------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note:
This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Superscripted
characters are indicated with ‘^’ and, if multiple characters are
raised, they are bracketed with ‘{ }’. Bold fonts are used in the index
entries to indicate the primary entries in the text.
Footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are
referenced.
There is an editorial list of corrections and additions. These, along
with the errors they mention, are retained in this version.
Minor errors, deemed attributable to the printer, have been corrected.
Please see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details.
“_E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL_”
_SERIES._
_VOL. XVII._
THE KASHF AL-MAḤJÚB
THE OLDEST PERSIAN TREATISE ON
ṢÚFIISM
BY
‘ALÍ B. ‘UTHMÁN AL-JULLÁBÍ AL-HUJWÍRÍ
TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF THE LAHORE EDITION,
COMPARED WITH MSS. IN THE INDIA OFFICE AND
BRITISH MUSEUM.
BY
REYNOLD A. NICHOLSON, LITT.D.
LECTURER IN PERSIAN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE;
FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE.
AND
PRINTED FOR THE TRUSTEES OF THE
“E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL”.
VOLUME XVII.
LEYDEN: E. J. BRILL, IMPRIMERIE ORIENTALE.
LONDON: LUZAC & CO., 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET.
1911.
PRINTED BY
STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS, LTD.
HERTFORD.
_“E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL” SERIES._
PUBLISHED,
1. _The_ Bábar-náma, _reproduced in facsimile from a MS. belonging to
the late Sir Sálár Jang of Ḥaydarábád, and edited with Preface and
Indexes, by Mrs. Beveridge, 1905. (Out of print.)_
2. _An abridged translation of Ibn Isfandiyár’s_ History of Ṭabaristán,
_by Edward G. Browne, 1905. Price 8s._
3. _Translation of al-Khazrají’s_ History of the Rasúlí Dynasty of
Yaman, _with introduction by the late Sir J. Redhouse, now edited by
E. G. Browne, R. A. Nicholson, and A. Rogers. Vols. I and II of the
Translation, 1906, 1907. Price 7s. each. Vol. III, containing the
Annotations, 1908. Price 5s. (Vol. IV, containing the Text, in the
Press.)_
4. Umayyads and `Abbásids: _being the Fourth Part of Jurjí Zaydán’s_
History of Islamic Civilisation, _translated by Professor D. S.
Margoliouth, D.Litt., 1907. Price 5s._
5. _The Travels of_ Ibn Jubayr, _the late Dr. William Wright’s edition
of the Arabic text, revised by the late Professor M. J. de Goeje,
1907. Price 6s._
6. _Yáqút’s Dictionary of Learned Men, entitled_ Irshádu’l-aríb ilá
ma‘rifati’l-adíb, _or_ Mu‘jamu’l-Udabá: _edited from the Bodleian MS.
by Professor D. S. Margoliouth, D.Litt. Vols. I, II, 1907, ’09. Price
8s. each. Vol. III, part 1, 1910. Price 5s. (Further volumes in
preparation.)_
7. _The_ Tajáribu´l-Umam _of Ibn Miskawayh: reproduced in facsimile from
MSS. Nos. 3116-3121 of Áyâ Sofia, with Preface and Summary by the
Principe di Teano. Vol. I (to A.H. 37), 1909. Price 7s. (Further
volumes in preparation.)_
8. _The_ Marzubán-náma _of Sa`du´d-Dín-i-Waráwíní, edited by Mírzá
Muḥammad of Qazwín, 1909. Price 8s._
9. _Textes persans relatifs à la_ secte des Ḥouroûfîs _publiés,
traduits, et annotés par Clément Huart, suivis d’une étude sur la
religion des Ḥouroûfîs par “Feylesouf Rizá”, 1909. Price 8s._
10. _The_ Mu`jam fí Ma`áyíri Ash`ári´l-`Ajam _of Shams-i-Qays, edited
from the British Museum MS. (Or. 2814) by Edward G. Browne and Mírzá
Muḥammad of Qazwín, 1909. Price 8s._
11. _The_ Chahár Maqála _of Niḏẖámí-i-`Arúḍí-i-Samarqandí,
edited, with notes in Persian, by Mírzá Muḥammad of Qazwín, 1910.
Price 8s._
12. Introduction à l’Histoire des Mongols _de Fadl Allah Rashid ed-Din
par E. Blochet, 1910. Price 8s._
13. _The_ Díwán _of Ḥassán b. Thábit (d. A.H. 54), edited by Hartwig
Hirschfeld, Ph.D., 1910. Price 5s._
14. _The_ Ta´ríkh-i-Guzída _of Ḥamdu´lláh Mustawfí of Qazwín, reproduced
in facsimile from an old MS., with Introduction, Indices, etc., by
Edward G. Browne. Vol. I. Text._ 1910. _Price 15s._
15. _The_ Earliest History of the Bábís, _composed before 1852, by Ḥájji
Mírzá Jání of Káshán, edited from the unique Paris MS. (Suppl.
Persan, 1071) by Edward G. Browne. Price 8s._
16. _The_ Ta´ríkh-i-Jabán-gushá _of `Alá´u´d-Dín `Aṭá Malik-i-Juwayní,
edited from seven MSS. by Mírzá Muḥammad of Qazwín. Price 8s._
17. _A translation of the_ Kashf al-Maḥjúb _of `Alí b. `Uthmán
al-Jullábí al-Hujwírí, the oldest Persian manual of Ṣúfiism, by R. A.
Nicholson. Price 8s._
IN PREPARATION.
_The History of the Mongols, from the_ Jámi`u´t-Tawáríkh _of
Rashídu´d-Din Faḍlu´lláh, beginning with the account of Ogotáy,
edited by E. Blochet, comprising:—_
_Tome I: Histoire des tribus turques et mongoles, des ancêtres de
Tchinkkiz-Khan depuis Along-Goa, et de Tchinkkiz-Khan._
_Tome II: Histoire des successeurs de Tchinkkiz-Khan, d’Ougédeï à
Témour-Kaan, des fils apanagés de Tchinkkiz-Khan, et des
gouverneurs Mongols de Perse d’Houlagou à Ghazan. (Sous presse.)_
_Tome III: Histoire de Ghazan, d’Oldjaïtou, et de Abou-Saïd._
_An abridged translation of the_ Iḥyá´u´l-Mulúk, _a Persian History of
Sístán by Sháh Ḥusayn, from the British Museum MS. (Or. 2779), by A.
G. Ellis._
_The geographical part of the_ Nuzhatu´l-Qulúb _of Ḥamdu´lláh Mustawfí
of Qazwín, with a translation, by G. Le Strange._
_The_ Futúḥu Miṣr wa´l-Maghrib wa´l-Andalus _of Abu´l-Qásim
`Abdu´r-Raḥmán b. `Abdu´lláh b. Abdu´l-Ḥakam al-Qurashí al-Miṣrí (d.
