetically, and established a connection
between the caliphate of Ādam and that of ʿAlī’s through the Prophet Muḥammad.
I then located specific evidence in relation to ʿAlī’s esoteric caliphate and
discussed how it relates to spirituality by making critical observations of
al-Baghdādī’s text. Finally, I presented three primary sources that place ʿAlī
at the core of spirituality. That he was a source of leadership and
authorisation for spiritualists that proceeded him as well as those who
preceded him in existence was also demonstrated by the use of Pānī Pattī’s text,
and others, which tied in the Prophetic Tradition (“ʿAlī and I are from one
light) that al-Ālūsī mentioned in his ‘section of indication’. The fact that
every source referred to was written by Sunnī, Ṣūfī scholars establishes the
final point in this discourse: considering ʿAlī as the first esoteric caliph is
not a modern notion nor is it a distinctly Shīʿah one either. Scholars of the
formative, classical and post classical periods, whether of Ṣūfī leaning or
not, accredit ʿAlī with spiritual leadership without having to interfere with
the pre-existing idea of ʿAlī as fourth exoteric caliph. The choice of
utilising literature belonging to scholars of the naqshbandī order was also made apparent as it provided an unbiased
source of evidence. Lastly, it was highlighted that there has been an effort to
discredit ʿAlī of his spiritual authority by major textual corruption.
Fortunately, older texts still exist and were referenced in order to
demonstrate a thorough comparative analysis.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Al-ʿAsqalānī,
Shihābu ‘l-Dīn Abu ‘l-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥajr. al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīzi ‘l-Ṣaḥābah,
Lahore (2011).
Al-Baghdādī, Abu ‘l-Thanā Shahābu ‘l-Dīn Muḥammad al-Alūsī. Ruḥu ‘l-Maʿānī Fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʿAẓīm wa ‘l-Sabaʿ ‘l-Mathānī. Maktabah Rashīdiyyah, Pakistan (2007).
Al-Baghdādī, Abu ‘l-Faḍl
Shahābu ‘l-Dīn Muḥammad
al-Alūsī. Ruḥu ‘l-Maʿānī Fī Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʿAẓīm wa ‘l-Sabaʿ ‘l-Mathānī. Idārah al-Ṭabāʿh al-Munīriyyah (19xx).
Al-Kawtharī, Muḥammad Zāhid. Maqālāt al-Kawtharī, Egypt (1994).
Al-Naysābūri, Abū ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Muḥammad bin Ḥākim. Mustadrak ʿAlā ‘l-Ṣaḥīḥ, Laḥore (2013)
Al-Sayūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn. Durr al-Manthūr. Ḍiyā
al-Qur’ān Publications, Lahore. Pakistan (2006).
Al-Sayūṭī, Jalālu
‘l-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad
al-Maḥallī and
Jalālu ‘l-Dīn. Tafsīr Jalālayn. Translated by Aisha Bewley.
Dar al-Taqwa, London (2007).
Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad Ibn Jarīr. Jāmiʿu ‘l-Biyān ʿan Ta’wīl Āyi ‘l-Qur’ān. Dāru ‘l-Fikr, Beirut,
Lebanon (2005).
Dehlavī, Ghulām ʿAlī. Maqāmat-e-Maẓharī,
Lahore (2001).
Ḥaqqānī, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdu ‘l-Ḥaqq. Fatḥu ‘l-Mannān. Faiṣal Nāshirān wa Tājirān, Lahore, Pakistan (publish date not stated).
Hujverī, ʿAlī. Kashfu
‘l-Maḥjūb, Lahore (1981).
Ibn Kathīr, ʿImādu ‘l-Dīn. Tafsīr ibn Kathīr. Ḥudaybiyyah Publications,
Lahore, Pakistan (2008).
Ibn Manẓūr, Muḥammad.
Lisānu ‘l-ʿArab, Dār Iḥyā al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, Beirut, Lebanon (third
edition).
Pattī,
Thanā’ullāh Pānī Pattī. Tafsīr Maẓharī. Dār al-Ishāʿat, Karachi, Pakistan (1999).
Sirhindī, Aḥmad Fārūqī. Maktūbāt
Imām Rabbānī, Turkey (1977).
———. Maktūbāt
Imām Rabbānī. Trans. by ʿĀlimu ‘l-Dīn Mujaddidī, Lahore (2007).
———.
Maktūbāt Imām Rabbānī. Trans. by
Sayyid Zāwar Ḥusayn Shāh, Karachi (1993).
Secondary Sources
Al-Bulyāwī, ʿAbdu ‘l-Ḥafīẓ. Miṣbāḥu ‘l-Lughāt, Progresso Books, Lahore, Pakistan (1994).
Al-Din, Fīyrūz. Fīyrūzu ‘l-Lughāt, New Edition, Lahore
(publish date not stated).
Fattah, Hala. “‘Wahhabi’
Influences, Salafi Responses: Shaikh Mahmud Shukri and the Iraqi Salafi
Movement, 1745-1930” in Journal of Islamic Studies, 14:2 (2003).
ʿAlī, ʿAbdu ‘l-Lāh Yūsuf. The Holy Qur’ān: Text, Translation and
Commentary. Amana Corporation, Maryland, USA (1989).
Haleem, M. A. S. Abdel. The
Qur’ān – English Translation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, London
(2010).
Heer, Nicholas. “A Treatise on the Heart” in Three Early Ṣūfī Texts, Louisville
(2003).
