of Nekounam, may his sacred spirit be sanctified (Session 248)
Tawakkul (trust and reliance upon God) represents an exceedingly arduous station along the journey of mystical progression, one which poses profound challenges both for the neophyte seeker and for the elect few of advanced rank. This treatise, the 248th session in Nekounams esteemed series Manzil al-Sirn, meticulously elucidates this sublime station. Along this path, not only are the difficulties of tawakkul for the novice and the exalted seeker rigorously examined, but also a critical evaluation of the deterministic interpretation posited by certain commentators is undertaken, alongside an exposition of the authentic meaning of tawakkul as a reciprocal divine-human agency.
Tawakkul constitutes one of the most formidable stations in the spiritual journey, holding an exalted status within the metaphysical transactions of the souls progress. This station is heavy and arduous alike for both the neophyte seekerstill shackled by the reliance on causesand the advanced seekerwho has reached existential annihilation (fan). How can the novice, who has not yet beheld the Divine, entrust his wealth, lifespan, and very being to God? Conversely, the advanced seeker, who recognises that all things originate from God, seemingly possesses nothing to delegate to the Divine Trustee. This paradox is rooted in the duality of mystical witnessing and existential annihilation experienced by the seekers.
Tawakkul functions as a bridge by which the seeker crosses from reliance upon causes to reliance upon the Cause of Causes. However, traversing this bridge demands a faith that effaces illusion and the self. The novice seeker remains attached to wealth, knowledge, and power, while the advanced seeker perceives himself in the state of la shay (nothingness). This duality renders tawakkul an immense challenge.
Tawakkul manifests in two distinct forms: popular tawakkul and mystical tawakkul. The former is prevalent among the general populace, sometimes articulated verbally and sometimes accepted through formal adherence to Gods will. This type of tawakkul is superficial and habit-based. In contrast, mystical tawakkul, which appears in two stagesnovice and advancednecessitates overcoming internal or existential impediments. The novice, lacking divine witnessing, clings to causes; the advanced seeker struggles due to the lack of anything to entrust.
This distinction is akin to the difference between a breeze stirring the oceans surface and a tempest upheaving its depths, indicative of the profoundness and scope of tawakkul in spiritual progression. Popular tawakkul is like a branch reliant on the wind, whereas mystical tawakkul is deeply rooted in the soil of faith, stretching upward toward the heavens.
The novice seeker, who has yet to experience divine witnessing, remains dependent upon material and apparent causes such as wealth, knowledge, and power. This dependency forms a veil preventing him from entrusting reliance to the Cause of Causes. He trusts what is seen and hesitates to sacrifice what is unseen. This fear of relinquishment stems from attachment to the ego and desires, thereby weakening his faith.
This predicament resembles a farmer who, rather than trusting the heavenly rain, clings to his scant water well. Fearful of drought, he dares not abandon the well and instead considers himself the manager of causes, forsaking reliance on the boundless mercy of God. Such a veil ensnares him in a cycle of illusion and doubt.
The advanced seeker, having attained the station of existential annihilation and recognising that all derives from God, confronts a distinct challenge. He perceives himself as devoid of anything to delegate to the Divine Trustee. This absence complicates tawakkul, for agency requires something to assign. If all is from God, what does the seeker have to entrust?
This state is akin to a lover emptied of all before the Beloved, with nothing left to offer. The advanced seeker stands at the threshold of fatalism, yet tawakkul is not passivity; rather, it is an active participation in entrusting affairs to God. He must realise that God Himself commands:
"So rely upon Allah; indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]." (Al-Imrn: 159)
The commentator, emphasising that all emanates from God, falls into the error of determinism and regards tawakkul as formalistic or impossible. This view neglects the seekers role and reduces agency to passivity. If all is from God, how can the principal become the agent? Such an interpretation distorts the meaning of agency and deprives tawakkul of its true essence.
This viewpoint is akin to a mariner who abandons the helm to the waves, under the pretext that all is in Gods hand. Yet, tawakkul is not relinquishing the helm, but entrusting direction to the Wise Captain while the seeker remains present on board.
Tawakkul entails delegating tasks beyond the seekers capacity or means to God. God, as nam al-wakl (the Best Trustee), executes these affairs in the most perfect mannersuch as nurturing future generations beyond the seekers ability. This delegation constitutes a reciprocal divine-human exchange: God becomes the seekers agent (tanzl), undertaking what surpasses his ability; concurrently, the seeker becomes Gods agent (ud), fulfilling divine obligations.
This exchange resembles a rice trade: the seeker sells his limited rice (limited affairs) to God, who returns superior rice (divine outcomes). Or like a farmer entrusting seed to the earth and beseeching rain from the heavens. This cooperation repudiates determinism and establishes the seeker as the locus of divine manifestation.
The novice seeker, ensnared by love of self and desires, clings to causes such as wealth, knowledge, and power. These causes act as a veil, concealing God from his sight and weakening his faith. Instead of relying upon the Cause of Causes, he relies upon causes and fears abandoning them, anxious over loss of self or possessions.
This attachment resembles a merchant who, rather than trusting his principal partner, clings to perishable goods and fears entrusting his trade. This fear ensnares him in a cycle of illusion and doubt, rendering tawakkul difficult.
True faith arises in the seekers heart when he attains greater certainty in m inda Allh (what is with God) than in what is held in his own hands. What is with God is enduring and free from corruption, whereas causes are transientlike wealth which may perish overnight. The Quran declares:
"What is with you will end, and what is with Allah is enduring." (An-Nahl: 96)
This certainty resembles a lamp dispelling the darkness of illusion, guiding the seeker toward eternal light. He no longer prides himself on his virtue or clings to his wealth, for he recognises all as but straw before Gods mercy.
