Åaèrat Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí was one of the greatest Sufis. His name is mentioned in the pages of Iranian history for various reasons. In fact, history’s pages are adorned by the existence of such men. The works and opinions of this great Æêfí can be analyzed and researched from many different angles. From the literary point of view he has produced multiple articles in prose, in which he has argued mystical issues along with pure Islamic beliefs, and has explained these very clearly. Of course, I don’t intend to enter into details here, I only mention how the subject matter of his work ranks among the intricacies and positive aspects of the history of Iranian spiritual development.

   As for poetry, he has an Abêndance of poems in which instead of devising panegyrics, again he has put his efforts into explaining the spirituality of Islam and its mystical points. Of course, in Iran’s history of literature there have been many great poets like Manêchehrí, Asjudí and Anwarí and the likes, who wrote panegyrics. From a literary point of view they are all highly valued and hold a distinguished position, and we shouldn’t forget them. But the enormous rank of Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí is as high as that of Firdausí, Sa‘dí, Mawlaví (Rumi), and Åàfiî.

   However, the most important aspect of his life, which is also what he is renowned for, is the mystical aspect, and the fact that during a period of time, he has been the qutb2 of Sufism and the dervishes, so that his followers after him became famous as the “Ni‘matullàhi Order”.

   Regarding the issue of silsilah (order)3 and the understanding of the meaning of it within the domain of Sufism, we should return to the beginning of Islam. During the time of the Messenger himself, [may Allah’s blessings and greetings be upon him and his family], there may have been differences in regard to style, taste and opinions among Muslims, but they never became cause for major disagreement, because the final decisive word, regarding every single subject, was what the noble Prophet himself would say, or what was divulged in the form of revelation. However, immediately after his death a dispute arose; in that a group of Muslims and great [men of God] such as Salmàn Fàrsí, Abê Dhar, and ‘Ammàr who had heard the holy words of the Messenger directly, from his own tongue, or indirectly, knew that ‘Alí, peace be upon him, had been assigned by the Messenger to succeed him.

   Regarding the issue of risalat (being the Messenger of God), everyone believed that the Messenger was the last Prophet of God—the “Seal of the Prophets”—and after him there would be no other messenger. Therefore, the issue of the succession of ‘Alí was regarded as one within the internal domain of Islam. A verse of the Noble Qur’àn says: O Messenger! (You are but a warner and to every nation [there is] a guide.) (13:7) Of course, this verse applies more to future times, after the Prophet. The Messenger had two aspects; one was the warner and one was the guide. The warning aspect, which pertains to prophethood, ended with the death of the Messenger. However, the guiding aspect remains until the Day of Resurrection. God ordered the Messenger to hand over to ‘Alí the duties of walàyah and guidance. Consequently, in contrast to the Companions of the Messenger who had dedicated their bay‘at4 specifically to ‘Alí, another group did not take the precious words of the Messenger as determination of his successor as being ‘Alí; and said that the purpose of his words was to show the position and rank of ‘Alí and not his assignment. They said we also accept these ranks and we regard ‘Alí as being in possession of high rank in Islam; and since the Messenger has not specified anyone for leadership of the Muslim community (ummah), we among ourselves must specify someone for leadership. Thus, they specified one of the special companions of the Prophet, Abê Bakr, for the position of Caliphate. They said whatever the ummah has decided is valid and should be put into practice.