Pickthall, Mohammed Marmaduke. The
Meaning of the Glorious Qur’ān. Ta Ha Publishers Ltd. London (1930).
Renard, John. Historical
Dictionary of Sufism, Oxford (2005).
Stevenson, C. Soanes and A. Oxford
Dictionary of English, Oxford (2003).
Weismann, Itzchak. The
Naqshbandiyya. Orthodoxy and Activism in a Worldwide Ṣūfī Tradition,
Routledge, London (2007).
Online Resources
"K̲h̲alīfa." in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second
Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel,
W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014. Reference. School of Oriental and African
Studies (SOAS) Last accessed 24th
March 2014:
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=xlf
Last accessed 24th March 2014.
http://www.islahulmuslimeen.org/golden-chain-shijra
Last accessed 24th March 2014.
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/811/where-sufism-stands/
Last accessed 24th March 2014.
[1]
D. Sourdel, "K̲h̲alīfa." in Encyclopaedia
of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E.
Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Brill Online, 2014.
[2]
Ibid.
[3]
Note that the terms exoteric and temporal will be used interchangeably in this
essay depending on their use in context. This also applies to the terms
esoteric and spiritual.
[4]
A. Bulyāwī, Miṣbāḥu ‘l-Lughāt, Lahore
(1994), pp. 216-217.
[5]
http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=xlf
[6]
This literary technique is common in the Arabic language.
[7]
A. Haqqānī, Tafsīr Fatḥu ‘l-Mannān,
Lahore (2000), p. 129.
[8]
Bulyāwī, Miṣbāh, p. 847.
[9]
This is the author’s analysis on the language and literary techniques of the
Qur’ān.
[10]
M. A. al-Baghdādī, Rūḥu ‘l-Maʿānī,
Maktabah Rashīdiyyah, Karachi (2007), vol. 1, p. 295.
[11]
M. Ḥakim, Mustadrak ʿAlā ‘l-Ṣaḥīḥ, Laḥore
(2013), vol. 3, p.758.
[12]
Ibid. p. 764.
[14]
M. al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿu ‘l-Bayān ʿan Taʾwīl
Āyi ‘l-Qur’ān, Beirut (2005), vol. 6, pp. 356-357.
[15]
J. al-Sayūṭī, Tafsīr Durra ‘l-Manthūr, Lahore
(2006), vol. 2, p 804.
[16]
M. al-Baghdādī, Ruḥu ‘l-Maʿānī,
Beirut (19xx), vol. 5, p.186.
[17]
N. Heer, “A Treatise on the Heart” inThree
Early Ṣūfī Texts, Fons Vitae, Louisville (2003), p. 11.
[18]
This is further discussed under ‘ʿAlī as the Source of All Spirituality’.
[19]
The significance of this will be discussed below, later.
[20]
A. Hujverī, Kashfu ‘l-Maḥjūb, Lahore
(1981), p. 175.
[21]
Ibid., p. 173.
[22]
Various positions and stations within ṣūfism.
[23]
A. Sirhindī, Maktūbāt Imām Rabbānī. Trans.
by A. Mujaddidī, Lahore (2007), vol. 2, p. 605; A. Sirhindī, Maktūbāt Imām Rabbānī, Turkey (1977),
vol. 2, p. 584-585.
[24]
T. Pānī Pattī, Tafsīr Maẓharī,
Karachi (1999), vol. 2, p. 226.
[25]
http://www.islahulmuslimeen.org/golden-chain-shijra
[26]
J. Renard, Historical Dictionary of
Sufism, Oxford (2005), p. 29.
[27]
G. Dehlavī, Maqāmat-e-Maẓharī, Lahore
(2001), pp. 509-590.
[28]
I. Weismann, The Naqshbandiyya. Orthodoxy
and Activism in a Worldwide Ṣūfī Tradition, Routledge, London (2007) p. 95,
p.133.
[29]
The founder of the Umayyad dynasty, took caliphate from Ḥasan bin ʿAlī,
transformed democratic caliphate into imperialism.
[30]
The children of Umayyah, i.e. the Umayyads and the Umayyad dynasty.
[31]
S. al-ʿAqalānī, al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīzi ‘l-Ṣaḥābah,
Lahore (2011), vol. 4, p. 134.
[32]
This is an issue I have personally observed having spent time in Pakistan and
the UK with this denomination.
[33]
A. Sirhindī, Maktūbāt Imām Rabbānī.
Trans. by S. Shāh, Karachi (1993), vol. 3, p. 399-401.
[34]
I have looked at two separate copies of this early text, one owned by my
teacher (Shaykh) and one from the SOAS library. Neither of these texts give the
exact publishing date. The SOAS library database, however, does state that it
was printed some time in 19xx. Ascertaining what ‘xx’ represent has not been
possible.
[35]
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/811/where-sufism-stands/
[36]
A strict-constructionist, reformist movement that began under the leadership of
Muḥammad bin ʿAbdu ‘l-Wahhāb Najadī (d.1792).
[37]
H. Fattah, “‘Wahhabi’ Influences, Salafi Responses: Shaikh Mahmud Shukri and
the Iraqi Salafi Movement, 1745-1930” in Journal
of Islamic Studies, 14:2 (2003), p. 141.
[38]
M. al-Kawtharī, Maqālāt al-Kawtharī,
Egypt (1994), p. 258.