A.H. 257), edited by Professor C. C. Torrey._
_The_ Qábús-náma, _edited in the original Persian by E. Edwards._
Ta´ríkhu Miṣr, _the History of Egypt, by Abú `Umar Muḥammad b. Yúsuf
al-Kindí (d. A.H. 350), edited from the unique MS. in the British
Museum (Add. 23,324) by A. Rhuvon Guest. (In the Press.)_
_The_ Ansáb _of as-Sam`ání, reproduced in facsimile from the British
Museum MS. (Or. 23,355), with Indices by H. Loewe. (In the Press.)_
_The poems of four early Arabic poets. In two parts:—(1) The_ Díwáns _of
`Ámir b. aṭ-Ṭufayl and `Abíd b. al-Abraṣ, edited by Sir Charles J.
Lyall, K.C.S.I.; (2) The_ Díwáns _of aṭ-Ṭufayl b. `Awf and Ṭirimmáḥ
b. Ḥakím, edited by F. Krenkow._
_The_ Kitábu´l-Raddi `alá ahli ´l-bida`i wal-ahwá´i _of Makḥúl b.
al-Mufaḍḍal al-Nasafí (d. A.H. 318), edited from the Bodleian MS.
Pocock 271, with introductory Essay on the Sects of Islam, by G. W.
Thatcher, M.A._
_A_ monograph on the Southern Dialects of Kurdish, _by E. B. Soane._
_This Volume is one
of a Series
published by the Trustees of the
“E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL”._
_The Funds of this Memorial are derived from the interest accruing from
a sum of money given by the late MRS. GIBB of Glasgow, to perpetuate the
Memory of her beloved son_
_ELIAS JOHN WILKINSON GIBB,_
_and to promote those researches into the History, Literature,
Philosophy, and Religion of the Turks, Persians, and Arabs to which,
from his youth upwards, until his premature and deeply lamented death in
his 45th year on December 5, 1901, his life was devoted._
تِلْكَ آثَارُنَا تَدُلُّ عَلَيْنَا * فَٱنْظُرُوا بَعْدَنَا الي ٱلاَثَارِ
“_The worker pays his debt to Death;
His work lives on, nay, quickeneth._”
_The following memorial verse is contributed by `Abdu´l-Ḥaqq Ḥámid Bey
of the Imperial Ottoman Embassy in London, one of the Founders of the
New School of Turkish Literature, and for many years an intimate friend
of the deceased._
جمله يارانى وفاسيله ايدركن نطييب
کندی عمرنده وفاگورمدی اول ذاتِ اديب
گنج ايکن اولمش ايدی اوجِ کماله واصل
نه اولوردی ياشامش اولسه ايدی مستر گيب
“_E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL._”
_ORIGINAL TRUSTEES._
[_JANE GIBB, died November 26, 1904_],
_E. G. BROWNE_,
_G. LE STRANGE_,
_H. F. AMEDROZ_,
_A. G. ELLIS_,
_R. A. NICHOLSON_,
_E. DENISON ROSS_,
_AND_
_IDA W. E. OGILVY GREGORY (formerly GIBB), appointed 1905._
_CLERK OF THE TRUST._
_JULIUS BERTRAM,
14 Suffolk Street, Pall Mall,
LONDON, S.W._
_PUBLISHERS FOR THE TRUSTEES._
_E. J. BRILL, LEYDEN.
LUZAC & CO., LONDON._
CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.
Page 2, penult. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).
p. 3, line 14 and l. 30. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).
p. 4, l. 18. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).
p. 4, l. 26. _For_ just as the veil destroys revelation _(mukáshafat)
read_ just as veiling destroys the unveiled object (_mukáshaf_).
p. 6, l. 4 and l. 16. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).
p. 51, l. 6. _For_ Parg _read_ Burk _or_ Purg, and correct the note
accordingly. See Guy Le Strange, _The Lands of the Eastern
Caliphate_, p. 292.
p. 54, l. 28. _For_ the infectious cankers of the age _read_ the cankers
which infect age after age.
p. 85, l. 19. For (_sáḥib al-qulúb_) read (_ṣáḥi´l-qulúb_). _Ṣáḥí_,
“sober,” is the antithesis of _maghlúb_, “enraptured.”
p. 127, l. 17. _For_ AL-INṬÁKÍ _read_ AL-ANṬÁKÍ.
p. 130, l. 27. Although some writers give “Abu ´l-Ḥasan” as the _kunya_
of Núrí, the balance of authority is in favour of “Abu ´l-Ḥusayn”.
p. 131, n. 2. _Add_, See Goldziher in _ZDMG._, 61, 75 ff., and a passage
in Yáqút’s _Irshád al-Aríb_, ed. by Margoliouth, vol. iii, pt. i,
153, 3 ff.; cited by Goldziher in _JRAS._ for 1910, p. 888.
p. 140, l. 19. _For_ ABÚ MUḤAMMAD `ABDALLÁH _read_ ABÚ `ABDALLÁH.
p. 155, l. 26. _Omit_ B. _before_ DULAF.
p. 169, l. 1. _Omit_ B. _before_ `ALÍ.
p. 173, l. 11. _For_ Pádsháh-i _read_ Pádisháh-i.
p. 182, l. 26. _Sháhmurghí_ is probably a mistake for _siyáh murghí_, “a
blackbird.” Cf. my edition of the _Tadhkirat al-Awliyá_, ii, 259,
23.
p. 257, l. 1. For _t`aṭíl_ read _ta`ṭíl_.
p. 323, l. 10. _For_ Miṣṣíṣí _read_ Maṣṣíṣí.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER. PAGES.
Translator’s Preface xvii-xxiv
Author’s Introduction 1-9
I. On the Affirmation of Knowledge 11-18
II. On Poverty 19-29
III. On Ṣúfiism 30-44
IV. On the Wearing of Patched Frocks 45-57
V. On the Different Opinions held concerning Poverty 58-61
and Purity
VI. On Blame (_Malámat_) 62-9
VII. Concerning their Imáms who belonged to the 70-4
Companions
VIII. Concerning their Imáms who belonged to the House 75-80
of the Prophet
IX. Concerning the People of the Veranda (_Ahl-i 81-2
Ṣuffa_)
X. Concerning their Imáms who belonged to the 83-7
Followers (_al-Tábi`ún_)
XI. Concerning their Imáms who lived subsequently to 88-160
the Followers down to our day
XII. Concerning the principal Ṣúfís of recent times 161-71
XIII. A brief account of the modern Ṣúfís in different 172-5
countries
XIV. Concerning the Doctrines held by the different 176-266
sects of Ṣúfís
XV. The Uncovering of the First Veil: Concerning the 267-77
Gnosis of God (_ma`rifat Allah_)
XVI. The Uncovering of the Second Veil: Concerning 278-85
Unification (_tawḥíd_)
XVII. The Uncovering of the Third Veil: Concerning Faith 286-90
XVIII. The Uncovering of the Fourth Veil: Concerning 291-9
Purification from Foulness
XIX. The Uncovering of the Fifth Veil: Concerning 300-13
Prayer (_al-ṣalát_)
XX. The Uncovering of the Sixth Veil: Concerning Alms 314-19
(_al-zakát_)
XXI. The Uncovering of the Seventh Veil: On Fasting 320-5
(_al-ṣawm_)
XXII. The Uncovering of the Eighth Veil: Concerning the 326-33
Pilgrimage
XXIII. The Uncovering of the Ninth Veil: Concerning 334-66
Companionship, together with its Rules and
Principles
XXIV. The Uncovering of the Tenth Veil: explaining their 367-92
phraseology and the definitions of their terms and
the verities of the ideas which are signified
XXV. The Uncovering of the Eleventh Veil: Concerning 393-420
Audition (_samá`_)
PREFACE.
