submissive to his authority. Out of this arose a host of invented instructions and rules governing the disciple’s etiquette toward his shaykh, among them:

(a) He must never think ill of his shaykh, even should he witness him committing one of the gravest sins. The explanations given for this differ. Some maintain: “The shaykh enjoys a special state with Allah, known only to Allah; therefore, no one may object to him.” Others say: “The shaykh is a guide, not infallible …” Yet in either case we find no legal justification for suspending the obligation to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, or for setting aside the duty of sincere counsel for Allah, His Messenger, His Book, and the leaders and common folk of the Muslims. How can objections be barred when a shaykh commits a major sin, while objections were not barred to ʿUmar—may Allah be pleased with him—who remonstrated with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) when he went to pray over the chief of the hypocrites, and who, together with others, objected during the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah?

(b) The disciple must not sit on the shaykh’s prayer rug, eat in his presence, or use any article of daily life the shaykh uses, lest he incur Allah’s wrath! They justify this by claiming that the shaykh’s spiritual state on his rug may be so intense that the disciple could not bear it, causing his affairs to fall into turmoil. This is an outright fabrication; we know of no basis for it in the law of Allah or in the Sunnah of His Messenger.

(c) He must keep the image of his shaykh before his eyes during remembrance and never let that image leave him until he is lost in the dhikr—an act of blatant polytheism that requires no further comment.

(d) He must remain before his shaykh like a corpse before its washer, neither moving nor speaking.

(e) He must obey his shaykh with blind obedience, even when he perceives no evident wisdom in the command.