121
The Æêfí Path2
The Definition of “Æêfism”
all of which amount to much the same thing. Different definitions have been given of “æêfism” (taæawwuf) and “gnosticism” (‘irfàn),3Taæawwuf is the journey of the soul in search of the Truth, as well as its arrival. This is the renunciation of everything but God. It is paying complete attention and having a heart-felt connection to Him. It is infinite resignation to the point that one sees nothing but God with the vision of the heart, to the point that all other beings are seen as mere shadows of the Divine, until the state is reached in which “There is no being but God,” and “There is nothing but Him (Hê).”
The Origin of Æêfism
There are a number of different ideas concerning the origin of Æêfism, even with regard to the nation and religion in which it originated. Some say that it began in India, while others claim that it began in Iran among the Zoroastrians, and still others propose that its origins are to be found in the Platonism of ancient Greece. However, with respect to the definition of Æêfism or gnosticism given above, its origin is to be found in the very truth of religion itself. The quest for the Divine is an inherent aspect of man’s very nature and is not confined to any particular nation or religion. Hence, it is not necessary that any religion or nation should derive these ideas from another; all of them have drunk from the same source. In Islam, Æêfism or gnosticism is the inward dimension of the religion, like the kernel of a nut whose shell is the outward rules (sharí‘ah) and whose kernel is the path (ìaríqah) whose principles have been handed down from the Prophet, to the Imàms, and from them to their authorized shaykhs.
The Etymology of “Æêfism”
Scholars have different theories about the etymology of æêfí. Some say it has its etymological root in the word æêf (wool), while others say it is from æafà (purity), and still others say it is from æuffah (porch) and the sincere companions who used to gather at the porch of the Prophet’s house, and there are yet others who claim that the word is derived from the Greek sophia (wisdom).
There are also different theories about when the term became current. There are reports of the sayings attributed to the Prophet and Imàm ‘Alí from which it can be concluded that the word taæawwuf was used by them. However, most scholars are of the opinion that the word was first introduced in the middle of the second century of the Islamic era (toward the end of the ninth century, C.E.). It is thought that the first man who was known as a Æêfí was Abê Hàshim Kêfí. Whether any of these theories are correct or not, the truth of Æêfism, as we have already mentioned, is not something separate from Islam but has been present with Islam from its inception, although the word may have gained currency later.
The History of Æêfism and the Æêfí Orders in Islam
After the Prophet, the Imàms and their authorized shaykhs spread Æêfism. The chains of authorization may be traced through the shaykhs to the Imàms, and then through Imàm ‘Alí to the Prophet. For the most part, the Æêfí saints practiced dissimulation (taqiyyah) with respect to the Islamic religious law and apparently followed the school of jurisprudence that was dominant in their areas of residence. During the sixth and seventh centuries of the Islamic era (the twelfth and thirteenth centuries C.E.) the way of Æêfism, or faqr (spiritual poverty), reached the height of its popularity and Æêfí saints like Ibn ‘Arabí, Aììàr and Rêmí wrote important books about the mysteries of gnosticism (‘irfàn) and the ‘journey toward God’ (sulêk).
The Ni‘matullàhí Order of Æêfism
One of the most famous saints in the history of Æêfism was Sayyid Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí (A.H. 731-831/1338-1428 C.E.), and all Shí‘í orders of Æêfism trace their ancestry to the his Order, which has subsequently become known as the Ni‘matullàhí Order. The uninterrupted record of the chain of authorization of this Order can be traced to Ma‘rêf Karkhí, who was the authorized shaykh of Imàm Rièà (A.H. 148-202/765-818 C.E.).
Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí is the author of more than three hundred works about the mysteries of Æêfism according to a Shí‘í interpretation. He was the renewer of this Order, and most of the Æêfís of his day in the other orders submitted to him. Most of the Shí‘í Æêfís after him have followed his way and have even followed his style and method in their writings.