This translation of the most ancient and celebrated Persian treatise on
Ṣúfiism will, I hope, be found useful not only by the small number of
students familiar with the subject at first hand, but also by many
readers who, without being Orientalists themselves, are interested in
the general history of mysticism and may wish to compare or contrast the
diverse yet similar manifestations of the mystical spirit in
Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam. The origin of Ṣúfiism and its
relation to these great religions cannot properly be considered here,
and I dismiss such questions the more readily because I intend to deal
with them on another occasion. It is now my duty to give some account of
the author of the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_, and to indicate the character of
his work.
Abu ´l-Ḥasan `Alí b. `Uthmán b. `Alí al-Ghaznawí al-Jullábí
al-Hujwírí[1] was a native of Ghazna in Afghanistan.[2] Of his life very
little is known beyond what he relates incidentally in the _Kashf
al-Maḥjúb_. He studied Ṣúfiism under Abu ´l-Faḍl Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan
al-Khuttalí[3] (p. 166), who was a pupil of Abu ´l-Ḥasan al-Ḥuṣrí (ob.
371 A.H.), and under Abu ´l-`Abbás Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Ashqání or
al-Shaqání[4] (p. 168). He also received instruction from Abu ´l-Qásim
Gurgání[5] (p. 169) and Khwája Muẕaffar[6] (p. 170), and he mentions a
great number of Shaykhs whom he had met and conversed with in the course
of his wanderings. He travelled far and wide through the Muḥammadan
empire from Syria to Turkistán and from the Indus to the Caspian Sea.
Among the countries and places which he visited were Ádharbáyaján (pp.
57 and 410), the tomb of Báyazíd at Bisṭám (p. 68), Damascus, Ramla, and
Bayt al-Jinn in Syria (pp. 94, 167, 343), Ṭús and Uzkand (p. 234), the
tomb of Abú Sa`íd b. Abi ´l-Khayr at Mihna (p. 235), Merv (p. 401), and
the Jabal al-Buttam to the east of Samarcand (p. 407). He seems to have
settled for a time in `Iráq, where he ran deeply into debt (p. 345). It
may be inferred from a passage on p. 364 that he had a short and
unpleasant experience of married life. Finally, according to the _Riyáḍ
al-Awliyá_, he went to reside at Lahore and ended his days in that city.
His own statement, however, shows that he was taken there as a prisoner
against his will (p. 91), and that in composing the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ he
was inconvenienced by the loss of the books which he had left at Ghazna.
The date of his death is given as 456 A.H. (1063-4 A.D.) or 464 A.H.
(1071-2 A.D.), but it is likely that he survived Abu ´l-Qásim
al-Qushayrí, who died in 465 A.H. (1072 A.D.). Rieu’s observation (_Cat.
of the Persian MSS. in the British Museum_, i, 343) that the author
classes Qushayrí with the Ṣúfís who had passed away before the time at
which he was writing, is not quite accurate. The author says (p. 161):
“Some of those whom I shall mention in this chapter are already
deceased, and some are still living.” But of the ten Ṣúfís in question
only one, namely, Abu ´l-Qásim Gurgání, is referred to in terms which
leave no doubt that he was alive when the author wrote. In the _Safínat
al-Awliyá_, No. 71, it is stated that Abu ´l-Qásim Gurgání died in 450
A.H. If this date were correct, the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ must have been
written at least fifteen years before Qushayrí’s death. On the other
hand, my MS. of the _Shadharát al-Dhahab_ records the death of Abu
´l-Qásim Gurgání under the year 469 A.H., a date which appears to me
more probable, and in that case the statement that the author survived
Qushayrí may be accepted, although the evidence on which it rests is
mainly negative, for we cannot lay much stress on the fact that
Qushayrí’s name is sometimes followed by the Moslem equivalent for “of
blessed memory”. I conjecture, then, that the author died between 465
and 469 A.H.[7] His birth may be placed in the last decade of the tenth
or the first decade of the eleventh century of our era, and he must have
been in the prime of youth when Sultan Maḥmúd died in 421 A.H. (1030
A.D.). The _Risála-i Abdáliyya_,[8] a fifteenth century treatise on the
Muḥammadan saints by Ya`qúb b. `Uthmán al-Ghaznawí, contains an
anecdote, for which it would be hazardous to claim any historical value,
to the effect that al-Hujwírí once argued in Maḥmúd’s presence with an
Indian philosopher and utterly discomfited him by an exhibition of
miraculous powers. Be that as it may, he was venerated as a saint long
after his death, and his tomb at Lahore was being visited by pilgrims
when Bakhtáwar Khán wrote the _Riyáḍ al-Awliyá_ in the latter half of
the seventeenth century.
Footnote 1:
Julláb and Hujwír were two suburbs of Ghazna. Evidently he resided for
some time in each of them.
Footnote 2:
Notices occur in the _Nafaḥát al-Uns_, No. 377; the _Safínat
al-Awliyá_, No. 298 (Ethé’s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the Library
of the India Office_, i, col. 304); the _Riyáḍ al-Awliyá_, Or. 1745,
f. 140_a_ (Rieu’s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the British Museum_,
iii, 975). In the _khátimat al-ṭab`_ on the last page of the Lahore
edition of the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ he is called Ḥaḍrat-i Dátá
Ganj-bakhsh `Alí al-Hujwírí.
Footnote 3:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 376. Through al-Khuttalí, al-Ḥuṣrí, and Abú Bakr
al-Shiblí the author of the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ is spiritually connected
with Junayd of Baghdád (ob. 297 A.H.).
Footnote 4:
Ibid., No. 375. The _nisba_ Shaqqání or Shaqání is derived from
Shaqqán, a village near Níshápúr.
Footnote 5:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 367.
Footnote 6:
Ibid., No. 368.
Footnote 7:
The date 465 A.H. is given by Ázád in his biographical work on the
famous men of Balgrám, entitled _Ma´áthir al-Kirám_.
Footnote 8:
See Ethé’s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the India Office Library_, No.
