The Lack of Restrictions to Special Garb
One of the old customs among the Sufis was wearing special garments, such as woollens, a patched cloak, and other items. Shāh Ni‘matullāh Walī did not restrict himself or his followers to any special clothing by which they could be designated as Sufis. He sometimes wore a white wool robe, and sometimes a long gown. To the contrary of his practice, many of his followers again began wearing distinc- tive dress, as is mentioned by ‘Abd al-Razzāq Kirmānī, the author of his biogra- phy: “The clothing worn by his dervishes was absolutely not worn by him or his children”. The prohibition of dervish vestments was only temporarily cancelled several centuries later by Hadrat Rida ‘Alīshāh Deccanī for two of his authorized
shaykhs, Hadrat Ma‘sum ‘Alīshāh and Hadrat Nūr ‘Alīshāh I, whom he had sent to Iran. These two great men entered Iran wearing special dervish robes and carrying the characteristic dervish bowl and axe. This policy was enacted to attract attention to the arrival of Sufism in Iran where it had been outlawed for many years.
Hadrat Sultan ‘Alīshāh once again prohibited his followers from wearing any distinctive Sufi clothing. He used to say: “Servitude to God does not depend on any special clothes. In the Qur’ān it is written, ‘The garment of piety (taqwā) is the best’”.With this rule, no difference could be made out between Sufi Muslims and the other people of the country, and their particular beliefs remained protected in their hearts. This rule is still current in the Ni‘matullāhī Gunābādī order, which has been reissued by the qutbs after Hadrat Sultān ‘Alīshāh.

Social and Political Affairs Essentially, Sufism is not a political school of thought, so it has nothing to do with politics. However, Sufis have entered into political affairs as individuals rath- er than as Sufis. Generally speaking, the duties ordained by Islam have been divided by the Sufi shaykhs of the Ni‘matullāhī order into three kinds:
(1) Precepts of the sharī‘at that must be obtained from a qualified mujtahid (ex- pert in Islamic law);
(2) Precepts of the tarīqat that must be obtained from the current Sufi master;
(3) Personal precepts to be discerned by the individual himself. One should personally discover one’s responsibilities by one’s own religious thinking and rea- soning.
Thus, interference and expressing views about social affairs is outside the scope of tarīqat and the fuqarā’ do not expect instructions in such regards from the au- thorities of the order. One’s works and intentions are to be made pure for the sake of Allah, and one’s own responsibilities are to be discovered. The authorities of the order will not express views on such questions so that it is not imagined that these are duties of tarīqat.
During the constitutional crisis in Iran in the first decade of the twentieth cen- tury, when the fuqarā’ asked Hadrat Sultān ‘Alīshāh about their duties, he used to say: “I am a simple farmer from a village. I don’t know what constitutional and absolute monarchy mean”. He left it to them to figure out for themselves. At the same time, he gave advice to the rulers not to do injustice to the people. For ex- ample, in his book Walāyat Nāmah, there is a chapter entitled, “On Explaining Sovereignty and the Treatment of Subjects”, in which he severely criticizes the rul- ers of the country, and says: “In this matter, they should take as their example the first caliphs of Islam; and if their time was too long ago, they should take as their example the rulers of the West, who do not live in luxury, make the country flour- ish, provide ease for their subjects and who fill the treasury”.
Hadrat Sultan ‘Alīshāh lived during the dictatorship of the Qājār dynasty and its opposition to the reform of the Iranian constitution. The idea of a constitution was one of the first political concepts from the West to enter Iran. Some of the ‘ulamā’, like Bihbahānī, approved of it as consistent with Islam, while others, such as Fadlullāh Nūrī, disapproved of it as against Islam. Naturally, the formation of political groups and intrigue were current. The fuqarā’ were uncertain of their du- ties in this regard.

