_Herrschende Ideen des Islams_, p. 31), who belonged to the _ghulat_
or extreme Shi'ites (Browne, _Lit. Hist. of Persia_, p. 310).]
identical with Allah or with the Ormazd (Ahura-Mazda) of the
Zoroastrians. For the twelve Imams were all of the rank of
divinities. Not that they were 'partners' with God; they were simply
manifestations of the Invisible God. But they were utterly veracious
Manifestations; in speaking of Allah (as the Sheykh taught) wer may
venture to intend 'Ali. [Footnote: The Sheykh held that in reciting
the opening _sura_ of the Kur'an the worshipper should think of
'Ali, should intend 'Ali, as his God.]

This explains how the Sheykh can have taught that the Imams took
part in creation and are agents in the government of the world. In
support of this he quoted Kur'an, Sur. xxiii. 14, 'God the best of
Creators,' and, had he been a broader and more scientific theologian,
might have mentioned how the Amshaspands (Ameshaspentas) are grouped
with Ormazd in the creation-story of Zoroastrianism, and how, in that
of Gen. i., the Director of the Heavenly Council says, 'Let _us_
make man.' [Footnote: Genesis i. 22.]

The Sheykh also believed strongly in the existence of a subtle body
which survives the dissolution of the palpable, material body,
[Footnote: _TN_, p. 236.] and will alone be visible at the
Resurrection. Nothing almost gave more offence than this; it seemed to
be only a few degrees better than the absolute denial of the
resurrection-body ventured upon by the Akhbaris. [Footnote: Gobineau,
pp. 39, 40.] And yet the notion of a subtle, internal body, a notion
which is Indian as well as Persian, has been felt even by many
Westerns to be for them the only way to reconcile reason and faith.