1774 (2). The author of this treatise does not call al-Hujwírí the
_brother_ of Abú Sa`íd b. Abi ´l-Khayr, as Ethé says, but his
_spiritual_ brother (_birádar-i ḥaqíqat_).
In the introduction to the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ al-Hujwírí complains that
two of his former works had been given to the public by persons who
erased his name from the title-page, and pretended that they themselves
were the authors. In order to guard against the repetition of this
fraud, he has inserted his own name in many passages of the present
work. His writings, to which he has occasion to refer in the _Kashf
al-Maḥjúb_, are—
1. A _díwán_ (p. 2).
2. _Minháj al-dín_, on the method of Ṣúfiism (p. 2). It comprised a
detailed account of the Ahl-i Ṣuffa (p. 80) and a full biography of
Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr al-Ḥalláj (p. 153).
3. _Asrár al-khiraq wa ´l-ma´únát_, on the patched frocks of the Ṣúfís
(p. 56).
4. _Kitáb-i faná ú baqá_, composed “in the vanity and rashness of youth”
(p. 60).
5. A work, of which the title is not mentioned, in explanation of the
sayings of Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr al-Ḥalláj (p. 153).
6. _Kitáb al-bayán li-ahl al-`iyán_, on union with God (p. 259).
7. _Baḥr al-qulúb_ (p. 259).
8. _Al-Ri`áyat li-ḥuqúq Allah_, on the Divine unity (p. 280).
9. A work, of which the title is not mentioned, on faith (p. 286).
None of these books has been preserved.
The _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_,[9] which belongs to the later years of the
author’s life, and, partly at any rate, to the period of his residence
in Lahore, was written in reply to certain questions addressed to him by
a fellow-townsman, Abú Sa`íd al-Hujwírí. Its object is to set forth a
complete system of Ṣúfiism, not to put together a great number of
sayings by different Shaykhs, but to discuss and expound the doctrines
and practices of the Ṣúfís. The author’s attitude throughout is that of
a teacher instructing a pupil. Even the biographical section of the work
(pp. 70-175) is largely expository. Before stating his own view the
author generally examines the current opinions on the same topic and
refutes them if necessary. The discussion of mystical problems and
controversies is enlivened by many illustrations drawn from his personal
experience. In this respect the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ is more interesting
than the _Risála_ of Qushayrí, which is so valuable as a collection of
sayings, anecdotes, and definitions, but which follows a somewhat formal
and academic method on the orthodox lines. No one can read the present
work without detecting, behind the scholastic terminology, a truly
Persian flavour of philosophical speculation.
Footnote 9:
Its full title is _Kashf al-maḥjúb li-arbáb al-qulúb_ (Ḥájjí Khalífa,
v, 215).
Although he was a Sunní and a Ḥanafite, al-Hujwírí, like many Ṣúfís
before and after him, managed to reconcile his theology with an advanced
type of mysticism, in which the theory of “annihilation” (_faná_) holds
a dominant place, but he scarcely goes to such extreme lengths as would
justify us in calling him a pantheist. He strenuously resists and
pronounces heretical the doctrine that human personality can be merged
and extinguished in the being of God. He compares annihilation to
burning by fire, which transmutes the quality of all things to its own
quality, but leaves their essence unchanged. He agrees with his
spiritual director, al-Khuttalí, in adopting the theory of Junayd that
“sobriety” in the mystical acceptation of the term is preferable to
“intoxication”. He warns his readers often and emphatically that no
Ṣúfís, not even those who have attained the highest degree of holiness,
are exempt from the obligation of obeying the religious law. In other
points, such as the excitation of ecstasy by music and singing, and the
use of erotic symbolism in poetry, his judgment is more or less
cautious. He defends al-Ḥalláj from the charge of being a magician, and
asserts that his sayings are pantheistic only in appearance, but
condemns his doctrines as unsound. It is clear that he is anxious to
represent Ṣúfiism as the true interpretation of Islam, and it is equally
certain that the interpretation is incompatible with the text.[10]
Notwithstanding the homage which he pays to the Prophet we cannot
separate al-Hujwírí, as regards the essential principles of his
teaching, from his older and younger contemporaries, Abú Sa`íd b. Abi
´l-Khayr and `Abdalláh Anṣárí.[11] These three mystics developed the
distinctively Persian theosophy which is revealed in full-blown
splendour by Faríd al-dín `Aṭṭár and Jalál al-dín Rúmí.
Footnote 10:
The author’s view as to the worthlessness of outward forms of religion
is expressed with striking boldness in his chapter on the Pilgrimage
(pp. 326-9).
Footnote 11:
Many passages from the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ are quoted, word for word, in
Jámí’s _Nafaḥát al-Uns_, which is a modernized and enlarged recension
of `Abdalláh Anṣárí’s _Ṭabaqát al-Ṣúfiyya_.
The most remarkable chapter in the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ is the fourteenth,
“Concerning the Doctrines held by the different sects of Ṣúfís,” in
which the author enumerates twelve mystical schools and explains the
special doctrine of each.[12] So far as I know, he is the first writer
to do this. Only one of the schools mentioned by him, namely, that of
the Malámatís, seems to be noticed in earlier books on Ṣúfiism; such
brief references to the other schools as occur in later books, for
example in the _Tadhkirat al-Awliyá_, are probably made on his
authority. The question may be asked, “Did these schools really exist,
or were they invented by al-Hujwírí in his desire to systematize the
theory of Ṣúfiism?” I see no adequate ground at present for the latter
hypothesis, which involves the assumption that al-Hujwírí made precise
statements that he must have known to be false. It is very likely,
however, that in his account of the special doctrines which he
attributes to the founder of each school he has often expressed his own
views upon the subject at issue and has confused them with the original
doctrine. The existence of these schools and doctrines, though lacking
further corroboration,[13] does not seem to me incredible; on the
contrary, it accords with what happened in the case of the Mu`tazilites
and other Muḥammadan schismatics. Certain doctrines were produced and
elaborated by well-known Shaykhs, who published them in the form of
tracts or were content to lecture on them until, by a familiar process,
the new doctrine became the pre-eminent feature of a particular school.
Other schools might then accept or reject it. In some instances sharp
controversy arose, and the novel teaching gained so little approval that
it was confined to the school of its author or was embraced only by a
small minority of the Ṣúfí brotherhood. More frequently it would, in the
course of time, be drawn into the common stock and reduced to its proper
level. Dr. Goldziher has observed that Ṣúfiism cannot be regarded as a
regularly organized sect within Islam, and that its dogmas cannot be
compiled into a regular system.[14] That is perfectly true, but after
allowing for all divergences there remains a fairly definite body of
doctrine which is held in common by Ṣúfís of many different shades and
is the result of gradual agglomeration from many different minds.
Footnote 12:
A summary of these doctrines will be found in the abstract of a paper
on “The Oldest Persian Manual of Ṣúfiism” which I read at Oxford in
1908 (_Trans. of the Third International Congress for the History of
Religions_, i, 293-7).
