of Nekounam, may his secret be sanctified (Session 222)
Preface
Mystical conduct constitutes a profound and profound journey wherein the wayfarer is guided from the obscurities of the nafs (self) towards the boundless Divine Light. The Manzil al-Sirn of Khwaja Abdullah Ansari stands as a luminous beacon, illuminating this intricate and winding path for the aspirants. The station of sanctityone of the pivotal stations in this spiritual progressioncalls upon the wayfarer to observe the Divine limits and abstain from prohibited acts.
Part One: Introduction to the Station of Sanctity
Commencement in the Name of the Truth
The discourse commences with the invocation Bismillhir-Ramnir-Ram, which, akin to a spiritual key, unlocks the portals of wisdom and gnosis. This phrase signifies the sanctity of the subject and the wayfarers reliance upon the exalted Divine Essence in the path of spiritual wayfaring. The station of sanctity, as one of the sublime degrees within the category of transactions, obliges the wayfarer to adhere strictly to Divine limits and to avoid forbidden acts.
Qurnic Foundation for the Station of Sanctity
The text begins with the citation of the noble verse: And whoever honours the sanctities of Allh, it is best for him with his Lord
(al-ajj, 22:30; translated by : And whoever magnifies Allahs sanctities, that is better for him with his Lord). This verse explicitly emphasises the importance of venerating Divine sanctities, aligning perfectly with the theme of the station of sanctity. The term sanctities in this verse denotes Divine limits and prohibitions, the observance of which is indispensable for the wayfarer on the spiritual path.
Key Point: The verse وَمَنْ يُعَظِّمْ حُرُمَاتِ اللَّهِ constitutes the Qurnic basis of the station of sanctity, compelling the wayfarer to observe Divine boundaries and abstain from prohibitions.
Compatibility of the Verse with the Station of Sanctity
This verse, by its direct reference to Divine sanctities, corresponds impeccably with the subject of the station of sanctity and serves as an unequivocal textual proof therein. Unlike other chapters where the verses relevance to the topic may be tenuous, here the verse directly points to the concept of sanctity, thus providing a robust foundation for elucidating this station.
Key Point: The perfect congruence of the verse with the station of sanctity strengthens this station from both a jurisprudential and mystical perspective, offering a firm basis for the wayfarers spiritual conduct.
Part Two: Critique of the Commentators Exegesis on Sanctities
Conceptual Error of the Commentator
The commentator interprets urmt as al-uqq al-wjibah al-murh wa al-tam (the obligatory rights to be observed and magnified), conflating them with obligations and acts of worship. This interpretation is linguistically and terminologically erroneous, as urmt in the linguistic sense signifies prohibitions and forbidden acts, whereas al-uqq al-wjibah refers to obligations and acts of worship which possess a positive and affirmative character.
Analysis of the Commentators Error
This conflation results from a lack of precision in the commentators linguistic and terminological grasp. urmt indicate Divine limits and prohibitions characterised by negation and deterrence, whilst obligations and acts of worship denote affirmative and causative elements. This error exposes the commentators methodological weakness in elucidating mystical concepts, accentuating the necessity of referring to linguistic sources.
Key Point: The commentators incorrect interpretation of urmt as obligatory rights reveals a conflation between prohibitions (negative) and obligations (affirmative), underscoring the imperative for linguistic exactitude.
Part Three: Distinction Between Sanctities and Rituals
Negative and Affirmative Natures
Sanctities possess a negative and prohibitive dimension, such as abstention from murder and backbiting, whereas ritualssuch as circumambulation (awf) and the walking between af and Marwahbear an affirmative and positive aspect. This distinction constitutes one of the principal pillars in understanding the station of sanctity.
Analysis of the Distinction
This differentiation aids the wayfarer in discerning between the renunciation of sin and the performance of acts of obedience. Sanctities compel the wayfarer to avoid prohibited deeds and uphold Divine boundaries, whilst rituals summon the wayfarer to perform positive devotional acts. Such a distinction enables the wayfarer to comprehend the rightful place of each in their spiritual journey.
Key Point: Sanctities, by virtue of their negative and prohibitive essence, guide the wayfarer away from sin, whereas rituals, through their affirmative nature, invite the performance of acts of obedience.
Part Four: The Concept of Taarruj in the Station of Sanctity
Definition of Taarruj
Khwja Ansari defines sanctity as taarrujthat is, the state of psychological constraint wherein the nafs is tightened in the face of sin, resulting in abstention from transgressions and audacity (tajsur). Taarruj denotes a spiritual and psychological condition in which the wayfarer encounters the nafs insinuations and endeavours to avoid sin.
