One Does Not Simply Become an Infidel: Unbelief from the Perspective of Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani

Note: What you are reading is a summarized and edited version of a talk delivered by the present writer in July 2016 on the occasion of Ramadan at the “Rahman Society” in Paris. In transcribing this speech, its spoken tone has been, more or less, preserved.

One Does Not Simply Become an Infidel;

Unbelief from the Perspective of Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani

Yaser Mirdamadi

Why Engage with Unbelief?

Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani (490–525 AH), the mystic and philosopher from Hamadan, has an expression where he says: “O friend, do you suppose that gaining insight into unbelief is a small task?” Why is it important for us to gain insight into unbelief? Two reasons can be offered for gaining insight into unbelief. The first reason is intra-religious and the second is extra-religious. The intra-religious reason is that, from the perspective of monotheistic religions, faith is of central importance for human salvation. Two principles in the Quran bring about salvation: faith and righteous deeds. This is while, for example, in Buddhism, at least in theory, faith holds no place; but this is solely in the realm of theory, otherwise, in practice, the teachings attributed to the Buddha become central for Buddhists, and this itself is a form of faith.

According to the principle that states “things are known by their opposites” (meaning that through juxtaposing or contrasting phenomena, they can be better understood), we then need knowledge of unbelief in order to know faith. If unbelief is the opposite of faith, then by knowing unbelief, faith can be known. And even if unbelief is not the opposite of faith, unbelief must still be known. Because faith, from a religious perspective, is the main substance of salvation, and we had mistakenly placed unbelief and faith in opposition to one another.

But now let me turn to the extra-religious reason in favor of the claim that we must gain insight into unbelief. This reason is sociological-historical. A statistical overview of historical and contemporary narratives tells us that Muslims have killed and continue to kill each other more than non-Muslims. Husayn ibn Ali, Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the Shia Imams (although the manner of the Shia Imams’ deaths is, historically, a matter of debate) were killed by Muslims. Today, too, groups known as Takfiri kill Muslims more than non-Muslims. This shows there is a knot, a snag, in Muslim thought that leads them to kill one another in the name of takfir and apostasy. To untie this knot, theoretical work is needed, and the aim of this talk is to propose a way to untie this blind knot.

Historically, the first group later labeled Takfiri were the Kharijites (though before them, some tribal leaders and members were also killed under the name of “ridda” (apostasy from Islam)). Of course, the Kharijites also had appealing ideas. For instance, they believed a woman or a non-Qurayshi could be the Caliph of the Muslims. A kind of egalitarianism was prevalent among the Kharijites. Setting aside these egalitarian aspects, they were, of course, an extremely violent group (especially a branch of the Kharijites called the Azariqa). Some of their killings were very similar to the killings carried out by the ISIS group. These killings were carried out with the weapon of takfir.

For these reasons, as Ayn al-Quzat says, one must gain insight into unbelief: “Most of the time, they say this is unbelief, heresy, and apostasy, yet they themselves do not know what unbelief and faith are” (Letters, vol. 2: 52). It is evident from Ayn al-Quzat’s letters that he himself was completely exposed to takfir, and of course, he was a fearless person in the face of these accusations. Somewhere in the letters, he says to one of his disciples (paraphrasing): I have heard that in a city they say Ayn al-Quzat claims special status and claims self-deification. If they ask you for a fatwa to declare me an infidel, you issue the fatwa. And so it was until, ultimately, Ayn al-Quzat himself was declared an infidel, dismembered, and burned.

Why, in the study of unbelief, should we turn to Ayn al-Quzat?

One of my aims in this talk is to draw friends’ attention to the intellectual and spiritual significance of Ayn al-Quzat. Ayn al-Quzat is one of the most eminent figures in the medieval centuries of Iranian thought and Islamic thought as a whole. Unfortunately, however, he has remained largely unknown; the number of his surviving books barely reaches the fingers of one hand, and the scholarly works written about him are far from sufficient. Ayn al-Quzat has been considered comparable to Hallaj and Shaykh Shihab al-Din Suhrawardi in terms of his spiritual insight and tragic end (Arberry: 1969, 9).