Footnote 13:
Some of al-Hujwírí’s twelve sects reappear at a later epoch as orders
of dervishes, but the pedigree of those orders which trace their
descent from ancient Ṣúfís is usually fictitious.
Footnote 14:
_JRAS._, 1904, p. 130.
It is probable that oral tradition was the main source from which
al-Hujwírí derived the materials for his work. Of extant treatises on
Ṣúfiism he mentions by name only the _Kitáb al-Luma`_ by Abú Naṣr
al-Sarráj, who died in 377 or 378 A.H. This book is written in Arabic
and is the oldest specimen of its class. Through the kindness of Mr. A.
G. Ellis, who has recently acquired the sole copy that is at present
known to Orientalists, I have been able to verify the reading of a
passage quoted by al-Hujwírí (p. 341), and to assure myself that he was
well acquainted with his predecessor’s work. The arrangement of the
_Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ is partially based on that of the _Kitáb al-Luma`_,
the two books resemble each other in their general plan, and some
details of the former are evidently borrowed from the latter. Al-Hujwírí
refers in his notice of Ma`rúf al-Karkhí (p. 114) to the biographies of
Ṣúfís compiled by Abú `Abd al-Raḥmán al-Sulamí and Abu ´l-Qásim
al-Qushayrí. Although he does not give the titles, he is presumably
referring to Sulamí’s _ṭabaqát Al-ṣúfiyya_ and Qushayrí’s _Risála_.[15]
The _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ contains a Persian rendering of some passages in
the _Risála_ of Qushayrí, with whom al-Hujwírí seems to have been
personally acquainted. A citation from `Abdalláh Anṣárí occurs on p. 26.
Footnote 15:
Cf., however, p. 114, note.
Manuscripts of the _Kashf al-Maḥjúb_ are preserved in several European
libraries.[16] It has been lithographed at Lahore, and Professor
Schukovski of St. Petersburg is now, as I understand, engaged in
preparing a critical text. The Lahore edition is inaccurate, especially
in the spelling of names, but most of its mistakes are easy to emend,
and the text agrees closely with two MSS. in the Library of the India
Office (Nos. 1773 and 1774 in Ethé’s _Catalogue_), with which I have
compared it. I have also consulted a good MS. in the British Museum
(Rieu’s _Catalogue_, i, 342). The following abbreviations are used: L.
to denote the Lahore edition, =I.= to denote the India Office MS. 1773
(early seventeenth century), =J.= to denote the India Office MS. 1774
(late seventeenth century), and =B.= to denote the British Museum MS.
Or. 219 (early seventeenth century). In my translation I have, of
course, corrected the Lahore text where necessary. While the doubtful
passages are few in number, there are, I confess, many places in which a
considerable effort is required in order to grasp the author’s meaning
and follow his argument. The logic of a Persian Ṣúfí must sometimes
appear to European readers curiously illogical. Other obstacles might
have been removed by means of annotation, but this expedient, if adopted
consistently, would have swollen the volume to a formidable size.
Footnote 16:
See Ethé’s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the India Office Library_, i,
col. 970, where other MSS. are mentioned, and Blochet, _Cat. des
manuscrits persans de la Bibliothèque Nationale_, i, 261 (No. 401).
The English version is nearly complete, and nothing of importance has
been omitted, though I have not hesitated to abridge when opportunity
offered. Arabists will remark an occasional discrepancy between the
Arabic sayings printed in italics and the translations accompanying
them: this is due to my having translated, not the original Arabic, but
the Persian paraphrase given by al-Hujwírí.
REYNOLD A. NICHOLSON.
KASHF AL-MAḤJÚB.
INTRODUCTION.
IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MERCIFUL, THE COMPASSIONATE.
_O Lord, bestow on us mercy from Thyself and provide for us a right
course of action!_
_Praise be to God, who hath revealed the secrets of His kingdom to His
Saints, and hath disclosed the mysteries of His power to His
intimates, and hath shed the blood of Lovers with the sword of His
glory, and hath let the hearts of Gnostics taste the joy of His
communion! He it is that bringeth dead hearts to life by the
radiance of the perception of His eternity and His majesty, and
reanimates them with the comforting spirit of knowledge by divulging
His Names._
_And peace be upon His Apostle, Muḥammad, and his family and his
companions and his wives!_
`Alí b. `Uthmán b. `Alí al-Jullábí al-Ghaznawí al-Hujwírí (may God be
well pleased with him!) says as follows:—
I have asked God’s blessing, and have cleared my heart of motives
related to self, and have set to work in accordance with your
invitation—may God make you happy!—and have firmly resolved to fulfil
all your wishes by means of this book. I have entitled it “The
Revelation of The Mystery”. Knowing what you desire, I have arranged
the book in divisions suitable to your purpose. Now I pray God to aid
and prosper me in its completion, and I divest myself of my own
strength and ability in word and deed. It is God that gives success.
SECTION.
Two considerations have impelled me to put my name at the beginning of
the book: one particular, the other general.[17] As regards the latter,
when persons ignorant of this science see a new book, in which the
author’s name is not set down in several places, they attribute his work
to themselves, and thus the author’s aim is defeated, since books are
compiled, composed, and written only to the end that the author’s name
may be kept alive and that readers and students may pronounce a blessing
on him. This misfortune has already befallen me twice. A certain
individual borrowed my poetical works, of which there was no other copy,
and retained the manuscript in his possession, and circulated it, and
struck out my name which stood at its head, and caused all my labour to
be lost. May God forgive him! I also composed another book, entitled
“The Highway of Religion” (_Minháj al-Dín_), on the method of
Ṣúfiism—may God make it flourish! A shallow pretender, whose words carry
no weight, erased my name from the title page and gave out to the public
that he was the author, notwithstanding that connoisseurs laughed at his
assertion. God, however, brought home to him the unblessedness of this
act and erased _his_ name from the register of those who seek to enter
the Divine portal.
Footnote 17:
The author’s meaning appears to be that one consideration has a
special reference to connoisseurs and competent persons, while the
other has a general reference to the public at large.
As regards the particular consideration, when people see a book, and
know that its author is skilled in the branch of science of which it
treats, and is thoroughly versed therein, they judge its merits more
fairly and apply themselves more seriously to read and remember it, so
that both author and reader are better satisfied. The truth is best
known to God.
SECTION.
In using the words “I have asked God’s blessing” (p. 3), I wished to
observe the respect due to God, who said to His Apostle: “_When you read
the Koran, take refuge with God from the stoned Devil_” (Kor. xvi, 100).
“To ask blessing” means “to commit all one’s affairs to God and to be
saved from the various sorts of contamination”. The Prophet used to
teach his followers to ask a blessing (_istikhárat_) just as he taught
them the Koran. When a man recognizes that his welfare does not depend
on his own effort and foresight, but that every good and evil that
happens to him is decreed by God, who knows best what is salutary for
him, he cannot do otherwise than surrender himself to Destiny and
implore God to deliver him from the wickedness of his own soul.