   Due to the fact that the subject is extensive, and during the course of history hundreds of books have been written about it, I do not intend to argue the point here. The purpose is to show how these two groups were formed: the first group was called the Shi‘ites [followers] of ‘Alí. During the history [of Islam] this group has been given various names. For a period of time they were even called ràfièi. Rawàfiè is the plural of ràfièah, meaning someone who has abandoned the religion. In other times they were called shu‘êbí (O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations (shu‘êb) and tribes that ye may know one another. Verily, the most honored of you with God is the one with the most taqwà (God-wariness). Lo! Allah is the Knower, Aware.) (49:13), and their motto was: (Verily, the most honored of you with God is the one with the most taqwà (God-wariness).) (nationalist), since this group referred to this verse of the Qur’àn:

   These names were coined later, however the core of Shi‘ism comes from the Messenger’s word, who said: “For whomever I am the mawlà [leader], truly, this ‘Alí is his mawlà.” If historians and orientalists are to discuss the issue of the dates that Shi‘ism started, they should not mistake the origin of the word “Shi‘ite” with the origin of the faith itself. Of course, the word “Shi‘ite” and other terms for them developed during the course of history, but the root of Shi‘ite belief was the holy words and the rulings of the Messenger of God. ‘Alí, peace be upon him, also according to the Messenger’s recommendation and order, gave Imam Åasan the position of Imamate (leadership); also Imam Åasan [transferred this position] to Imam Åusayn, and Imam Åusayn to Imam Sajjàd, [and so on] to the end.

   Considering the fact that God in the Qur’àn said: (Verily, We sent down the reminder, and verily, We are its protector.) (15:9), the Shi‘ites have assumed that the survival of the religion [is based] on the continuation of this chain of spiritual authorization [succession]. They have believed that there is continually a guide and a leader present in the world, who is assigned to this position by the “previous hand.” Of course, the continuation of the chain of authorization for spiritual guidance is one of the instances of the above verse: (Verily, We sent down the reminder, and verily, We are its protector.) (15:9), although the wording of this verse refers to the Qur’àn itself, which is the only heavenly book that, praise be to God, has remained guarded from the tampering of enemies.

   The Imamate continued until the time of the twelfth Imam who disappeared from view. His occultation [disappearance] was also in accord with divine wisdom. There is certainly wisdom for us to fathom in the occultation. Although we do not believe in reasons or causes for divine decrees and commands, we can try to comprehend the wisdom. One aspect of the wisdom behind the occultation was that the Imam went out of the reach of the oppressive caliph. In the future too, spiritual leaders wouldn’t be within the reach of governments that would cause them trouble or would destroy them. Another aspect of this wisdom one may consider is that during the time when the Imam was present, the Shi‘ites and their sincere followers would bring all their inquiries and refer whatever problem they had to the Imam, without using their minds themselves or giving themselves the trouble of problem solving. Whatever the Imam would say would be taken as valid and to be acted upon. And thus this matter could have prevented the intellectual growth of the Shi‘ite community and Shi‘ism. But once the Imams said that all religious problems were propounded and stated in the Qur’àn and sunnah, and we have previously explained them too, the Shi‘ites became certain that the solution to all of the religious problems, until the Resurrection Day, could be found in previous reports about the Imams. Hence, they should find the answers to their problems by thinking on their own. Accordingly, the subject of ijtihàd came about and the Uæêlí School of jurisprudence was formed along these lines.5

   Here a question is posed. Since contacting the Imam is not available for all Muslims and the Shi‘ite community, what duty do people have? For example, during the occultation, what is the duty of the Muslims regarding bay‘at ma‘naví (spiritual) or bay‘at walàyatí,6 which was one of the fundamentals of the holy sharí‘ah (divine law) of Islam and was made part of sharí‘ah at the time of the Messenger and became a rule for which no verse of the glorious Qur’àn, and for which no order has been reported regarding its cancellation, considering that early on the Imams also used to personally take bay‘at [initiating followers], and even the oppressive Caliphs used to take bay‘at?