Ayn al-Quzat is counted among the first Iranians to discuss Sufism in the Persian language in his treatises. (Papan-Matin: 2011, 196). In the medieval centuries, Persian was not as important as Arabic, scientifically speaking, among Muslims. But Ayn al-Quzat is among the first to transform Persian into a language in which mystical treatises were written, and he is among the first Sufis to use Persian correspondence in a systematic way. (Böwering: 1983)

Izutsu, the eminent Japanese Islamologist, says: “He was a mystic with profound spiritual experiences, and at the same time a thinker whose thought possessed extraordinary precision in analyzing problems. [...] Ayn al-Quzat can be considered the forerunner and guide of a long-lasting Iranian tradition that [...] came to be called hikmat (wisdom).” (Izutsu: 1383, 107) This kind and genre of Sufism, which possesses theoretical depth, has been named philosophical or theoretical Sufism, and Ayn al-Quzat is the originator of this type of Sufism. He can be considered the forerunner and guide of a long-lasting Iranian tradition that came to be called hikmat. This tradition began in Iran and its peak, of course, came later with Ibn Arabi, who was Andalusian.

Ma‘sum Ali Shah says: “Ayn al-Quzat was of a Jesus-like disposition (Isavi mashrab) and a Mansur-like path (Mansuri maslak).” (Ma‘sum Ali Shah, Tara’iq al-Haqa’iq, cited in Böwering: 1983) One meaning of having a Jesus-like disposition is that someone is a Sufi of beauty (jamal). Generally, two categories of attributes are mentioned for God: attributes of beauty (jamal) and attributes of majesty (jalal). Those who believe more in the second category, that is, God’s majestic attributes, are called “supplicatory Sufis” (Sufi-ye monajati). These Sufis are usually people of asceticism, seclusion, abstinence, helplessness, entreaty, and weeping. Those who believe in the first category, meaning God’s attributes of beauty are prominent in their view, are known as “tavern-haunting Sufis” (Sufi-ye kharabati), who are usually cheerful, open, free from ascetic austerities, and sociable with everyone. The meaning of “Mansur-like path” can also be that someone reveals the secrets of the spiritual path like Mansur Hallaj, is one who discloses the secret, and whose end becomes like that of Mansur.

Who is Ayn al-Quzat?

Ayn al-Quzat lived in the 5th and 6th centuries AH. He was born in Hamadan. His father and grandfather, like Ayn al-Quzat himself, were killed in a horrific manner. Ayn al-Quzat was ultimately put to death on the charge of blasphemy. At the time of his death, he was, by one account, 33 years old, and by another account, 35. His family was Shafi‘i in denomination, although traces of Ismaili Shi‘ism can also be found in his writings. Ismaili Shi‘ism was a kind of religious intellectualism of that time.

Ayn al-Quzat showed his genius at a very young age and acquired disciples. He never met Muhammad al-Ghazali, but he read his works thoroughly. Muhammad al-Ghazali is highly influential in the history of Islamic thought. Muhammad al-Ghazali presented an orthodoxized understanding of Sufism and sold this understanding to Sunni Islam. That is, after Ghazali, Sufism was to some extent removed from its former blasphemous state, and this was Ghazali’s doing.

Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani was the direct disciple of Muhammad al-Ghazali’s younger brother, named Ahmad al-Ghazali. It is said that Ayn al-Quzat was also a disciple of Omar Khayyam. During the Safavid era, Ayn al-Quzat’s tomb was destroyed. But it is said that, since the solar year 1381, a cultural center is being built at the place where Ayn al-Quzat was executed.

The works that have come down to us from Ayn al-Quzat are in Arabic and Persian. An interesting point is that his Arabic works are more conservative than his Persian ones. And this is natural, since Arabic was a more widely understood language. But as fate would have it, Ayn al-Quzat was declared an infidel because of his Arabic book Zubdat al-Haqa'iq, which, compared to his Persian works, is a conservative book. For instance, his other book in Persian, the Tamhidat, could have provided far more grounds for his excommunication than Zubdat al-Haqa'iq. This shows that his accusers had probably not read his Tamhidat, because they do not cite it in his excommunication. Ayn al-Quzat initially also named the Tamhidat the Persian Zubdat al-Haqa'iq, perhaps with the aim that his opponents would imagine this book to be merely a Persian translation of the Arabic Zubdat al-Haqa'iq, whereas it is not and contains more explicit statements. Ayn al-Quzat's letters have also been published in three volumes.