The Revival of Walāyat
Walāyat is the inward aspect of the mission of the Prophet (risālat) to guide the people. It is the source of tarīqat in Islam, or Sufism. The outward aspect of this mission is bringing the sharī‘at, which is concerned with religious pre- cepts. According to the Qur’ān, the period of risālat came to an end with the pass- ing away of the Prophet, but the period of walāyat extends until the end of time. Walāyat is the main pillar of both Shí‘ism and Sufism. Accordingly, both of these refer to the same truth. In both Shí‘ite and Sufi theory, the station of walāyat can- not be filled by the choice of the people or of an elite. The Prophet chose ‘Alī to be his successor in accordance with divine command. In the same manner, each suc- ceeding walī must be appointed by the preceding one. This is why almost all Sufi orders trace their permission for guidance to Imam ‘Alī.
Over the course of the centuries, Shi‘ism became a set of theological and juris- prudential teachings coupled with a political movement, and walāyat was confined to a political interpretation. On the other hand, there were Sufis who completely neglected the issue of walāyat.
One of the main issues in the revival of Sufism is the revival of the idea of walāyat in Sufi books, which is especially evident after the fall of the ‘Abbasid dy- nasty and the weakening of the political power of the Ahl al-Sunnah.
Undoubtedly, the main problem addressed in works of Shāh Ni‘matullāh Walī is walāyat, the various aspects and views about which are discussed at length in many of his works. He raised the topic of walāyat to such prominence that the Sufis would understand this to be the source of Sufism itself. On the other hand, he addresses the official Sunni and Shi‘ite positions, asking what it really means to be a true Sunni or Shi‘ite. He says that to be a Sunni is to follow the tradition (sunnah) of the Prophet, one of whose requisites is love for the Ahl al-Bayt. To the Shi‘ites, who were infamous at the time as rafidī (those who were considered heterodox be- cause of their refusal to accept the authority of the first caliphs), he says that to be Shí‘ite does not mean cursing the first three caliphs, but it means following ‘Alī. In one of his poems he says:
I am not a ràfidite, but I am a pure believer, and enemy of the Mu‘tazilite. I have the religion of my ancestor (the Prophet) after him, I am the follower of ‘Alī the walī.
He reminded the official Shí‘ites that believing in the walāyat of ‘Alī is not merely a matter of words. It is impossible unless there is a heartfelt connection of discipleship. In a poem he says:
Although you do not have the walāyat of that walī (‘Alī), you boast of walāyat. You should know what you are boasting about. We have raised the banner of his walāyat. Why should the drum be beaten while under the rug?
In the teachings and works of the martyr Hadrat Sultan ‘Alīshāh, the issue of walāyat is renewed, with the difference that in the time of Shāh Ni‘matullāh Walī, since the religion of the majority of the Iranian populace was Sunní, primarily he addressed them, while in the case of Hadrat Sultan ‘Alīshāh, since after the Safavid period the Iranian populace was mostly Shi‘ite, his polemic was directed primar- ily at those who had inherited a nominally Shi‘ite affiliation. In most of his books, including his Sufi commentary on the Qur’ān, Bayān al-Sa‘ādah, his main topic is walāyat and its different dimensions. His Persian book, Walāyat Nāmah, is an independent treatise specifically devoted to a Sufi/Shí‘ite presentation of the topic of walāyat. At the very beginning of the book, he says: “Many have erred, think- ing that walāyat is love, or the mere verbal claim of the Imamate or walāyat of the Ahl al-Bayt”.
On another book, he says: “Those whose fathers were Shi‘ite think that they are Shi‘ite because they imagine this to be no more than the verbal claim of the walāyat of ‘Alī…. They didn’t understand anything of Shi‘ism except its name”.Thus, his main intention is to show the Sufi dimension of Shi‘ism, i.e., walāyat, to the nominal Shi‘ites who had confined it to a verbal claim or to juris- prudence and theology.
Among the important points that he made about walāyat is the issue of having permission for authority in Sufism. This topic became especially highlighted after the competing claims to succession following the passing away of Hadrat Rahmat ‘Alīshāh, and the failure of some to obey his authorized successor, Hadrat Sa‘ādat ‘Alīshāh.

As it has been said, one of the main principles of walāyat is that the master of the order should have permission from his predecessor. These permissions for guidance should form an unbroken chain or series reaching back to Imam ‘Alī. This is why the word silsilah (chain) is used for the Sufi orders. During the time of Hadrat Sultān ‘Alīshāh, since there were numerous sectarian divisions of the or- ders, and there were many who claimed to be masters without having any permis- sion, there was an intense need to deal with this issue. He refers to this problem in many of his works. For example, he says: “Know that the tree of the shaykhs of ev- ery Sufi order of the past has been recorded”36. He continues to explain that the ex- plicit authorization (nass)of the shaykh is necessary to support the claim of being a shaykh, and is needed by the novice in order to understand under the direction of whom he could enter the tarīqat. This is why the Sufi shaykhs sought to protect this authorization. In another place he says, “In every religious affair it is necessary to have the permission of the religious authority of the time”.
Now in the Ni‘matullāhī Gunābādī order, having explicit authorization has be- come the most important criterion for spiritual guidance.