   The successors of the Messenger, the holy Imams, were always under pressure and were silenced. As such, numerous stories have been mentioned in historical works about the severe suppression during the time of the holy Imams, particularly after the time of Imam Rièà (peace be with him). For example, from the time of Imam Ja‘far Æàdiq (peace be with him) whose “akhbàr-e ‘irfàní” [reports related to Sufism] and aåkàm-e sharí‘atí [rules concerning Islamic law] have been amply reported, it is believed that in response to one of his Shi‘ite followers who called him “Amír al-Mu’minín” [Commander of the Faithful], he said: “Do not call us ‘Amír al-Mu’minín’, this title is specifically for our forefather, Imam ‘Alí.” But this same Imam, due to the extreme oppression of the times, and the fact that Mansur, the Abbasid caliph, summoned him several times in order to kill him, found no choice but to call Mansur “Amir al-Mu’minin.” Even if you refer to the stories written in Mafatih al-Jinan,7 you will find the evidence of this extreme oppression. For example, in the time of Imam ‘Alí Naqi (peace be upon him), one of the Shi‘ite followers who was enthusiastically waiting to visit with him said, “The Imam was under surveillance in his own home. I reached him in a hurry. Only a minute had passed, when he told me to leave immediately because [by staying there] I would get in trouble.” Numerous stories such as this have been reported.

   Thus, if the caliphs were to find out that the Imams were taking bay‘at with their followers, the life of the Imam, and even the lives of all the Shi‘ites around them would be in danger—regardless of the fact that the bay‘at was not for governance or gathering supporters. Hence, the caliphs were constantly watching the Imams. And accordingly, the Imams had to specify representatives to take bay‘at on their behalf, and these representatives in turn were also often authorized to assign representatives [of their own]. Similarly, Imam Ja‘far Sadiq assigned Bayazid Bastami as his agent for taking bay‘at. Shaykh Ma‘ruf Karkhi, who was the disciple of Ja‘far Sadiq, obtained his authorization and permission later on during the time of Imam Reza. Due to the oppression at that time and lack of access to the Imam, Ma‘ruf Karkhi obtained authorization to specify a successor for himself, as well. It is quite obvious that, the successor had to be verified by the Imam of the time. Thus, with the approval of the current Imam, Shaykh Ma‘ruf Karkhi appointed Shaykh Sarri Saqati. Also Sarri Saqati, again with the approval of the Imam, appointed Junayd Baghdadi. Junayd was authorized by the living Imam, the twelfth Imam, for bay‘at manavi. He had authority and permission to specify a successor during the time of the Occultation. Thus, he specified a successor who was Shaykh Abê ‘Alí Rudbari.

   The issue of specifying the successor in Sufism is a fundamental principle, that is, no one without being authorized by the previous pir,8 can reach the stage of guidance, and even the training of each salik [traveler on the path] depends upon the fact that he or she submits wholeheartedly9 to the pir. This succession and sequence of authorization of masters and spiritual guides in Sufism has been commonly termed silsilah. Of course, during the course of history, these spiritual representatives, who take bay‘at have been called by different names, such as, qutb, shaykh, pir, murshid, and others.

   In this chain of spiritual authorization or silsilah, whenever one of the shaykhs has had a prominent characteristic, the silsilah has become popular through his name. For example, the salasil-e Ma‘rufiyah are those orders that originated from Shaykh Ma‘ruf Karkhi. Or since Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí found a prominent position and significance in the history of Sufism, the Ma‘rufiyah silsilah came to be called the silsilah Ni‘matullàhi. Similarly, along the same lines, towards the end of the thirteenth century (A.H.) [approximately early twentieth century], the late Hajj Mulla Sulìàn Muhammad Baydukhti Gonabadi, titled “Sulìàn ‘Alí Shàh,” held a special social, spiritual, and scholarly position. Thus, the silsilah after him was called “Ni‘matullàhi Gonabadi.”

   The true salàsil, which were numerous in the past, all trace their authorizations back to Imam ‘Alí. This is due to the fact that the principle of Sufism is based on the fact that each successor must be authorized by the previous hand. This chain of authorization of the shaykhs, according to the beliefs of the true followers of Sufism, continues until the day of resurrection. However, only the orders that are traced to an Imam are Walíd, and these orders all trace back to ‘Alí (peace be upon him), because all the orders have originated from ‘Alí who had permission from the Messenger himself. Basically, no one after the Messenger made any claim regarding a special authorization from the Messenger. Even Abê Bakr, with all his greatness and the high position he held among Muslims, never claimed that the Messenger appointed him as his successor. However ‘Alí (peace be upon him), from the beginning announced that he was the true successor and caliph of the Messenger.