In more recent centuries, one of the vicegerents of Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí is Åàjj Mullà Sulìàn Muåammad Gunàbàdí,4 whose spiritual title is Sulìàn ‘Alíshàh (A.H. 1251-1327/1835-1909 C.E.). He was one of the most famous Æêfis (‘urafà) and ‘ulamà in Iran. His chain of authorization has been recorded from Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí. During his time, the Ni‘matullàhí Order became more famous and popular. He is also the author of many books on Islamic, especially Æêfí topics, including an exegesis (tafsír) of the Qur’àn called Bayàn al-Sa‘àdah (four volumes, in Arabic).
His successor was Åaèrat5 Åajj Mulla Nêr ‘Alíshàh (d. A.H. 1337/1918 C.E.), who in turn was succeeded by Åaèrat Åajj Muåammad Åasan Æàlih ‘Alíshàh (d. A.H. 1386/1966 C.E.), author of Æàlih’s Advice,6 followed by Åaèrat Åajj Sulìàn Åusayn Tàbandeh Gunàbàdí, whose spiritual title is Rièà ‘Alíshàh. He is the great grandson of Åaèrat Sulìàn ‘Alíshàh, and is also one of the famous Islamic Æêfis and ‘ulamà. He has written many books, including commentaries on parts of the Qur’àn.7
Characteristic Teachings of the Ni‘matullàhí Gunàbàdí Order
(1) Members of the Order are required to observe the religious law (sharí‘ah) strictly, and to respect the external aspects of the religion, even to the extent that they are to avoid religiously discouraged activities (makrêhàt), and should perform acts that are recommended (mustaåabbàt) regularly including maintenance of ritual purity, performance of prayers at the recommended times, vigil in the early dawn, and recitation of the Qur’àn.
(2) Members are required to work for a living, and to avoid idleness. Even the masters of the Order have often engaged in farming to support themselves. Those who are addicted to opium and other drugs are not admitted to the Order, and smoking opium is expressly forbidden. Despite the emphasis on gainful employment, work is forbidden from Thursday evening until Friday afternoon, which time is reserved for ritual observation in accordance with the injunction of the Qur’àn (in Sêrah Jum‘ah).
(3) The followers of the Order are enjoined to respect the followers of other orders and the adherents of other religions, and to treat them with kindness. They are to accord praise and blame to the deeds of others and not to the persons who perform them. A wayfarer (sàlik) on the spiritual path is to obey the order to be in servitude to God, to be kind and benevolent to people in general, and to demonstrate humility and to be at the service of the other wayfarers on the spiritual path.
(4) As far as possible the number of wives should be limited to one. Divorce is also allowed only in case it is absolutely impossible for the couple to live together, or in case the religious life of the partners would otherwise be corrupted.
(5) Respect is to be accorded to the ‘ulamà who are authorized to narrate sayings of the Prophet and Imàms and to propagate the religious law, because it is believed that the religious law (sharí‘ah) is the basis of the spiritual way (ìaríqah).
(6) The followers of this Order are not permitted to engage in politics or in political parties under the auspices of Æêfism.
(7) There is no special distinctive dress for the members of the Order so as to avoid causing divisions among the Muslims. Æêfism is considered as something spiritual which does not require any special outward appearance.
(8) The masters of the Order believe that religious authorization (idhn) is required in both external religious affairs (sharí‘ah) and in matters of the way (ìaríqah). Without such authorization (idhn), occupation in religious affairs is prohibited. The documented chain of authorization must be traced through the Imàms and through them to the Prophet. The authorization for being Master of the Order has nothing to do with scholarship, publishing books, founding khànaqàhs,8 or any other socio-cultural affairs. The Prophet of Islam, may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be with him and his folk, himself was illiterate, but, as is stated by Allah, the Exalted in the Qur’àn: (Allah knows best where to place His message) (6:124).