In what follows, I will refer to the common conception of unbelief before arriving at Ayn al-Quzat's conception of unbelief.

Unbelief in the Common Jurisprudential Conception

Lexically, "kufr" (unbelief) comes from the root k-f-r, which originally means one who covers something. Arabs also call a farmer a "kafir" because he covers the seed in the earth. Of course, it also means ungrateful. Here too, a connection with covering can be found; for an ungrateful person is one who covers the good others have done for him. In its technical usage, however, kufr means that someone denies Islam. In our jurisprudence, we have two types of kufr: original unbelief and apostasy unbelief, each of which has subcategories. Original unbelief itself is of two types: either it is harbi unbelief (i.e., an infidel who does not live under Muslim rule), or it is dhimmi unbelief (i.e., an infidel under Muslim rule who must wear distinctive clothing and pay a special tax, technically called jizya). That is for original unbelief. Apostasy unbelief also has two types: fitri apostate (at the time of his conception, one of his parents was Muslim and he later leaves Islam) and milli apostate (neither of his parents were Muslim at the time of his conception, then the individual himself becomes Muslim but later apostatizes from Islam). This is the summary of the common jurisprudential conception of the category of unbelief.

Types of Unbelief in Terms of Content

But regardless of the jurisprudential divisions related to unbelief, unbelief has also been divided in terms of content in this manner:

Unbelief of Denial: One who does not know God in his heart and does not confess to His divinity.

Unbelief of Rejection: One who knows God in his heart but does not confess in practice, though not out of reputation-seeking or hypocrisy.

Unbelief of Stubbornness: One who knows God and confesses to His lordship, but out of spite and not hypocrisy, does not confess to His divinity.

Unbelief of Hypocrisy: One who outwardly accepts God but does not believe in Him in his heart.

Unbelief from the Perspective of the Sufis

The Sufis and mystics considered a type of unbelief to be complete and true faith, which was related to the lexical meaning of kufr. A state in which the individual becomes an infidel to other-than-God and covers other-than-God from his sight. (al-Tahanawi: 1996, 1357) And they even said that true unbelief is the annihilation of creation in God.

Unbelief from the Perspective of Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani:

Now we arrive at unbelief from the perspective of Ayn al-Quzat, which is our main discussion. Unbelief from his viewpoint has various meanings, some of which, in his opinion, are good and some reprehensible. I will speak on this matter in detail in what follows.

1- Unbelief in the sense of ingratitude and failure to give thanks for divine blessings: We also have this meaning of unbelief in the hadiths, for example: "Man lam yashkur al-makhluq lam yashkur al-khaliq" (He who does not thank people, does not thank God). One who is not grateful to God's servants will not be grateful to God. Ayn al-Quzat says in his letters: "The gratitude of the heart is that it knows Him as the Bestower of blessings. Whoever does not know is an infidel." (Letters, vol. 1: 261) The gratitude of the heart is that the individual is also grateful to God in his heart. The mystics emphasize this point that true gratitude to God is to appreciate the value of our time. One who does not appreciate the value of his time is an infidel: The share from the life of the world is the cash of time O intelligent one, be not among those without a share

In Ayn al-Quzat's view, unbelief in this sense is entirely reprehensible, and the task of the wayfarer is to abandon unbelief in the sense of ingratitude.

2- Unbelief as the doubt that is a prelude to the quest for faith: "Wait, so that the successful one may be led to doubt [...] the people of doubt are precious [...] doubt is the first station of the wayfarers, and until one reaches doubt, there is no quest" (Letters, vol. 1: 309). For Sufis, including Ayn al-Quzat, the quest is important. As the poet says: "The cure for the pain of painlessness is fire." This pain begins with the quest. This quest begins with doubt. What is doubt bound up with? With abandoning the worship of habit. Why is the worship of habit ugly? Because it is idolatry: "O dear one, if you wish for the beauty of these mysteries to be unveiled to you, abandon the worship of habit, for the worship of habit is idol worship" (Tamhidat). How does the worship of habit take shape in the domain of religion? Through the Sharia: "The world of the worship of habit is the Sharia, and adherence to the Sharia is the worship of habit; until you emerge from the worship of habit and abandon it, you will not become a practitioner of the truth" (Tamhidat). What is the way out of worshipping the idol of habit? The way out of the idol of habit is unbelief:

"Look closely, so that you may gain sight through the first unbelief [innate ignorance]. Then walk the path, so that you may attain the faith of the common people. Then strive, so that you may gain sight through the second unbelief [doubt in the faith of the common people]. Then seek earnestly, so that you may find the faith of the elect. Then, after this, if you are fortunate, you will gain sight within your own essence through the third unbelief [the stage of annihilation]." (Letters, vol. 1: 479).