Analysis of the Concept of Taarruj
Taarruj signifies the internal conflict between the nafs and intellect that drives the wayfarer to refrain from sin. This condition manifests the dynamism of the station of sanctity, challenging the wayfarer against the nafs whispers and obliging the preservation of Divine limits.
Key Point: Taarruj denotes the internal struggle of the nafs against sin, guiding the wayfarer to abstain from transgressions and audacity.
Part Five: Distinction Between Obligations and Prohibitions
Affirmative and Negative Natures of Obligations and Prohibitions
Obligations, such as prayer and fasting, possess an affirmative and causative nature, whereas prohibitions, such as backbiting and murder, possess a negative and abstentive character. In obligations, both will and action are affirmative; however, in prohibitions, the will is affirmative (the will to abstain from sin), but the object is negative (abstinence and renunciation).
Analysis of the Distinction
This distinction refers to the psychological and spiritual complexities involved in the engagement with Divine duties. The wayfarer requires a strong will to perform obligations and to renounce prohibitions, albeit the nature of this will differs in each case. Such differentiation assists the wayfarer in comprehending the respective station of each within their mystical journey.
Key Point: Obligations, by their affirmative nature, call for the performance of acts, while prohibitions, by their negative essence, require the abandonment of sin.
Part Six: The Analogy of the Wall and the Spoon
Elucidation of the Concept of Sanctity
Sanctity signifies prohibition, akin to how a wall is not a spoon. This analogy abstractly demonstrates the difference between sanctities and acts of obedience. Sanctities signify abstention from that which is forbidden, whereas acts of obedience represent the positive execution of a prescribed deed.
Analysis of the Analogy
This analogy lucidly exhibits the difference between sanctities and acts of obedience. Just as a wall is not a spoon, sanctities differ fundamentally from acts of worship. This mental abstraction assists the wayfarer in grasping the concept of sanctity as a station of deterrence and negation.
Key Point: The analogy of the wall and the spoon clearly manifests the distinction between sanctities (negative and prohibitive) and acts of obedience (affirmative and performative).
Part Seven: The Role of the Will in Obligations and Prohibitions
The Function of the Will
Both obligations and prohibitions necessitate an affirmative will; however, the object of the will in obligations is the performance of the deed, while in prohibitions it is the abstention from the deed. This distinction points to the psychological and spiritual intricacies in confronting Divine mandates.
Analysis of the Wills Role
The will constitutes a fundamental pillar in mystical conduct. For performing obligations, such as prayer, the wayfarer requires a will that culminates in action; conversely, in refraining from prohibitions, such as backbiting, the will directs towards abstinence. This differentiation aids the wayfarer in advancing their spiritual journey with heightened awareness.
Key Point: The will in obligations directs towards performing the act, whereas in prohibitions it directs towards abstaining, reflecting the differing nature of these two stations.
Part Eight: Practical Examples of Obligations and Prohibitions
Rituals and Prohibitions in the Pilgrimage
During pilgrimage, rituals such as awf and the walking between af and Marwah possess an affirmative nature, whereas prohibitions such as refraining from killing and backbiting possess a negative character. This example practically demonstrates the distinction between obligations and prohibitions.
Analysis of the Example
This example clearly illustrates the difference between rituals and sanctities in practice. Rituals, as positive devotional acts, guide the wayfarer to perform acts, while sanctities prevent the commission of negative deeds. This distinction enables the wayfarer to maintain Divine boundaries within their devotional acts.
Key Point: In pilgrimage, rituals like awf are affirmative, while prohibitions such as refraining from killing are negative, exemplifying the practical difference between these categories.
Part Nine: Critique of the Commentators Jurisprudential Principles
Jurisprudential Error of the Commentator
The commentators conflation of sanctities with obligations constitutes a jurisprudential error, arising from insufficient precision in the linguistic and terminological understanding of sanctities.
Analysis of the Critique
This critique underscores the imperative of meticulous jurisprudential and linguistic precision in interpreting mystical texts. By equating sanctities with obligatory rights, the commentator deviates from the original meaning of sanctities, engendering ambiguity in elucidating the concept of sanctity. This error highlights the necessity of consulting linguistic and jurisprudential sources.
Key Point: The commentators conflation of sanctities and obligations reveals a jurisprudential mistake, underscoring the need for linguistic and terminological precision.
Part Ten: Distinction Between the Mystical Sage and the Learned Mystic
Khwja Ansari and the Commentator
Khwja Ansari, as a mystical sage, spoke from direct mystical experience, whereas the commentator (Kshn), as a learned mystic, approached mysticism from an academic standpoint and lacked sufficient depth.