SECTION.
As to the words “I have cleared my heart of all motives related to self”
(p. 3), no blessing arises from anything in which selfish interest has a
part. If the selfish man succeeds in his purpose, it brings him to
perdition, for “the accomplishment of a selfish purpose is the key of
Hell”; and if he fails, he will nevertheless have removed from his heart
the means of gaining salvation, for “resistance to selfish promptings is
the key of Paradise”, as God hath said: “_Whoso refrains his soul from
lust, verily Paradise shall be his abode_” (Kor. lxxix, 40-1). People
act from selfish motives when they desire aught except to please God and
to escape from Divine punishment. In fine, the follies of the soul have
no limit and its manœuvres are hidden from sight. If God will, a
chapter on this subject will be found at its proper place in the present
book.
SECTION.
Now as to the words “I have set to work in accordance with your
invitation, and have firmly resolved to fulfil all your wishes by means
of this book” (p. 3), since you thought me worthy of being asked to
write this book for your instruction, it was incumbent on me to comply
with your request. Accordingly it behoved me to make an unconditional
resolution that I would carry out my undertaking completely. When anyone
begins an enterprise with the intention of finishing it, he may be
excused if imperfections appear in his work; and for this reason the
Prophet said: “The believer’s intention is better than his performance.”
Great is the power of intention, through which a man advances from one
category to another without any external change. For example, if anyone
endures hunger for a while without having intended to fast, he gets no
recompense (_thawáb_) for it in the next world; but if he forms in his
heart the intention of fasting, he becomes one of the favourites of God
(_muqarrabán_). Again, a traveller who stays for a time in a city does
not become a resident until he has formed the intention to reside there.
A good intention, therefore, is preliminary to the due performance of
every act.
SECTION.
When I said that I had called this book “The Revelation of the Mystery”
(p. 3), my object was that the title of the book should proclaim its
contents to persons of insight. You must know that all mankind are
veiled from the subtlety of spiritual truth except God’s saints and His
chosen friends; and inasmuch as this book is an elucidation of the Way
of Truth, and an explanation of mystical sayings, and an uplifting of
the veil of mortality, no other title is appropriate to it. Essentially,
unveiling (_kashf_) is destruction of the veiled object, just as the
veil destroys revelation (_mukáshafat_), and just as, for instance, one
who is near cannot bear to be far, and one who is far cannot bear to be
near; or as an animal which is generated from vinegar dies when it falls
into any other substance, while those animals which are generated from
other substances perish if they are put in vinegar. The spiritual path
is hard to travel except for those who were created for that purpose.
The Prophet said: “Everyone finds easy that for which he was created.”
There are two veils: one is the “veil of covering” (_ḥijáb-i rayní_),
which can never be removed, and the other is the “veil of clouding”
(_ḥijáb-i ghayní_), which is quickly removed. The explanation is as
follows: one man is veiled from the Truth by his essence (_dhát_), so
that in his view truth and falsehood are the same. Another man is veiled
from the Truth by his attributes (_ṣifat_), so that his nature and heart
continually seek the Truth and flee from falsehood. Therefore the veil
of essence, which is that of “covering” (_rayní_), is never removed.
_Rayn_ is synonymous with _khatin_ (sealing) and _ṭab`_ (imprinting).
Thus God hath said: “_By no means: but their deeds have spread a
covering_ (rána) _over their hearts_” (Kor. lxxxiii, 14); then He made
the sense of this manifest and said: “_Verily it is all one to the
unbelievers whether thou warnest them or no; they will not believe_”
(Kor. ii, 5); then he explained the cause thereof, saying: “_God hath
sealed up their hearts_” (Kor. ii, 6). But the veil of attributes, which
is that of “clouding” (_ghayní_), may be removed at times, for essence
does not admit of alteration, but the alteration of attributes is
possible. The Ṣúfí Shaykhs have given many subtle hints on the subject
of _rayn_ and _ghayn_. Junayd said: _Al-rayn min jumlat al-waṭanát wa
´l-ghayn min jumlat al-khaṭarát_, “_Rayn_ belongs to the class of
abiding things and _ghayn_ to the class of transient things.” _Waṭan_ is
permanent and _khaṭar_ is adventitious. For example, it is impossible to
make a mirror out of a stone, though many polishers assemble to try
their skill on it, but a rusty mirror can be made bright by polishing;
darkness is innate in the stone, and brightness is innate in the mirror;
since the essence is permanent, the temporary attribute does not endure.
Accordingly, I have composed this book for polishers of hearts which are
infected by the veil of “clouding” but in which the substance of the
light of the Truth is existent, in order that the veil may be lifted
from them by the blessing of reading it, and that they may find their
way to spiritual reality. Those whose being is compounded of denial of
the truth and perpetration of falsehood will never find their way
thither, and this book will be of no use to them.
SECTION.
Now with reference to my words “knowing what you desire, I have arranged
the book in divisions suitable to your purpose” (p. 3), a questioner
cannot be satisfied until he makes his want known to the person whom he
interrogates. A question presupposes a difficulty, and a difficulty is
insoluble until its nature is ascertained. Furthermore, to answer a
question in general terms is only possible when he who asks it has full
knowledge of its various departments and corollaries, but with a
beginner one needs to go into detail, and offer diverse explanations and
definitions; and in this case especially, seeing that you—God grant you
happiness!—desired me to answer your questions in detail and write a
book on the matter.
SECTION.
I said, “I pray God to aid and prosper me” (p. 3), because God alone can
help a man to do good deeds. When God assists anyone to perform acts
deserving recompense, this is truly “success given by God” (_tawfíq_).
The Koran and the Sunna attest the genuineness of _tawfíq_, and the
whole Moslem community are unanimous therein, except some Mu`tazilites
and Qadarites, who assert that the expression _tawfíq_ is void of
meaning. Certain Ṣúfí Shaykhs have said, _Al-tawfíq huwa ´l-qudrat `ala
´l-ṭá`at `inda ´l-isti`mál_, “When a man is obedient to God he receives
from God increased strength.” In short, all human action and inaction is
the act and creation of God: therefore the strength whereby a man
renders obedience to God is called _tawfíq_. The discussion of this
topic, however, would be out of place here. Please God, I will now
return to the task which you have proposed, but before entering on it I
will set down your question in its exact form.
SECTION.
The questioner, Abú Sa`íd al-Hujwírí, said: “Explain to me the true
meaning of the Path of Ṣúfiism and the nature of the ‘stations’
(_maqámát_) of the Ṣúfís, and explain their doctrines and sayings, and
make clear to me their mystical allegories, and the nature of Divine
Love and how it is manifested in human hearts, and why the intellect is
unable to reach the essence thereof, and why the soul recoils from the
reality thereof, and why the spirit is lulled in the purity thereof; and
explain the practical aspects of Ṣúfiism which are connected with these
theories.”