   Thus, in regard to Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí a question is posed that requires much discussion and analysis, as to whether he was a Shi‘ite or a Sunni.

   First we should consider who is a Shi‘ite? Who is a Sunni? During the course of history in every dispute among people—whether religious, political, or social—always the group that for whatever reason was more powerful and overcame it’s opponents found pejorative titles and nicknames for the defeated side; and every possible negative characteristic that could be thought of is normally is summed up in these names. For example, in the history of Islam the words mulhid10 and malahida were taken to signify all of the negative qualities that people could associate with a word, so that they could easily and at once defeat a person or a group of people by calling them “mulhid.” Of course, there might have been some characteristics that fit, but they were not certain and should not have been generalized. 

   The words “Shi‘ite” and “Sunni” were also coined on the basis of the disputes between the two groups. Every day they increased the differences between them, they even added issues that are irrelevant to being Shi‘ite or Sunni. For example, while at the beginning there were no disputes about the date of birth, death, and migration of the Messenger, and even in the book Uæêl al-Kàfí11 regarding the Messenger’s biography it is stated that the birth and death were on the twelfth of Rabí‘ al-Awwal, but later on, in the course of history, other differing narrations were reported, so that the Shi‘ites, since then, have taken note and acted upon those reports, which called the birth on the seventeenth of Rabí‘ al-Awwal, because they considered these reports more credible. Of course, there is nothing to prevent different historians from reporting the dates of historical events differently; this has been a feature of history writing, at least among the early historians. For example, if you refer to books on the history of literature, you will find many disputes among historians regarding the birth and death of poets as well, although the dispute is irrelevant to the character of the poets themselves or their poetry. Accordingly, believing in the birth of the honorable Messenger to be the seventeenth of Rabí‘ al-Awwal does not necessarily classify one as a Shi‘ite, or if someone says it is the twelfth of Rabí‘ al-Awwal, he does not necessarily become a Sunni—this argument has no relevance to being a Shi‘ite or a Sunni. The main and primary difference between Shi‘ite and Sunni is what Shi‘ites believe: the successor of the Messenger, and essentially, the successor of the representative of God is always assigned. That is, succession is based on the selection of the prior representative, whereas Sunnis say the leadership of the ummah must be left for the review and election of experts and influential people. In any case, whoever believes in ‘Alí as the successor of the Messenger, even though he has no choice but to accept the historical fact that Abê Bakr became the Caliph, is regarded a Shi‘ite, for although ‘Alí did not oppose the government openly, he was against this kind of practice.

   Of course, later on with regard to issuing of religious precepts and rulings on matters of jurisprudence there were disagreements among the Shi‘ites and the Sunnis and even occasionally, among the Shi‘ite mujtahids12 or among the Sunni mujtahids. In the early centuries there were more differences of opinion among the Sunni jurists about matters pertaining to religious precepts. As history books indicate, at one time there were five hundred mujtahids in Baghdad each of whom would issue his own legal opinion. Hence, the caliphs of the time decided to reduce or eliminate these widespread differences. Accordingly, among the greatest jurists who had larger numbers of followers, six were accepted as mujtahids: Abê Åanifa, Shàfi‘í, Màlik, Aåmad Åanbal, Ìabarí, and Abê Dawêd. It was announced that every one should only follow them. Gradually, Ìabarí and Abê Dawêd were cast aside and the leaders of the Sunnis were limited to these four persons. However, Islam is not just precepts and is not limited to them. Islamic law is one of the pillars of Islam, but another important pillar is dogma.