What is the first step in breaking the idol of habit? Seeing all religions as equal and making no distinction between unbelief and Islam is the first step for the wayfarer on the path of truth:

"Whoever is a seeker of the knowledge of certainty, the first condition on his path is that all the world's creeds appear equal in his sight. And if he perceives a difference between unbelief and Islam, this perception of difference will be an obstacle on his path of seeking, preventing him from reaching the sought-after goal" (Letters, vol. 2: 251).

In summary, Ayn al-Quzat's position is this: only true faith brings eternal salvation, and faith is attained through the path of love, and the path is only attained through the quest, and the quest is only attained through abandoning habit, and abandoning habit is attained through doubt, and doubt is attained by seeing all religions as equal. That is, not only is unbelief, in the sense of skeptical iconoclasm, not reprehensible, but it is something Ayn al-Quzat encourages, because in his view it is a requisite of faith.

On this basis, from Ayn al-Quzat's perspective, we have unbeliefs, just as we have faiths. Each unbelief takes us to a station of faith. If we do not reach that unbelief, we are deprived of a station of faith. "Unbeliefs are many because the wayfarer's stations are many. Unbelief and faith are a condition and necessity for the traveler at every moment" (Tamhidat). Hence, we are constantly dealing with unbelief and faith, and we do not have just one type of unbelief and one faith. Some hadiths also allude to this point: "If Abu Dharr knew what was in Salman's heart, he would declare him an unbeliever or kill him." From this hadith, one can understand that the ranks of the Prophet's companions were not the same. Ayn al-Quzat repeatedly cites this narration from Ibn Abbas that if I, Ibn Abbas, were to interpret some verses of the Quran, all of you would declare me an unbeliever.

3- Unbelief in the sense of self-deification: Note that the first meaning of unbelief (ingratitude) was blameworthy. The second meaning of unbelief (doubt and abandoning habit) was not only not blameworthy, but Ayn al-Quzat encouraged people towards it. However, this third meaning is again blameworthy. Here, Ayn al-Quzat refers to a verse that is highly worthy of reflection: "Have you seen him who takes his own desire as his god?" I translate this verse as follows: Have you not seen the one who took his own desire as absolute? If someone takes himself as absolute, that is, he has taken himself as God, and in this state, he ceases the spiritual wayfaring and the quest, because he has reached the sun and the dust has become the end, and this is unbelief: "They say it is such and such, and it should be thus and so. In the view of the scholars of religion, these thoughts are unbelief and are equivalent to 'I am your Lord, the Most High'; for he would wish, out of the perfection of his own pre-eternal knowledge, that it not rain, as if you were to say, 'I wish it had rained.' Thus, you would have seen your own opinion as above His opinion, and considered yourself above Him" (Letters, vol. 1: 401).

4- Iblisian Unbelief (the Divine Dark Light): By way of introduction, I submit that Iblis, especially in Islamic thought, is a dilemma and a predicament. Let us delve further into this issue.

The Problem of Iblis in Islamic Theology

One facet of this dilemma can be formulated as follows: if it is Satan who deceives us, then he stands in opposition to God, which means God is not omnipotent and someone can, so to speak, grapple with God. On the other hand, however, if Iblis does not stand in opposition to God and has not grappled with Him, then why does God say: “fa-staʿidh bi-llāhi min al-shayṭān al-rajīm” (seek refuge in God from Satan the accursed)? The predicament of the matter lies in the fact that we find ourselves in a situation where, as it were, neither side can be denied, yet neither side can be affirmed either. How is this to be resolved?

One solution is that attributed to Ibn Hanbal: “al-kayfīya majhūla wa-l-suʾāl bidʿa”—the modality of God’s sitting upon the Throne is unknown, and questioning such matters is an innovation. They would extend this to all difficult theological problems. But this is not, in fact, a solution; rather, it is erasing the problem. Instead of a solution, it dissolves the problem and says that one should not even think about this matter. This is the most common response, and it does not belong solely to Ibn Hanbal or a segment of the Hanbalis.