ANSWER.
The person questioned, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí al-Hujwírí—may God
have mercy on him!—says:—
Know that in this our time the science of Ṣúfiism is obsolete,
especially in this country. The whole people is occupied with following
its lusts and has turned its back on the path of quietism (_riḍá_),
while the _`ulamá_ and those who pretend to learning have formed a
conception of Ṣúfiism which is quite contrary to its fundamental
principles.
High and low alike are content with empty professions: blind conformity
has taken the place of spiritual enthusiasm. The vulgar say, “We know
God,” and the elect, satisfied if they feel in their hearts a longing
for the next world, say, “This desire is vision and ardent love.”
Everyone makes pretensions, none attains to reality. The disciples,
neglecting their ascetic practices, indulge in idle thoughts, which they
call “contemplation”.
I myself (the author proceeds) have already written several books on
Ṣúfiism, but all to no purpose. Some false pretenders picked out
passages here and there in order to deceive the public, while they
erased and destroyed the rest; others did not mutilate the books, but
left them unread; others read them, but did not comprehend their
meaning, so they copied the text and committed it to memory and said:
“We can discourse on mystical science.” Nowadays true spiritualism is as
rare as the Philosopher’s Stone (_kibrít-i aḥmar_); for it is natural to
seek the medicine that fits the disease, and nobody wants to mix pearls
and coral with common remedies like _shalíthá_[18] and _dawá
al-misk_.[19] In time past the works of eminent _Ṣúfís_, falling into
the hands of those who could not appreciate them, have been used to make
lining for caps or binding for the poems of Abú Nuwás and the
pleasantries of Jáḥiẕ. The royal falcon is sure to get its wings clipped
when it perches on the wall of an old woman’s cottage. Our
contemporaries give the name of “law” to their lusts, pride and ambition
they call “honour and learning”, hypocrisy towards men “fear of God”,
concealment of anger “clemency”, disputation “discussion”, wrangling and
foolishness “dignity”, insincerity “renunciation”, cupidity “devotion to
God”, their own senseless fancies “divine knowledge”, the motions of the
heart and affections of the animal soul “divine love”, heresy “poverty”,
scepticism “purity”, disbelief in positive religion (_zandaqa_)
“self-annihilation”, neglect of the Law of the Prophet “the mystic
Path”, evil communication with time-servers “exercise of piety”. As Abú
Bakr al-Wásiṭí said: “We are afflicted with a time in which there are
neither the religious duties of Islam nor the morals of Paganism nor the
virtues of Chivalry” (_aḥlám-i dhawi ´l-ṃuruwwa_). And Mutanabbí says to
the same effect:—[20]
“_God curse this world! What a vile place for any camel-rider to alight
in!
For here the man of lofty spirit is always tormented._”
Footnote 18:
An electuary used as a remedy for paralysis of the tongue or mouth.
Footnote 19:
See Dozy, _Supplément_, under _dawá_.
Footnote 20:
Mutanabbí, ed. by Dieterici, p. 662, l. 4 from foot.
SECTION.
Know that I have found this universe an abode of Divine mysteries, which
are deposited in created things. Substances accidents, elements, bodies,
forms, and properties—all these are veils of Divine mysteries. From the
standpoint of Unification (_tawḥíd_) it is polytheism to assert that any
such veils exist, but in this world everything is veiled, by its being,
from Unification, and the spirit is held captive by admixture and
association with phenomenal being. Hence the intellect can hardly
comprehend those Divine mysteries, and the spirit can but dimly perceive
the marvels of nearness to God. Man, enamoured of his gross environment,
remains sunk in ignorance and apathy, making no attempt to cast off the
veil that has fallen upon him. Blind to the beauty of Oneness, he turns
away from God to seek the vanities of this world and allows his
appetites to domineer over his reason, notwithstanding that the animal
soul, which the Koran (xii, 53) describes as “commanding to evil”
(_ammárat^{un} bi ´l-sú´_), is the greatest of all veils between God and
Man.
Now I will begin and explain to you, fully and lucidly, what you wish to
know concerning the “stations” and the “veils”, and I will interpret the
expressions of the technicologists (_ahl-i ṣaná´i`_), and add thereto
some sayings of the Shaykhs and anecdotes about them, in order that your
object may be accomplished and that any learned doctors of law or others
who look into this work may recognize that the Path of Ṣúfiism has a
firm root and a fruitful branch, since all the Ṣúfí Shaykhs have been
possessed of knowledge and have encouraged their disciples to acquire
knowledge and to persevere in doing so. They have never been addicted to
frivolity and levity. Many of them have composed treatises on the method
of Ṣúfiism which clearly prove that their minds were filled with divine
thoughts.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE AFFIRMATION OF KNOWLEDGE.
God hath said, describing the savants (_`ulamá_): “_Of those who serve
God only the savants fear Him_” (Kor. xxxv, 25). The Prophet said: “To
seek knowledge is obligatory on every Moslem man and woman;” and he said
also: “Seek knowledge even in China.” Knowledge is immense and life is
short: therefore it is not obligatory to learn all the sciences, such as
Astronomy and Medicine, and Arithmetic, etc., but only so much of each
as bears upon the religious law: enough astronomy to know the times (of
prayer) in the night, enough medicine to abstain from what is injurious,
enough arithmetic to understand the division of inheritances and to
calculate the duration of the _`idda_,[21] etc. Knowledge is obligatory
only in so far as is requisite for acting rightly. God condemns those
who learn useless knowledge (Kor. ii, 96), and the Prophet said: “I take
refuge with Thee from knowledge that profiteth naught.” Much may be done
by means of a little knowledge, and knowledge should not be separated
from action. The Prophet said: “The devotee without divinity is like a
donkey turning a mill,” because the donkey goes round and round over its
own tracks and never makes any advance.
Some regard knowledge as superior to action, while others put action
first, but both parties are wrong. Unless action is combined with
knowledge, it is not deserving of recompense. Prayer, for instance, is
not really prayer, unless performed with knowledge of the principles of
purification and those which concern the _qibla_,[22] and with knowledge
of the nature of intention. Similarly, knowledge without action is not
knowledge. Learning and committing to memory are acts for which a man is
rewarded in the next world; if he gained knowledge without action and
acquisition on his part, he would get no reward. Hence two classes of
men fall into error: firstly, those who claim knowledge for the sake of
public reputation but are unable to practise it, and in reality have not
attained it; and secondly, those who pretend that practice suffices and
that knowledge is unnecessary. It is told of Ibráhím b. Adham that he
saw a stone on which was written, “Turn me over and read!” He obeyed,
and found this inscription: “Thou dost not practise what thou knowest;
why, then, dost thou seek what thou knowest not?” Ánas b. Málik says:
“The wise aspire to know, the foolish to relate.” He who uses his
knowledge as a means of winning power and honour and wealth is no
savant. The highest pinnacle of knowledge is expressed in the fact that
without it none can know God.