Analysis of the Distinction
This distinction reflects the difference in mystical methodologies. The mystical sage internalises and experiences mysticism before applying scholarly knowledge, whereas the learned mystic acquires mystical understanding predominantly through study, potentially lacking experiential profundity. This divergence affects the quality of interpretation and elucidation of mystical concepts.
Key Point: Khwja Ansari, as the mystical sage, conveyed experiential insights, whereas the commentator, as the learned mystic, lacked such experiential depth.
Part Eleven: The Analogy of the FarmerCondensed and Affixed
The Condensed and Affixed Mystic
The condensed mystic is one who is innately mystical, akin to a farmer intimately familiar with the soil through generations; the affixed mystic resembles one who has recently learnt farming, lacking experiential depth.
Analysis of the Analogy
This analogy aptly demonstrates the difference between intrinsic and acquired mysticism. The condensed mystic, owing to profound innate experience, attains a more precise comprehension of mystical concepts, whereas the affixed mystic, due to experiential deficiency, may err in conceptual exposition.
Key Point: The condensed mystic, through innate experience, possesses deeper mystical insight, whereas the affixed mystic lacks such depth.
Section Twelve: Lexical Critique of the Commentator
Lack of Reference to Lexical Sources
The commentator interprets
armt (prohibitions) as obligatory rights without citing any lexical sources, a conclusion that is linguistically erroneous.
This critique underscores the indispensability of consulting authoritative lexical references in interpreting texts. The term armt fundamentally denotes prohibitions and must not be conflated with obligatory duties (wjibt). Such a conflation reflects a methodological weakness in the commentators approach toward conceptual analysis.
The commentators failure to consult lexical sources resulted in the incorrect interpretation of armt as obligatory rights.
Section Thirteen: The Importance of Mastery over Language and Meaning
Necessity of Proficiency in Language
Prior to engaging with religious sciences, mastery of the Arabic language and the meanings of its lexemes is essential to prevent erroneous exegeses.
Linguistic and lexical proficiency constitutes a foundational prerequisite for the precise comprehension of religious and mystical texts. Without such mastery, interpretations risk deviation and distortion of original meanings. This point highlights the imperative of language and lexicology training preceding entry into religious studies.
Mastery of Arabic language and word meanings is a prerequisite for accurate understanding of religious and mystical texts.
Section Fourteen: Definition of Taarruj by Khwaja
Taarruj and Abstention from Sin
Khwaja defines
urmt as
taarruj, meaning the souls constriction in the face of sin and refraining from opposition and audacity. This definition presents
urmt as a psychological and spiritual state.
Taarruj signifies the inner conflict between the nafs (self) and reason, guiding the seeker towards the abandonment of sin. This state characterises urmt as an active and dynamic station, challenging the seeker against carnal temptations.
Taarruj, denoting the souls constriction before sin, directs the seeker to eschew opposition and audacity.
Section Fifteen: Distinction Between the Verbal Nouns Taarruj and Tarj
Precision in Lexical Selection
Khwaja employs the verbal noun from the pattern
taful (
taarruj) rather than
tafl (
tarj), since
taarruj in sin denotes an often involuntary constriction, whereas
tarj connotes a deliberate repulsion.
This distinction reveals Khwajas lexical precision. The taful form indicates involuntary psychological tension consistent with the realities of sins psychological dynamics. This lexical choice reflects Khwajas profound understanding of the complex psychological nuances encountered in the struggle against sin.
Khwajas use of the taful form (taarruj) rather than tafl (tarj) indicates the involuntary nature of the internal conflict against sin.
Section Sixteen: The Example of Joseph and Zuleikha
The Role of Divine Mercy
In Josephs narrative, his
taarruj before sin results from Divine Mercy (
ill m raima rabb), highlighting the role of divine grace in abstaining from sin.
This example accentuates the protective role of Divine Mercy for the seeker. Joseph remained distant from sin due to the reception of his Lords proof (lawl an ra burhn rabbihi). It demonstrates the impact of divine grace in the station of taarruj and the seekers preservation from sin.
Josephs taarruj in the face of sin is a consequence of Divine Mercy and the reception of divine proof.
Section Seventeen: Psychological Dimension of Taarruj
Inner Conflict
Taarruj in sin arises from an inner conflict between the nafs, intellect, conscience, and other factors, representing a complex and involuntary state. This conflict may be influenced by intellect, conscience, or intercessory prayers.
This observation underscores the psychological complexities inherent in confronting sin. The seeker at the station of urmt encounters various temptations, and taarruj is the outcome of this internal struggle. Multiple agents including intellect, conscience, and even the prayers of others may participate in this conflict.
