ḤāfiẓandthePersianSufiTradition 189your sleeping without cognizance of God, on a full stomach satiated on food which is of doubtful
provenance,hasmadeyoufallfarawayfromthedegreeofpassionatelove...butwhenyouarriveand
attain union with the Friend and become eternally subsistent through Him by means of love, then
youwillbecomewithoutsleepandfeed,foraslongasyouabideonthelevelofsleepandfeed,you
arebutthecohortofbrutesandbeasts.’(^9) Unlike Sanā’ī, however, Ḥāfiẓ never composed poetry solely devoted to ascetic themes (called
zuhdiyyāt).
(^10) On the ‘witness of divine beauty in the flesh’,shāhid,mentioned some 15 times in theDīvān, see my
Prolegomenon2,pp.43–55.Ḥāfiẓ’srebuketotheasceticherehasKhayyāmesqueovertones,andthe
entireghazalmayalsobeusefullyreadasapoliticalsatireontheoppressiverulerAmīrMubārizal-
DīnMuẓaffar(1353–8)aswell;cf.Isti‘lāmī,Dars-iḤāfiẓ,II,p.1210.
(^11) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ,ed.Khānlarī,ghazal471:6.
(^12) Ibid.,ghazal350:5.
(^13) MeasureforMeasure,IV.ii.8–9.
(^14) ThePilgrim’sProgress,pp.83–6.
(^15) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ,ed.Khānlarī,ghazal154:3.
(^16) ItakeacuefromLāhūrī’sgrandcommentary:Sharḥ-i‘irfānī-yighazalhā-yi-iḤāfiẓ,IV,p.2365,wherehe
identifiesthecounsellorandshaykhmentionedinthisghazal(345:5–6here–andalsoelsewherein
Ḥāfiẓ’sDīvān)withtheasceticPuritan(zāhid).
(^17) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ,ed.Khānlarī,ghazal345:5–6.TranslationbyBlyandLewisohn,TheAngelsKnockingonthe
TavernDoor,p.51.
(^18) ReferringtoZāhid-i‘āqil,seeibid.,ghazal364:2,discussedonthenextpage.
(^19) Ibid.,ghazal48:4.Varā-yiṭā‘at-idīvānagānzimāmaṭalab.Kishaykh-imadhhab-imā‘āqilīgunadānist.
(^20) Lāhūrī,Sharḥ-i‘irfānī,I,pp.207–8correctlyidentifiesShaykh-imadhhab-imāwithLuqmān,mentioned
in‘Aṭṭār’sManṭiqal-ṭayr,ed.Gawharīn,vv.3741–52.On‘Aṭṭār’sholyfools,seeRitter,TheOceanofthe
Soul,pp.165–87.
(^21) Haravī,Sharḥ-ighazalhā-yiḤāfiẓ,I,p.251;Lāhūrī,Sharḥ-i‘irfānī,I,p.207.
(^22) TwelfthNight,III.ii.72–3.
(^23) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ,ed.Khānlarī,ghazal385:9.Trans.byBlyandLewisohn,Angels,p.22.
(^24) Ibid.,ghazal364:2.
(^25) SeetheextendeddiscussionbyMurtaḍawī,Maktab-iḤāfiẓ,pp.399–422ofḤāfiẓ’seroticdoctrine;see
especially the sections on the superiority of the path of love over all other paths (pp. 406–7); the
superiorityofloveoverreason(pp.414–15);andthetoposofthe‘religionoflove’(p.418).
(^26) Schimmel,‘ReasonandMysticalExperienceinIslam’,pp.142–3.
(^27) Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ,ed.Khānlarī,ghazal22:5.Trans.byBlyandLewisohn,Angels,p.7.Lāhūrī(Sharḥ-i‘irfānī-
yiDīvān-iḤāfiẓ,I,p.428),thuscommentingonthisverse,explainsthat‘itisthroughtheformsofmor-
talbeauty[suwar-ihusniyya]thatGod-as-AbsoluteinrealityattractstheheartsofloverstoHimself’.
Seethediscussionofshāhid-bāzīandnaẓarbāzīinmyProlegomenon2.
(^28) Cf.Lāhūrī,Sharḥ-i‘irfānī-yiDīvān-iḤāfiẓ,I,p.546.
(^29) Gulistān-iSa‛dī,ed.KhaṭībRahbar,II:6,pp.152–3.
(^30) Such religious mountebanks and dissembling puritan ascetics are a phenomenon of daily life in the
modern-day Persianate culture of Iran and Afghanistan. Following the clericalcoupd’étatof 1979,
there is hardly a major Iranian writer who has not depicted in detail thezāhidʼs humbug and coun-
terfeitpiety.Sa‘īdīSīrjānī’sOShort-cuffedMen!(Aykūta-āstīnān;forSīrjānī’sanalysisofḤāfiẓ’sradical
anti-clericalism,seepp.261–88;esp.282–8)–thetitlebeingtakenfromaversebyḤāfiẓreferringto
greedymountebankdervishes(Dīvān-iḤāfiẓ,ed.Khānlarī,ghazal426:10b)–isoneofthemostfamous
works in this regard (with thanks to Kamran Talattof for this reference). Likewise, see the many
descriptions provided by the father of modern Tajik literature, Sadriddin Aini (1878–1954), of his
experienceofthechicaneryofseminaryschoolteachersandtheirstudentsinBukhara,andthehyp-
ocriticalzāhids and sanctimonious mullahs throughout Tajikistan in his monumental autobiography
(with thanks to Ibrahim Gamard and Ravan Farhadi for this reference) – see Aini,Bukhara