The Opposition of Shams and Molavi's Views about Hallaj

The deep and all-encompassing influence of Shams Tabrizi on Molavi is so obvious that a number of famous Molavi researchers consider his works as a reflection of Shams ideas and mention Mathnavi as a commentary of Shams’ An’am. Molavi’s spiritual revolution and the impact of Shams’ teachings on his thoughts in mystical، philosophical and theological grounds have been proved. However، in some rare instances، a diversity of opinions is seen between these well-known Sage and Disciple which has not been discussed by researchers yet. One of such instances is their different views about Hallaj character who is one of the most pivotal characters in Islamic mysticism. In this research، first، the views of Shams Tabrizi about Hallaj، which exist here and there in his essays، are gathered and classified. Then، they are compared with Molana’s views in different works and it is shown that there is fundamental diversity of opinions between them about Hallaj، his character and position which deserve reflection in the field of Islamic mysticism. For example، Shams criticizes Hallaj’s saying Ana al-Haq (I am the Truth) and thinks that he did not reach high stages of Progression and connection to God، not understand the World of Spirit completely، was incomplete in Intoxication and his words connote egoism. Meanwhile، Molana، the obvious disciple of Shams، has defended Hallaj’s character and thinks that he has reached the stage of Fana fi Allah and connection to God، and his Ana al-Haq does not connote egoism but is a great humbleness before God. Moreover، in various works، Molana tries to interpret and justify Hallaj’s saying Ana al-Haq and considers it as a symbol of divine symbols، whereas Shams considers it as an explicit saying which has no interpretation. Besides stating and exploring such diversity of opinions، this article tries to find a proper answer for it.