The novice seeker relies upon reason tainted by illusion, asserting, God has granted reason and power, so there is no need for tawakkul. Yet this reason perceives only the outward aspects, remaining oblivious to the inner reality. Like an engineer unable to detect a defective well, limited reason cannot apprehend the inward workings. Tawakkul, akin to istikhrah (divine consultation), entrusts the inner affairs to God.
This limitation resembles a lamp illuminating only a few steps ahead, impotent in distant darkness. By means of tawakkul, the seeker entrusts this lamp to a divine light that illumines all places.
The salik (seeker), in an inferential or tanzl capacity, possesses a distinct and pivotal role. This can be illustrated by the expression By the power and might of God, I stand and sit
(Bi awli Allh wa quwwatihi aqmu wa aqudu). God delegates certain affairs in a shared capacity to the salik, thereby holding them accountable. This role categorically negates fatalism and endows the salik with responsibility for their actions. The noble verse لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ (l Imrn: 128; Foldvand translation: You have no control over the matter whatsoever
) signifies the negation of the primacy of command from the salik, rather than an absolute negation of their role.
The absolutism embedded in the phrase Al-amru laysa biyadihim
(Nothing is in their hands) leads directly to fatalism. However, God has entrusted certain matters to the salik in a participatory manner, thus rendering them accountable and refuting fatalism. This divine delegation is akin to shared ownership, wherein each partner bears responsibility commensurate with their share.
This critique can be likened to asserting that while the sea constitutes the entirety of the ship, the helmsman must nevertheless steer the rudder. Fatalism denies the helmsmans agency, but tawakkul situates them as a locus of Divine manifestation.
Within the discipline of ul al-fiqh (Islamic jurisprudential principles), when the apparent meaning of a verse such as لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ conflicts with reason and rational demonstration, it mandates exegetical reconciliation. The verse is to be interpreted as a negation of the origination of command by the salik, not as an endorsement of absolute fatalism. This hermeneutic affirms the inferential role of the salik while negating fatalism.
This principle functions as a key unlocking the hermeneutic complexities of the Qurnic text, revealing its inner meanings in the light of intellect and revelation. With this interpretation, the salik is emancipated from the snares of fatalism and is enabled to proceed on the path of tawakkul.
لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ negates the primacy of command from the salik but does not affirm absolute fatalism; it substantiates the saliks inferential role within tawakkul.The third section explored the limitations of reason tainted by illusion and the inferential role of the salik in tawakkul. Reason, by its limited capacity, perceives only the outward appearances of affairs, whereas tawakkul entrusts the inner reality to God. The verse لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ, when correctly interpreted, repudiates fatalism and confirms the saliks role. The metaphors of lamp and shadow elucidate these concepts with clarity.
Tawakkul is likened to the exchange of rice: the salik offers their rice (limited affairs) to God, and God, in return, bestows upon them superior rice (divine outcomes). This exchange exemplifies mutual cooperation and negates fatalism. God sometimes executes tasks directly and at other times entrusts them to the salik, akin to a merchant entrusting part of a trade to a partner.
This metaphor reflects tawakkuls true nature: the salik is neither omnipotent nor powerless; they act meaningfully in the illumination of the Divine presence.
Reliance upon causes resembles a deceptive mudarabah contract that leads the salik to ruin. The lowly salik, instead of relying on God, clings to causes such as wealth, and from fear of loss, hesitates to entrust matters. This misplaced trust is like handing treasure to a thief who plunders openly in broad daylight.
This metaphor illustrates the saliks error as a consuming fire that incinerates their assets. Tawakkul, by contrast, guides them to an inexhaustible spring of purity and blessing.
Tawakkul follows steadfastness. The lowly salik, even after the vision of God in their steadfastness, still hesitates to rely fully on Him. They have beheld God but, out of fear of causes, delay in placing full trust. This hesitation resembles a corridor leading to the gate of truth, yet lacking the courage to enter.
Tawakkul is the step taken after enduring storms; with this step, the salik moves from reliance on causes to reliance on the ultimate Cause, finding repose in Divine protection.
The fourth section utilised the metaphors of rice and mudarabah to elucidate the reality of tawakkul and the error in reliance on causes. Tawakkul, following steadfastness, leads the salik to certainty in God. These metaphors served as illuminating beacons on the path of tawakkul.
This treatise, by revisiting the lectures of Nokounam (may his secret be sanctified) in session 248 of Manzil al-Sirn, explicated the chapter on tawakkul in the mystical path. Tawakkul represents the most arduous station for the general seeker due to attachment to causes, and for the advanced seeker due to existential annihilation; it is an immense challenge. A critique of the fatalistic interpretation of the commentator revealed that tawakkul is not passivity but rather a Divine-human participatory exchange. The noble verse لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الْأَمْرِ شَيْءٌ, when correctly interpreted, affirms the inferential role of the salik and negates fatalism. Causes are a veil for the lowly salik, and certainty in what is with God
directs them to tawakkul. The metaphors of rice, mudarabah, and agriculture beautifully illuminated these principles.
Tawakkul is a bridge conveying the salik from the ocean of causes to the shore of certainty. This station not only fortifies faith but also situates the salik as a locus of Divine manifestation.
Supervised by: Sadegh Khademi