Shí‘ism, Æêfism and Gnosticism (‘Irfàn)9
“My Lord! Expand my breast for me, and make easy for me my work, and loosen the knot of my tongue that they may understand my speech.”10
Concerning Shí‘ism and Æêfism—two words denoting the same reality—many mistakes have been made by contemporary scholars, especially Westerners. These mistakes have either been made out of ignorance or were intentional. From the start, the mission of some of them was to create corruption within Shí‘ism and to instigate sectarianism within Islam, as well as to provide information for their own colonialist apparatus. Many of them came to the same conclusion sincerely, although they were exploited by others.
The first mistake that they made about this problem was with regard to what they called the date of the historical appearance of Shí‘ism. Some say that it began after the passing away of Imam ‘Alí, peace be with him. Others say that it appeared after the martyrdom of Imam Åusayn, peace be with him. There are other opinions of this sort, as well. Their mistake is a confusion between the appearance of a name with the appearance of its denotation. While a name can appear or gain currency at any time, this plays no role in the main issue. When a school of thought is at issue, one should not pay attention to mere labels. Just as the Shí‘ites were sometimes called the Shí‘ites of ‘Alí and sometimes the Shu‘ubites,11 for the Shí‘ites clung to this verse of the Qur’an in which God says, (O people! Verily We have created you of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes (shu‘êb) that you may recognize each other. Verily, the most honored of you with God is the most God-wary.)12 This was because there were non-Arabs who converted to Islam and who expected no difference to be made between them and the Arabs. Unfortunately however, among the caliphs, except for Imam ‘Alí and Imam Åasan, such differences were more or less made. In reaction to this, the Shí‘ites referred to this verse. There was also a period during which they were called Ràfièí, meaning “those who abandoned their religion”. In this way, the Shí‘ites were called by a variety of names, but, as was mentioned, the appearance of a name is no reason for the previous absence of its denotation.
We have to see the difference between the Shí‘ite and Sunní views within Islam, and what are their principles so that we can discern when Shí‘ism originated on the basis of the appearance of its principles.
After the passing away of the Prophet, ‘Alí, ‘Abbàs the uncle of the Prophet, and perhaps some of the other Hashimites busied themselves with his burial. While they were busy with this, a group gathered in a place known as Saqífah Baní Sà‘idah, and appointed Abê Bakr as caliph in a process narrated in history. Abê Bakr thus became the first caliph. After Abê Bakr, ‘Umar became caliph, and after him ‘Uthmàn. The fourth was ‘Alí, peace be with him.
From the very beginning, after the passing away of the Prophet, those who disapproved of the event of Saqífah Baní Sà‘idah said that just as the Prophet was not selected by us, but was chosen by God, likewise, his successor should not be selected by the people, and the people have no right to do that, but it should by according to God’s will. They continued that since our Prophet is the last of the prophets, there is no further revelation, but because whatever the Prophet said amounts to revelation, as is explicitly affirmed by the verse (Nor does he speak of his own inclination. It is naught but a revelation revealed unto him,)13 whoever the Prophet appoints is appointed by God Himself. The Prophet appointed ‘Alí to be his successor at various times during his mission. Therefore, the successor of the Prophet is ‘Alí, not anyone appointed by the people.
Those Sunnites who accept the event of Saqífah say that since the people were gathered there and chose the caliph, their choice is valid, and he is the caliph (although, this position has also been subject to criticism, since all the people or the chiefs and decision makers were not present).
Historically speaking, there is no doubt but that after the Prophet, Abê Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmàn, then ‘Alí, and then Imam Åasan became caliph. But the Shí‘ites say that the real succession to the Prophet, that is, his spiritual caliphate, is the right, or rather, the duty of ‘Alí. The major difference and disagreement arises from this point. The followers of Abê Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmàn were named Sunnites, while the followers of ‘Alí and Imam Åasan were called Shí‘ites. So, the main difference between the Shí‘ites and the Sunnites is that latter allow the people to select the caliph while the former believe that the caliphate should be determined according to the order and decree of the Prophet.