   Therefore, these differences in juridical precepts do not cause differences in the religion of the faithful—as to make one a Muslim and the other a non-Muslim. Thus, when the Shi‘ites are called “ràfièi,” meaning those who have abandoned religion; certainly if those who were known as ràfièi were truly ràfièi, they would not be accepted by the Shi‘ites or the Sunnis. The truth of the matter is that this word was coined in order to label the Shi‘ites, and declare a Shi‘ite as a ràfièi, although the person had never abandoned religion.

   Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí was also in such social circumstances. Among the poetry from his youth or the times of “irshàd” [guidance] there are many verses in praise of ‘Alí (peace be with him). Of course, the present scholars will certainly talk amply about these poems; and in order to avoid a lengthy speech I will not mention them here. However, during the time that he lived near Åaramayn Sharífayn [Mecca and Medina] and he was under the training of his master, Shaykh ‘Abdullah Yàfi‘í, the Muslim community there required that he formally condemn the ràfièis. This is the reason he has expressed odium toward the ràfièisràfièi with the connotation that their opponents used to state. The reason being, that hostility with Caliphs, which according to adversaries was among the characteristics of ràfièis, is not among the pillars of Shi‘ism. in some poems. Of course, he was a Shi‘ite, but he was not a

   We all consider ‘Alí’s enemy as our enemy, and we definitely do not accept anyone who has enmity for him. Shi‘ites, and possibly the entire Muslim population of the world, would not accept him. However, the dispute is over who is really an enemy. For example, some people say Abê Bakr was hostile to ‘Alí, and forcefully took away the right of caliphate from him. However, the caliphate was the duty of ‘Alí, not his right. The issue of right exists in our minds when we become worldly and consider material belongings and positions as our right. It is then that we would say the caliphate is the right of ‘Alí, which was taken away from him. Nonetheless, ‘Alí (peace be with him) says, “To me your caliphate is not worth as much as this torn shoe.”13 Such a person would not fight for that right, which is worth as much as an old torn shoe.

   Caliphate was not the right of ‘Alí; it was the nation’s right and was ‘Alí’s duty. That is, after the Messenger, we as Muslims had the right to have ‘Alí as the caliph and successor. Others barred this duty from being performed. Imam ‘Alí did not pay attention to this for years, as well. When the obligation of government was brought up and people persistently pleaded with him to take it up, and to accept the delayed duty, having no other choice, Imam accepted. Thus, one cannot say that caliphate is the right of ‘Alí.

   Some historians from the opposing side also say that had ‘Alí become the [first] Caliph, the Muslim community would have fragmented, and others—God willing with good intention—tried to prevent this division. It is obvious that, quite possibly, love of position, or for example, family problems may have also been involved. It is incumbent upon scholars to clarify these issues. In any case, the caliphates of Abê Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthmàn have been verified in history, and this was the realization of what was written by the pen [of God]. That is how it has been reported in the history books. And we have nothing to do with the goodness or wickedness of others. However, among the companions of the Prophet, we prefer ‘Alí and we follow him. Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí was also a follower of that same Imam.

   Unfortunately in recent times, many great misunderstandings along with biased judgments have been expressed against Shàh Ni‘matullàh, although he was one of the greatest men of knowledge and Sufism in Iran. Among them is prejudice against the word “Shàh” in his title, such that in many of the written and spoken material, including books, and at Iranian gatherings held outside of Iran, the word “Shàh” is omitted, and he is called: “Sayyid Ni‘matullàh Walí”. It is true that he was also a sayyid,14 and in his poetry, he takes pride in this. However, he is known throughout the history as Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí. Eliminating the word Shàh, when it is part of a name, is not correct. Now if we want to know the true meaning of Shàh, in this context, it is better to study the third volume of the book Ìarà’iq al-Åaqàyiq in the part regarding the meeting of one of Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí’s later devotees, Nêr-‘Alí Shàh the First, with the famous jurist of the time, Ayatullah Sayyid Mahdí Baår ul-‘Ulêm, and I refer those interested to this work.15

  Another point, which has been posed as a criticism, although it is not that much related to Åaèrat Shàh Ni‘matullàh, and yet there is room for it to be discussed, is the issue of the implicit objection of Åàfiî to Shàh Ni‘matullàh. Åaèrat Shàh says: 

We alchemically transmute the dust of the path with a glance

We cure one hundred ills with a glimpse. 