Taarruj results from the inner struggle between the nafs, intellect, and conscience, challenging the seeker in the face of sin.
Section Eighteen: Psychological Distinction Between Obedience and Sin
Ease of Obedience versus Difficulty of Sin
In obedience, inner conflict and
taarruj are less pronounced due to its affirmative nature, whereas in sin,
taarruj is more prominent due to carnal temptations.
This distinction highlights the relative ease of performing acts of obedience compared to abstaining from sins. Obedience, being affirmative, involves will and action, while sins, incited by carnal temptations, place the seeker in a more challenging psychological position.
Obedience, owing to its affirmative nature, is performed more easily, while sin, incited by carnal temptations, engenders greater taarruj.
Section Nineteen: The Importance of Abstaining from Sin over Multiplicity of Obedience
The Destructive Impact of Sin
A single sin can nullify the effects of a thousand acts of obedience, whereas numerous acts of obedience do not necessarily lead to perfection.
This point accentuates the paramount importance of abstaining from sin in mystical progression. Due to its destructive influence, sin may divert the seeker from the path of perfection, whereas obedience, however valuable, without abstention from sin, may not achieve full efficacy.
A single sin can negate the effect of obedience, while the abundance of obedience without abstention from sin does not lead to perfection.
Section Twenty: The Analogy of Driving and Braking
armt as the Brake
armt function like brakes in driving, essential for preventing danger, whereas obedience resembles acceleration and forward movement. A professional driver completes the journey with minimal braking and honking.
This analogy vividly illustrates the significance of armt. Just as braking is vital for safety in driving, prohibitions are indispensable in spiritual progression to prevent deviation and sin. The accomplished seeker attains perfection through taarruj and avoidance of sin.
armt, like brakes in driving, are essential for preventing deviation and sin, while obedience, like acceleration, facilitates forward progress.
Section Twenty-One: The Saints and the Absence of Taarruj
The Assurance of the Saints
The saints of God do not experience
taarruj or internal conflict in abstaining from sin, as they have attained the station of certainty and confidence.
This point draws a distinction between ordinary seekers and the saints. Due to their proximity to the Divine and inner assurance, the saints are free from hesitation or internal conflict when refraining from sin, advancing resolutely upon the path of Truth.
The saints, by virtue of certainty and confidence, do not experience taarruj in abstaining from sin.
Section Twenty-Two: The Example of Imam usayn and His Companions
Divine Love at Karbala
Imam usayn and his companions stood against oppression at Karbala without hesitation or
taarruj, motivated by divine love, exemplifying unwavering mystical conduct.
This example epitomises the zenith of the station of urmt. By reliance on divine love and certainty in the Truth, Imam usayn and his companions faced their ordeal without doubt or hesitation, manifesting a perfect mystical path in the station of urmt.
Imam usayn and his companions, driven by divine love and free of taarruj, represent an exemplar of perfect conduct in the station of urmt.
Section Twenty-Three: Jurisprudential Critique of Prayer under Danger
Imam usayns Prayer
Imam usayns prayer on the battlefield, despite the risk of being shot, may be deemed invalid juristically, yet mystically it represents an exemplar of love and surrender to the Truth.
This observation highlights the divergence between jurisprudential and mystical perspectives. Jurisprudence prioritises preservation of life, potentially invalidating prayer in hazardous circumstances, whereas mysticism places supreme value on love and complete surrender to the Divine beyond formal legal rulings.
Imam usayns battlefield prayer, from a mystical standpoint, exemplifies love and surrender to the Truth, though jurisprudentially it may be invalid.
Section Twenty-Four: Conclusion and Closure
The chapter of al-urma in Manzil al-Sirn, as one of the pivotal stations in the mystical journey, emphasises the importance of observing divine prohibitions and abstaining from the forbidden. This station, linked to the concept of taarrujthe souls constriction before singuides the seeker to refrain from opposition and audacity. The distinction between prohibitions (armt, negation and abstention) and obligations (shair, affirmation and performance) is a central theme of this chapter, assisting the seeker in comprehending their respective roles in spiritual progress. The commentators critique, conflating prohibitions with obligatory rights, underscores the necessity of lexical and terminological precision in interpreting mystical texts. Khwaja Anr, as a consummate mystic, elucidates the psychological and spiritual profundity of this station by employing the term taarruj and highlighting the internal struggle against sin. Analogies such as driving and braking, along with exemplars like Joseph and Imam usayn, clarify this concept and manifest the difference between ordinary seekers and the saints. In closing, the supplication Allhumma alli al Muammad wa li Muammad, as a spiritual seal, affirms the intrinsic connection of this journey with Shiite spirituality. Supervised by SSadegh Khademi