It is obvious that ‘Alí was appointed after the Prophet, and since there must always be a divine representative on the face of the earth, after ‘Alí, whoever he appoints is the caliph, and so on and so forth. If we take this difference into consideration, we will see that the basis of Shí‘ism came into sight immediately after the passing away of the Prophet, but one cannot say that it came into existence then. The difference was already present, but during the lifetime of the Prophet, it did not emerge because there was no case for it. After the passing away of the Prophet, the different inferences became apparent.
Thus, Shí‘ism appeared right from the time of the passing away of the Prophet. But later, Shí‘ite and Sunnite Islam absorbed other materials and ideas as they moved forward through the course of history so that each of them was transformed into a system of rules and ideas. The basic principles of Shí‘ism are those mentioned above. We could say that every poet, writer and Æêfí is a Shí‘ite who believes in the walàyah14 of ‘Alí, that is, that ‘Alí is the immediate and true successor of the Prophet, and that this is his exclusive right. Taking this point into consideration, people like Sa‘dí, Åàfiî and Rumi, and in general, all the great Æêfis were Shí‘ites.
If they differed according to their jurisprudential precepts, this difference is irrelevant to the basic issue, just as there are numerous issues of Islamic law about which Shí‘ite and Sunní jurists disagree that are also among the Shí‘ite jurists themselves. However, the basic point is that anyone who believes in the walàyah of ‘Alí, his successorship and that of the succeeding Imams may be considered Shí‘ite. Therefore, as we have mentioned, Shí‘ism appeared right after the passing away of the Prophet, although its teachings were already present. This was not apparent because there was no opponent to deny them.
When foreign non-Muslim scholars investigate an idea, they do not engage the school of thought itself and its principles; rather, they focus on its outward phenomena. Therefore, since ‘Alí sometimes helped the caliphs to carry out the rules of Islamic law, such scholars do not consider this period to be that of the existence or emergence of Shí‘ism. They take as their criterion for the emergence of Shí‘ism the time when differences arose between ‘Alí and the caliphs. Of course, this mistake has also insinuated itself among Muslim researchers, especially those who are ignorant of the basic spirituality of the first Muslims. Throughout history there have always been numerous disagreements between these two ideas—the Shí‘ite idea of appointment of the leader, and the Sunnite idea of election. The caliphs were constantly busy with destroying the Shí‘ite idea through various means, and they even persecuted the proponents of this idea, the Shí‘ites, so that they practiced dissimulation (taqiyyah) during the entire period of the Imams, and even later. This is the cause of the encouragement of dissimulation among the Shí‘ites. In this regard there are famous stories, such as that about ‘Alí ibn Yaqìín who was a minister of Harên al-Rashíd and practiced dissimulation.
In this way, a number of the Shí‘ites were forced to retirement and asceticism in order not to be found out, and so that they could organize their ideas and beliefs and guide others. So, they became famous as ascetics (zuhhàd). Later, they found another name in the history of Islam, that name was Æêfi, and little by little the term taæawwuf (Æêfism) became current. It makes no difference what the etymology of the word Æêfism is. What is usually said and referred to, is that taæawwuf stems from the root æêf, meaning wool, and that the meaning of taæawwuf is wearing woolen garments. Æêfis usually wore wool and it is reported that the prophets also dressed in wool. Since wool is especially coarse, and it is uncomfortable to the body, one cannot sleep much with it, and is kept awake to pray. It is from this that a story in the book Tadhkirah al-Awliyya15 was written, according to which someone (Sufiyàn Thêrí) came across Imam Ja‘far Æàdiq, peace be with him, on the road. He saw that the Imam was wearing expensive cloth woven of silk and wool (khazz),16 so, he came to him and after greeting him said, “O son of the Apostle of Allah! It is not appropriate for you, as the son of the Apostle of Allah, to wear such luxurious soft clothing.” The Imam took his hand and placed it under his sleeve. He saw that the Imam was wearing a coarse woolen undergarment that irritated his arms. The Imam said, “This one is for God,” as he indicated the woolen garment; “and that one is for the people,” he said, pointing to the soft garment (khazz). The very occurrence of such a story and such an encounter, even if we do not believe it really happened, in the writing of Shaykh ‘Aììàr, which says that the woolen garment is for God, indicates that the great Æêfis, the head of whom at that time was Haèrat Ja‘far Æàdiq, considered the rough woolen garment to be a sign of worship and preparation for worship.