   Similarly, the following is in the poetry of Åàfiî: 

Those who alchemically transmute the dust of the path with a glance

Would it be to turn a glimpse toward us?

My illness is better hidden from those who claim to be physicians

May its cure come from His hidden treasure. 

   Some in the position of criticism say that; the second verse of Åàfiî ’s ghazal in which he has mentioned “those who claim to be physicians,” refers to Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí. However, this criticism would be true only if Åàfiî  had already heard that poem of Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí before, and basically if Shàh Ni‘matullàh had composed this first, before the time that Åàfiî had written this poetry. However, this matter cannot be substantiated at all. Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí had composed a lot of poetry about his own spiritual stations, and there was no reason to suddenly make such a claim. Thus, it is possible that Åàfiî may have written this poem first, of course, after he had been disappointed by all those who merely claimed to be Sufis, who were famous as “Æêfí” only in name, and about whom he wrote where he speaks negatively about Sufis. However, since Åàfiî knew that there are definitely people who alchemically transmute dust with a glance, he asked God, “O God! Is it possible that those who can do so might glance toward us?” In the following verse of the same poem, there is a hint that he regrets his own past, as well. He comes to the conclusion, with a view to his past, that those he imagined to be Æêfí were in reality pretenders, or in his words, “those who claimed to be physicians.” Thus, he says it is better for his illness to be hidden from all these pretenders, so that it may be cured by the treasure of the Unseen. In fact, after receiving this poem, Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí invites Åàfiî to come to him by saying: “We alchemically transmute the dust of the path with a glance.”

   Now, suppose that is not even the case. It is true that Åàfiî was a great man and held a distinguished position in Sufism. But the Åàfiî that most people know, including critics of Sufism, is a rend16 and a man of literature who only speaks poetry. The adherence of such a person to Shàh Ni‘matullàh Walí is no honor to the Æêfí Order, regardless. 

If all the universe became disbelievers,

Not a speck of dust would fall on the skirt of His grandeur. 

   Maybe it has been for the same reason that Shàh Ni‘matullàh gave new instructions to his order that were appropriate to his times. These instructions were in consideration of the fact that in those times some people had been known as “Sufis” who were notorious and whose conduct was not in accordance with “faqr”17 and being a dervish. Of course, each quìb and leader of faqr, according to the requirements of the time, can issue fresh and new instructions. He can even reverse the prior instructions temporarily or permanently.

   Among the instructions Shàh Ni‘matullàh had given was that the dervishes of the Ni‘matullàhi Order should not be without employment and should not beg. Another one was that they should not wear any special Æêfí clothing. Of course, this instruction regarding prohibition of dervish vestment was cancelled several centuries later, by one of his successors, Åaèrat Rièà ‘Alí Shàh Deccani regarding two of his authorized shaykhs; Åaèrat Ma‘æêm ‘Alí Shàh and Åaèrat Nur ‘Alí Shàh I, whom he had sent to Iran. These two great men entered Iran wearing special dervish robes and carrying the kashkêl18 and tabarzín19; while chanting in praise they toured various cities. The reason had been that since the time of the Safavids there had been very harsh treatment toward all dervish orders, and the masters of the Ni‘matullàhi Order had practically all left Iran. It reached the point that in the final years of the Safavids the enemies of the Sufis and dervishes had power in some governmental organizations and exercised influence. Hence, among the general population no one knew what a dervish is, and in this regard everyone was in confusion. The conduct and the unique appearance of these two Sufis attracted attention. After investigations and inquiries they realized that there was something other than what they had been practicing so far, another religious path, which could ensure the tranquility of their hearts.