Another solution belongs to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, a great Ashʿari philosopher, jurist, legal theorist, and theologian. Razi is a highly skeptical thinker with a restless mind. In his “Great Commentary” (vol. 1), he devotes many pages to the problem of Iblis. When he reaches “aʿūdhu bi-llāhi min al-shayṭān al-rajīm” at the beginning of his commentary, after extensive discussions he concludes that there is no Satan at all. When we seek refuge in God from Satan, what we mean is seeking refuge from God’s wrath in God’s mercy. Because in monotheistic religions one cannot set up shop in opposition to God, for “lā muʾaththira fī al-wujūd illā Allāh”: no one in the universe is effectual except God. So there is no Satan at all, and the term Satan is metaphorical.

But now let us see what solution Ayn al-Quzat proposes for the dilemma of Iblis. Ayn al-Quzat considers Iblis to be real, and not symbolic and unreal as Fakhr al-Razi does. Iblis is the symbol of unbelief. When you want to find the perfect symbol of unbelief, you turn to Iblis: “abā wa-stakbara wa kāna min al-kāfirīn” (He refused and was arrogant and became one of the unbelievers). Ayn al-Quzat’s point, simply and clearly, is that when God told Iblis to prostrate to the human, He wanted to test the angels’ monotheism. All prostrated except Iblis, who did not prostrate to anyone other than God. God said in secret: Well done. Your refusal to prostrate stems from pure monotheism. God has different attributes, among them the attributes of the Guide and the Misleader. After this event, God said: You, who possess such pure monotheism, are worthy of being the symbol and manifestation of My name “the Misleader.” So you shall mislead people and be the symbol of My attribute of misguidance. It requires a very high station for you to take the divine curse upon yourself until the Day of Resurrection. Those who prostrated had not even attained the station of being able to bear this burden. The angels, so to speak, acted according to a directive. A directive had come from the divine court to prostrate, and they prostrated. But Iblis is something else in the divine order. Ayn al-Quzat refers to Iblis as the “dark divine light.” “Iblis is the manifestation of God’s name,” but the name of God the Misleader. Fakhr al-Razi’s solution is a little closer to “orthodoxy” than this solution. Of course, Ayn al-Quzat is not the first person to say this, but he is one of the first, and Rumi later alludes to this view in the Masnavi.

The conclusion is that Iblis is the father of all unbelievers, but his unbelief is the very essence of faith. So unbelief ultimately returns to faith. “There is a station in love where separation is better than union. Iblis is also in this station. He was the unique one of existence, the master of the separated, the secret of predestination, the beauty mark of pre-eternity, the teacher of the angels” (Letters, vol. 2, para. 654-8).

The next point is that Ayn al-Quzat never uses the word “Shaytan” (Satan) for Iblis. The word Shaytan means the expelled, the accursed. Ayn al-Quzat believes Iblis was never expelled. Ayn al-Quzat believes that the angels who prostrated based on a directive, like a bunch of obedient clerks, in today’s parlance, had not even attained the station to understand what the command to prostrate was really for. Ayn al-Quzat links his theory of Iblis to monotheism with this subversive question:

«Suppose Iblis leads the people astray. Who created Iblis with this attribute?» (Letters, vol. 2, para. 9)

And it is interesting that he says: «Muhammad would not have been fitting without Iblis, obedience without disobedience, and disbelief without faith would not have taken form» (Tamhīdāt). That is, if you want Muhammad, Iblis must also exist. Shams Tabrizi says in the Maqālāt (paraphrasing): sometimes the Lawgiver says «do,» but His intention is that you do not. In Uṣūl al-Kāfī we have a narration from Imam al-Ṣādiq: «God commanded but did not will, and He willed but did not command. He commanded Iblis to prostrate to Adam and willed that he not prostrate; had He willed, he would have prostrated. And He forbade Adam from eating of the tree and willed that he eat from it; had He not willed, he would not have eaten.»