In any case, it is apparently more suitable to take the word Æêfism (taæawwuf) as being from the root æêf (wool). In fact, it is another name that has been applied to this group, [that is, the Shí‘ites] which has gained currency. In the same way, we see that today, for example, in a country whose government is against Islam and that proclaims itself to be secular, they disband an Islamic party and destroy its name; but the same group under a different name forms another party, and for a while continues its activities. Shí‘ism has proceeded in the same manner, that is, in the history of Islam, Shí‘ism has shown itself under another name, the name of Æêfism.
The basis of Æêfism from the beginning, as regards doctrines, was that the successor of the Prophet is ‘Alí, and that among the companions of the Prophet, ‘Alí was the most excellent. However, in practice they had various styles of life, in the same way as the Shí‘ites believe that every age has its own requirements. ‘Alí, for example, had an outwardly humble life of poverty. In spite of the fact that he founded many palm groves through his own labor, he endowed all of them and did not make use of them himself. In contrast, Imam Ja‘far Æàdiq had an outward life of luxury and wealth. It is up to the Imam, the great person of his time, to decide according to the demands of the times how to live.
Thus, in the course of history we find that sometimes Æêfism takes the form of asceticism and seclusion, and at other times, or in the case of certain persons, it appears as social activity and struggle. In the same way, we have observed different styles of life through the course of history, but none of these is the basis of Æêfism. The foundation of Æêfism is nothing but executorship (waæayah)17 and walàyah, not other extraneous matters. The other matters came about through the course of history because of the demands of the times. The same error that has arisen regarding Shí‘ism and the word tashayyu‘ has also appeared regarding Æêfism. Some say that for the first time it appeared in the second/eighth century. Accordingly, every writer seems to have his own theory, however, Æêfism is the very essence and meaning of Shí‘ism.
In the history of Shí‘ism, some people paid more attention to the rules of Islamic law, and presented their theories in this regard. They are the fuqahà (jurists of Islamic law). Another group of Shí‘ites gave priority to doctrinal issues and to the way of perfection toward God. They are the Sufis. In fact, they are, as the expression goes, like the two arms of one body. However, many times, without noticing this, some hold that there is opposition between these two groups. Many orientalists do the same, because the more opposition there is among them, the more the orientalists benefit. The basis and spirit of Islam is in Shí‘ism and the spirit of Shí‘ism is in Æêfism. Æêfism is nothing other than Shí‘ism, and real Shí‘ism is nothing other than Æêfism.
