(1) The Sultan’s tongue utters “keet wateet,” an expression whose meaning is understood. To claim, however, that God Himself speaks through a human tongue—just as a jinn may speak through the tongue of one possessed—is outright unbelief. If similar expressions emerge from someone in a state of spiritual annihilation (fana’) or intoxication (sukr), when his divine pen (qalam), i.e. his accountability, is lifted, then although the words are false, the speaker is not held responsible. This happens to those overwhelmed by the power of divine love with a weakened heart. For example, when a lover throws himself into the sea after his beloved has done so, he may exclaim “I have fallen!” and, asked “Why did you fall behind me?”, reply “I was absent from you and took you to be myself.” Likewise, a person may reach such a state that the object of his worship is absent from his consciousness, its remembrance absent from his memory, and its recognition absent from his reason. When this distinction vanishes and the mind is so veiled that accountability is lifted, one is not punished for what one utters, though it remains a grave error and spiritual peril unbefitting the upright. All the reports of miraculous signs (karamāt) attributed to al-Ḥallāǧ at his execution—such as his blood writing forty words or his rejoicing at death—are fabrications. Early Muslims collected many accounts of al-Ḥallāǧ: Thābit ibn Sinnān in Akhbār al-Khulafā’, al-Muḥsin al-Tanūkhī, Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Alī al-Khaṭṭābī in Tārīkh Baghdād, the ḥadīth master Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb, the judge Abū Ya‘lā in al-Mu‘tamad, Abū Bakr ibn al-Ṭayyib and Abū Muḥammad ibn Ḥazm, as well as Ya‘qūb ibn Ṣabī‘ī al-Qazwīnī and al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzī. Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī writes in Ṭabaqāt al-Ṣūfiyya that most sober sheikhs regard him as outside the path, and al-Qushayrī does not list him among his recognized sheikhs in his Risāla. No reputable scholar or sheikh has ever spoken well of al-Ḥallāǧ. Some, out of ignorance, claim he was lawfully executed (his executioner a mujahid, he himself a martyr), but this is also mistaken. The assertion that he was slain unjustly is false: the consensus holds that his execution was obligatory for his overt heresy. When he was imprisoned he professed repentance, but jurists dispute the acceptance of apostate repentance. The Maliki and Ahl al-Ḥadīth schools reject it, as do Ahmad’s more famous reports, one position in the Ḥanafī school, and a reasoned view in the Shāfi‘ī school; the other positions accept it. All agree that had he been executed after genuine repentance, one would not say he was slain unjustly. As for calling al-Ḥallāǧ one of God’s friends (awliyā’ Allāh), a wali is one who dies in God’s friendship, whom God loves and approves. To testify to anyone’s paradise other than the Prophet ﷺ is impermissible according to most scholars; some early authorities (e.g. Abū Ḥanīfa, ‘Alī al-Madīnī) even forbid it entirely. Others hold that anyone praised by the Muslim community may be thus attested, citing the Prophet’s passing two funerals: when people spoke well of one, he said “He is deserving,” and when they spoke ill of the other, he said “He is deserving [of Hell],” adding “You are God’s witnesses on earth” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 1301; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 949). Thus, it is permissible to declare some individuals interior friends of God either by explicit text or by communal testimony. Al-Ḥallāǧ belongs to neither category: the majority of the community condemns him as a heretic. Even if some claim he attained unveiling (kashf), such praise is misled. No one executed by the legal sword for heresy—such as Jahm ibn Ṣafwān, al-Ja‘d ibn al-Darhim, Ghaylān al-Qadarī, Muḥammad ibn Sa‘īd al-Maslūb, Bishr ibn al-Bardh al-A‘ma‘, and the like—has been recognized as a friend of God.