the true nature of his intent, nor had we read al-Fusūs or similar works. We would gather with our brothers in Allah, seeking and following the truth and uncovering the true nature of the spiritual path. Once the matter became clear, we understood our duty.

When respected shaykhs arrived from the East and asked about the true nature of the Islamic path and the Islamic religion, and about the actual condition of these people, clarification became obligatory. Likewise, sincere men following the spiritual path wrote to us from the outlying regions of Syria, and I was asked to set out the key points that collectively explain the true nature of their intent. The shaykh—may Allah Most High strengthen him through the light of his heart and the acuity of his soul, and fulfill his purpose in his sincere concern for Islam, its people, and his brothers on the spiritual path—acts in this matter hoping to attain Allah’s pleasure and forgiveness in this world and the Hereafter.

As for these people who have spoken on this matter, no account of them has been known since the rise of the Tatar state. Otherwise, the earlier doctrine of union was union confined to a particular individual. The classification is fourfold, since both union and indwelling are either confined to a particular individual or unrestricted.

Union and indwelling confined to a particular individual are exemplified by the beliefs of the Christians, the extremists among the Rāfidah concerning their imams, and the ignorant spiritual devotees and Sufis concerning their shaykhs. They maintain these beliefs concerning a particular individual: either union, like the mingling of water and milk, which is the doctrine of the Jacobites, who comprise black peoples and people from among the Abyssinians and Copts; or indwelling, which is the doctrine of the Nestorians; or union in one respect but not another, which is the doctrine of the Melkites.