It is here that researchers have found another ground, but a ground that also creates schisms. Only God knows whether this was deliberate or unintentional. In any case, some have said that Æêfism was created in order to destroy Shí‘ism and to spoil Islam. They made some pseudo-Æêfis their criterion, and they referred to some pretenders to Æêfism who either paid no attention to spiritual matters, or whose links to their source was broken. Since in Æêfism, according to the principles of Shí‘ism, only those who have been explicitly appointed by the previous guide and pír,18 deserve leadership and guidance of the people, and all are agreed that this permission for guidance will continue until the day of the resurrection. However, the twelver Shí‘ites believe that during the occultation of the Imam, one who is appointed by the Imam only has the right to make bay‘at19 with the believers. He also has the right to appoint his successor, so that this chain continued. Therefore, one whose permission reaches from hand to hand to the Imam has legal and legitimate leadership and guidance, and otherwise his chain is broken. How many there have been whose chain was broken but based on their own personal opinions they propounded matters as Æêfism that are no part of Æêfism. There are a small number of researchers who have noticed this. For example, in a book that has been translated into Farsi, Mystics and Commisars,20 the authors, Alexandre Bennigsen and S. Enders Wimbush, review Æêfism in the former Soviet Union and say that Æêfism is neither a sect nor a movement of renegades, but is an inseparable part of true Islam. Western analysts, in particular, are apt to close their eyes to this reality, and they repeatedly refer to Æêfism as a phenomenon foreign to Islam, and even as a deviation from it. Since in the former Soviet Union forces opposing religion were in power in the government, the researcher who investigates the conditions in the Soviet Union will come to this conclusion [that Æêfism is not separate from Islam].
Another argument often mentioned by some orientalists is that Shí‘ism, and according to others, Æêfism, was a way in which Iranians combated the governance of the Arabs after the Arabs conquered their country and defeated their royal dynasty and government. They argue that it was in this way that the Iranians showed their reaction, and that the history of much of the Æêfí resistance makes it clear that it was this that led to the liberation of Iran from the chains of the foreigners. However, it should be noticed that it was not the Arabs but Islam that conquered Iran. For example, when the armies of Islam came to Iran, they succeeded in their conquest until the city of Rayy, and the people became Muslims. Afterward, everyone accepted Islam willingly.
A comparison of two matters paves the way to an understanding of the cause of this. On the one hand, it is narrated that Anêshíravàn21 invited the rich merchants of the bazaar and asked them to lend him money to carry out the war. After he finished his speech, a shoemaker said, “I am ready to give you the entire amount you need, not as a loan, but as a gift. There is only one condition, that you allow my son to become literate and to study.” Anêshíravàn became angry: “I should allow the son of a shoemaker to study!?” He did not accept. On the other hand, Islam commands “Searching for knowledge is obligatory for all Muslims.” Likewise, after the Battle of Badr, when the captives were brought and their families came to pay ransom for them, the Prophet said, “Any of these captives who teach reading and writing to seven Muslims will be freed.”
Compare these two matters—aside from the spiritual aspect, if you just look at the outward aspect—when two armies, one with the former sort of thinking and one with the latter, confront one another, which will be victorious?
In any case, it is Islam that conquered Iran. Iranians were always fond of Islam and the Muslims. All their revolutions made against the governments of the foreigners, if they were carried out while preserving Islam, they reached their aims, like the rising of Abê Muslim Khorasàní, or the rising of the Sarbedàràn [against the Mongols], or the Safavids, the latter two of which were Æêfis, and others. Those who made a revolution only for the independence of Iran but who were really against Islam, were not victorious. People like Hàshim ibn Åikam (known as al-Muqanna‘), Màzíyàr, Bàbak and Afshín are of this kind. For this reason, their dynasties did not last and many of them disappeared after a short time. There is not even a trace of their thinking left. However, the orientalists ignore all these facts, and consider Æêfism and Shí‘ism as Iranian uprisings against Arabs and they interpret them as weapons of this struggle, although Æêfism is the same as Shí‘ism and Shí‘ism is the same as Islam. Historical evidence for this is found in the fact that the uprising of the Safavids caused Shí‘ism to dominate Iran.
Another matter that causes confusion and mistakes about the issue is that it is said that Æêfism is something other than ‘irfàn. True, with regard to the words, they are two things: Our expressions differ, but Your beauty is one.22 This doubt was created long ago; even many of the opponents of Æêfism who wrote refutations of it have expressed their approval of ‘irfàn, even as they condemned Sêfism. They admit that some scholars consider ‘irfàn and Æêfism to be the same, but they reject this view.
