the view of their ignorant members. At other times, they impugn the understanding of the message. This is the position of their more adept members, including the leading philosophers, the Ittihādiyya, and others like them.

Once, when al-Tilimsānī was ill, a man visited him accompanied by some students of hadith. Al-Tilimsānī began explaining his principle concerning thought: that it is a veil, and that everything hinges on unveiling. What he meant was the unveiling of absolute existence. One of those students asked, “What, then, does Umm al-Dardā’s statement mean: ‘Abū al-Dardā’s finest deed was reflection’?”

Annoyed that someone like this had been admitted to his presence, he said to the man who had brought him, “How can someone like this be allowed to visit me?” Then he said:

“Do you know, my son, what Abū al-Dardā and others like him resemble? They resemble people who heard certain words and preserved them for us, so that we would be the ones to understand them and know what their speaker intended. They also resemble a courier who carried a letter from the ruler to his deputy.”

Or he said something to that effect, for it has been a long time since I heard this account. The man who visited him related it to me; he is trustworthy and knows what he is talking about in this matter. He had explored these fields extensively.

Likewise, Ibn Sīnā and others express disparagement of the Companions inherited from his father and his Qarmatian associates. Thus, when they discuss humanity’s need for the imamate toward the end of their treatment of philosophy, you find them alluding to the views of the misguided Rāfidīs. The Rāfidīs, however, are more explicit in their vilification than these philosophers.

For this reason, you find an association and resemblance between the “Rāfidīs,” the “Qarmatians,” and the “Ittihādiyya.” Several things unite them. Among these are attacks on the best members of this community, on what the adherents of the sunnah and the community uphold, and on what