It is not clear whether this hadith is authentic and truly narrated from Imam al-Ṣādiq or not, and whether ʿAyn al-Quḍāt had seen this narration or whether the Sufis later fabricated it from Imam al-Ṣādiq (as for the status of Imam al-Ṣādiq among the Sufis, it suffices that ʿAṭṭār begins his Tadhkirat al-Awliyāʾ with the mention of Imam al-Ṣādiq). My point in mentioning this narration attributed to Imam al-Ṣādiq is that these discussions were not so anomalous and, as the famous saying goes, are not heretical.

In sum, from ʿAyn al-Quḍāt’s perspective, Muhammad is the manifestation of Divine Beauty (Jamāl) and Iblis is the manifestation of Divine Majesty (Jalāl). Once again, pay attention to the point that the problem of Iblis was one of the dilemmas for Islamic thinkers, and ʿAyn al-Quḍāt was not among those Sufis who would say: «Wash away the pages if you are our student / For the knowledge of love is not in the notebook,» but rather he was a man of reading and of disputation and debate.

To Remain in Muhammad is Unbelief

Among the most thought-provoking and obscure expressions of ʿAyn al-Quḍāt, which relates to the discussion of faith and unbelief, is this phrase from the Tamhīdāt: «Have you ever seen a Muslim become an infidel? From the beauty and loveliness of Muhammad, all believers became infidels, and no one is aware.» This is an obscure sentence, and I am not sure I understand ʿAyn al-Quḍāt’s meaning, but I will venture a guess. ʿAyn al-Quḍāt probably wants to say that many have remained stuck in the beauty of Muhammad and have become heedless of God. Some have remained at this level of faith and have become infidels.

Shams Tabrizi also says in the Maqālāt: «The treatise of Muhammad the Messenger of God is of no benefit to me, I need my own treatise. If I read a thousand treatises, I become darker.» He says if I remain an imitator, what benefit is the Quran of Muhammad to me? I need my own Quran. The more I read the Quran of Muhammad and remain in imitation and fanaticism, the darker I become. The Quran is revelation, but it is Muhammad’s revelation; where is the revelation of ʿAyn al-Quḍāt and Shams Tabrizi? The station of faith is supposed to be a station in which seeking exists, and seeking is incompatible with imitation. In the narrations we also have: «Only he to whom it is addressed knows the Quran.» Who is addressed by the Quran? If we say that only Muhammad was the addressee of the Quran, then only Muhammad understands the Quran, and of course the Shia Imams (and this was the Akhbārī interpretation). Another interpretation of this hadith is that one understands the Quran who seeks his own Quran from within his own heart. That is, he advances in the station of seeking such that his own Quran flows upon him, gushes from the waterfall of his inner being, and reaches the station of inspiration. If we read the Quran in the station of imitation and habitual worship, we become darker. The Quran itself says it is a guide for one people and a misguider for another. ʿAyn al-Quḍāt often recited this poem:

Unbelief within itself is the rule of faith

One does not simply, easily become an infidel

The conclusion of the discussion so far is that unbelief should not be looked upon with contempt, except in the two reprehensible senses that were mentioned (ingratitude and absolute self-conceit).

5- The Station of Neither Unbelief nor Islam: The fifth meaning that Ayn al-Quzat intends by unbelief is one that leads to the dissolution of both unbelief and Islam. “Unbelief and faith, above the Throne, became two veils between God and the servant. For one must be neither an unbeliever nor a Muslim” (Tamhidat). The final station of the wayfarer is to be neither an unbeliever nor a Muslim. Nevertheless, Ayn al-Quzat also noted that being sometimes an unbeliever and sometimes a Muslim, and making do with these two stations forever, is, as it were, the lot and portion of most people. For Ayn al-Quzat also emphasizes this poem:

The sign of love is staking one’s soul and heart,

It is to be quit of both being and place,

Being sometimes an unbeliever and sometimes a believer,

Is to make do with these two stations forever.

The Ultimate Fate of Blameworthy Unbelief from Ayn al-Quzat’s Perspective

The peak of torment in hell, from Ayn al-Quzat’s perspective, is of the nature of the torment of separation, not physical torture: “The greatest torment shall be for the unbelievers, for He [God] will reveal Himself to them and then cast the fire of longing into their hearts. Then He will conceal Himself from them. This shall be hell” (Tamhidat). God shows His face and then hides, and they remain forsaken. One who is ungrateful or considers himself God will experience such torment on the Day of Resurrection. This is their hell. There is no mention of fire and physical torture. Hell means losing the sight of the Divine Beauty forever and remaining in separation. Ibn Arabi says something beyond this: all unbelievers remain in this stage, and then all ultimately attain Divine union, but the unbelievers with a very great delay. In sum, God afflicts the unbelievers (those possessing blameworthy unbelief) with love on the Day of Resurrection. Then He abandons them and afflicts them with separation.