Now, let’s briefly see what ‘irfàn is. Literally, ‘irfàn is knowing. Knowing has different stages. For example, Abraham, peace be with him, who knew, that is, by his own innate nature (fiìrat) he understood that this world has a God, and that God governs all things, had some knowledge. When he saw a star, he said, (This is my god.) It was the bright star said to have been Sirius. But when the star set, he said, (I do not like the setting ones.)23 When the moon appeared—which, as a rule, was a full moon—he said, (This is my god.) But after it set, he again thought and said, (This also set. So, it, too, is not the God of the world.) This means that he had reached a stage in which he knew that there is a God, and that this God has power and greatness, but that in his primitive imagination he held that this God was corporeal. Then the sun rose. He said, (Certainly this is God.) It also set, and he then said, (I do turn my face toward the One Who has created the heavens and the earth.)24 At that time he recognized and understood that the God for Whom he was searching is not a body and is not corporeal, and that it is He Who created the heavens, the star, the moon and the sun.
These are gnostic (‘irfàní) stages. The most primitive stage of gnosis (‘irfàn) was that first one, in which Abraham did not know whether the God Who created him was corporeal or not; what sort of God is He? Gradually, he came to the point where God in the Qur’àn says: (In this way We showed Abraham the kingdom (malakêt) of the heavens and the earth.)25 Thus, everyone who knows God and realizes that there is a God has a degree of gnosis, because gnosis is not an absolute matter. It is something that, as the philosophers say, is graduated (tashkíkí), such as light and faith, which have degrees. It starts from the least degree, and if God grants success, it reaches higher degrees. For example, imagine someone in a desert in which there is no habitation. From a distance he sees a black spot in the clear air (this clear air should be understood as his pure intention). He only knows that it is a black spot, and to that extent he knows only that there is something there. When he goes towards it a bit, he sees that this black spot becomes a straight line. Then he recognizes, that is, he acquires gnosis, that the thing over there is a long body. If he continues further and goes forward a bit more, he sees that the body has different branches. He finds out that it is a tree with branches. As he advances further, he sees that on the branches there are spots like leaves. He notices that the tree has leaves, that is, it is alive. He sees that it shakes and rustles. He understands that it is affected by wind. By going further he realizes that there are things hanging from the tree. He realizes that the tree bears fruit. When he advances further, he sees that the fruit is apple, or such and such a fruit. Thus, he finds gnosis (‘irfàn). When he gets near to it and tastes the apple or whatever fruit there is, he finds out that it is sweet.
The same degrees of gnosis will appear for one who takes the course of knowing God. Gnosis and knowing God occurs in the same way. Therefore, when someone is called a gnostic (‘àrif) it does not mean that he has something of which others are absolutely deprived, that he has it all. Being a gnostic also has degrees. There is the gnostic and the one who is more of a gnostic. The way to reach perfect gnosis, that is, the perfection of gnosis, is called Æêfism. This means that Æêfism is the practical way of reaching gnosis (‘irfàn).
Thus, Æêfism and gnosticism (‘irfàn) are two words signifying the same thing, or they may be thought of as two sides of the same coin, or it may be said that the former shows the way and the latter the result of wayfaring. In any case, they are both one and two.
The opposition that sometimes now is claimed in Iran to exist between gnosticism and Æêfism might be due to the bad political situation. They cannot say bad things about gnosticism (‘irfàn) because so many of the great figures have appreciated it, and it is generally beloved. On the other hand, they cannot accept Æêfism because it might damage their worldly life. Hence, they say that gnosticism (‘irfàn) is something other than Æêfism. There are even people who previously were following the way of Æêfism and later became opposed to it and have written rejections of it. In order to fortify their rejections and to disassociate themselves from their pasts, they say that gnosticism (‘irfàn) is good, but that it is other than Æêfism. They continue to the extent that many of the older generation were mistaken and thought that these two were one. From this it is apparent that many of the great figures of the past have attested to this truth.