So that this infernology does not seem too strange and anomalous to friends, I wish to draw your attention to a passage from the Kumayl Supplication (attributed to Ali ibn Abi Talib) in which it is stated that the highest torment is Divine separation: “Habni sabartu ‘ala ‘adhabik, fa-kayfa asbiru ‘ala firaqik” (Suppose I endure Your torment, what shall I do about Your separation?)

The Gist of the Matter

The conclusion that can be drawn from Ayn al-Quzat’s discussion is that the binary of “either believer or unbeliever” is erroneous; we have “both believer-and-unbeliever,” and in the higher stations, “neither believer-nor-unbeliever.” If we break this binary of “either believer or unbeliever,” one result obtained is that one who has no unbelief has no quest, and one who has no quest is a worshipper of habit, and a worshipper of habit is devoid of the truth of faith, even if they are a person of the Sharia, which is itself the very essence of habit-worship. This Ayn al-Quzatian consciousness of unbelief is fundamentally opposed to the excommunication of the living, for the individual has not yet passed away; perhaps the last moment of their life will be the moment of their arrival at the station of quest. Thus, excommunication, at least of the living, is an error. Perhaps the individual is already in the station of quest, and you do not know. For being in the station of quest means not remaining in any specific belief. Therefore, one cannot point to a specific belief and say that someone who does not believe in this particular article of faith is an unbeliever.

For this reason, in this consciousness of unbelief, excommunication, at least of the living, completely fades away. The result is that the important lesson we learn from Ayn al-Quzat’s study of unbelief, which is useful to us today and is not merely of historical value, is that the binary of “either unbelief or faith” fades away. Another important lesson is that we should not call habit-worship and historical fossils “faith,” nor label doubt and the abandonment of habit with the stigma of blameworthy unbelief.

.

---

.

References:

Arberry, A. J., trans. A Sufi Martyr: The Apologia of ‘Ain Al-Qudat Al-Hamadhani.” London: George Allen, 1969.

Böwering, G., ‘Ayn-al-Qozat Hamadani, in Encyclopaedia Iranica (1983), pp. 140-143.

Dabashi, Hamid. Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of ’Ayn Al-Quḍat Al-Hamadhānī. Richmond: Routledge, 1999.

Landolt, Hermann. ‘Ayn al-Qudat Al-Hamadani The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Third Edition), 2009, Brill Online, ed. Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas and Everett Rowson. (E.J. Brill).

Björkman, W. ”Kāfir”, Encyclopedia of Islam, First edition (1913-1936), Edited by M. Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset, R. Hartmann.

Izutsu, Toshihiko. Creation, Existence and Time, translated by Mehdi Sarreshtehdari, Tehran: Mehrandish, 2004.

Papan-Matin, Firoozeh. Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani. Iranshenasi. Vol. 26, No. 1-2, 2011, pp. 191-208.

al-Tahanawi, Muhammad Ali. Mawsu‘at Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun wa al-‘Ulum, Beirut: Nashirun, 1996.

Sajjadi, Seyyed Jafar. Farhang-e Estelahat va Ta‘birat-e ‘Erfani, Tehran: Tahuri, 1991.

Nasafi, Aziz al-Din. Insan-e Kamil. Electronic edition.

Hashemi, Mandana. The Category of Unbelief and Faith in the Thought of Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani and Rumi, Faslnameh-ye Takhasosi-ye Adabiyat-e Farsi, No. 33, Spring 2012. pp. 193-211.

Ayn al-Quzat, Tamhidat, electronic edition.

Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani, Nameh-ha-ye Ayn al-Quzat Hamadani (three volumes), Vols. 1 & 2: edited by Alinaqi Monzavi and Afif Osseiran, Tehran: Manuchehri, 1983. Vol. 3 edited by Alinaqi Monzavi, Tehran: Asatir, 1998.

.

---

.