Footnote 21:
The period within which a woman, who has been divorced or whose
husband has died, may not marry again.
Footnote 22:
The point to which a Moslem turns his face when worshipping, viz. the
Ka`ba.
SECTION.
Knowledge is of two kinds: Divine and Human. The latter is worthless in
comparison with the former, because God’s knowledge is an attribute of
Himself, subsisting in Him, whose attributes are infinite; whereas our
knowledge is an attribute of ourselves, subsisting in us, whose
attributes are finite. Knowledge has been defined as “comprehension and
investigation of the object known”, but the best definition of it is
this: “A quality whereby the ignorant are made wise.” God’s knowledge is
that by which He knows all things existent and non-existent: He does not
share it with Man: it is not capable of division nor separable from
Himself. The proof of it lies in the disposition of His actions
(_tartíb-i fi`lash_), since action demands knowledge in the agent as an
indispensable condition. The Divine knowledge penetrates what is hidden
and comprehends what is manifest. It behoves the seeker to Contemplate
God in every act, knowing that God sees him and all that he does.
_Story._ They relate that a leading man in Baṣra went to his garden. By
chance his eye fell upon the beautiful wife of his gardener. He sent the
fellow away on some business and said to the woman: “Shut the gates.”
She replied: “I have shut them all except one, which I cannot shut.” He
asked: “Which one is that?” “The gate,” said she, “that is between us
and God.” On receiving this answer the man repented and begged to be
forgiven.
Ḥátim al-Aṣamm said: “I have chosen four things to know, and have
discarded all the knowledge in the world besides.” He was asked: “What
are they?” “One,” he answered, “is this: I know that my daily bread is
apportioned to me, and will neither be increased nor diminished;
consequently I have ceased to seek to augment it. Secondly, I know that
I owe to God a debt which no other person can pay instead of me;
therefore I am occupied with paying it. Thirdly, I know that there is
one pursuing me (i.e. Death) from whom I cannot escape; accordingly I
have prepared myself to meet him. Fourthly, I know that God is observing
me; therefore I am ashamed to do what I ought not.”
SECTION.
The object of human knowledge should be to know God and His
Commandments. Knowledge of “time” (_`ilm-i waqt_)[23], and of all
outward and inward circumstances of which the due effect depends on
“time”, is incumbent upon everyone. This is of two sorts: primary and
secondary. The external division of the primary class consists in making
the Moslem’s profession of faith, the internal division consists in the
attainment of true cognition. The external division of the secondary
class consists in the practice of devotion, the internal division
consists in rendering one’s intention sincere. The outward and inward
aspects cannot be divorced. The exoteric aspect of Truth without the
esoteric is hypocrisy, and the esoteric without the exoteric is heresy.
So, with regard to the Law, mere formality is defective, while mere
spirituality is vain.
Footnote 23:
“Time” (_waqt_) is used by Muḥammadan mystics to denote the spiritual
state in which anyone finds himself, and by which he is dominated at
the moment. The expression _`ilm-i waqt_ occurs again in the notice of
Abú Sulaymán al-Dárání (chapter x, No. 17), where _waqt_ is explained
as meaning “the preservation of one’s spiritual state”. According to a
definition given by Sahl b. `Abdallah al-Tustarí, _waqt_ is “search
for knowledge of the state, i.e. the decision (_ḥukm_) of a man’s
state, which exists between him and God in this world and hereafter”.
The Knowledge of the Truth (_Ḥaqíqat_) has three pillars—
(1) Knowledge of the Essence and Unity of God.
(2) Knowledge of the Attributes of God.
(3) Knowledge of the Actions and Wisdom of God.
The Knowledge of the Law (_Sharí`at_) also has three pillars—
(1) The Koran.
(2) The Sunna.
(3) The Consensus (_ijmá`_) of the Moslem community.
Knowledge of the Divine Essence involves recognition, on the part of one
who is reasonable and has reached puberty, that God exists externally by
His essence, that He is infinite and not bounded by space, that His
essence is not the cause of evil, that none of His creatures is like
unto Him, that He has neither wife nor child, and that He is the Creator
and Sustainer of all that your imagination and intellect can conceive.
Knowledge of the Divine Attributes requires you to know that God has
attributes existing in Himself, which are not He nor a part of Him, but
exist in Him and subsist by Him, e.g. Knowledge, Power, Life, Will,
Hearing, Sight, Speech, etc.
Knowledge of the Divine Actions is your knowledge that God is the
Creator of mankind and of all their actions, that He brought the
non-existent universe into being, that He predestines good and evil and
creates all that is beneficial and injurious.
Knowledge of the Law involves your knowing that God has sent us Apostles
with miracles of an extraordinary nature; that our Apostle, Muḥammad (on
whom be peace!), is a true Messenger, who performed many miracles, and
that whatever he has told us concerning the Unseen and the Visible is
entirely true.
SECTION.
There is a sect of heretics called Sophists (_Súfisṭá´iyán_), who
believe that nothing can be known and that knowledge itself does not
exist. I say to them: “You think that nothing can be known; is your
opinion correct or not?” If they answer “It is correct”, they thereby
affirm the reality of knowledge; and if they reply “It is not correct”,
then to argue against an avowedly incorrect assertion is absurd. The
same doctrine is held by a sect of heretics who are connected with
Ṣúfiism. They say that, inasmuch as nothing is knowable, their negation
of knowledge is more perfect than the affirmation of it. This statement
proceeds from their folly and stupidity. The negation of knowledge must
be the result either of knowledge or of ignorance. Now it is impossible
for knowledge to deny knowledge; therefore knowledge cannot be denied
except by ignorance, which is nearly akin to infidelity and falsehood;
for there is no connexion between ignorance and truth. The doctrine in
question is opposed to that of all the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, but is commonly
attributed to the Ṣúfís in general by people who have heard it and
embraced it. I commit them to God, with Whom it rests whether they shall
continue in their error. If religion takes hold of them, they will
behave more discreetly and will not misjudge the Friends of God in this
way and will look more anxiously to what concerns themselves. Although
some heretics claim to be Ṣúfís in order to conceal their own foulness
under the beauty of others, why should it be supposed that all Ṣúfis are
like these pretenders, and that it is right to treat them all with
disdain and contumely? An individual who wished to pass for learned and
orthodox, but really was devoid of knowledge and religion, once said to
me in the course of debate: “There are twelve heretical sects, and one
of them flourishes amongst those who profess Ṣúfiism” (_mutaṣawwifa_). I
replied: “If one sect belongs to us, eleven belong to you; and the Ṣúfís
can protect themselves from one better than you can from eleven.” All
this heresy springs from the corruption and degeneracy of the times, but
God has always kept His Saints hidden from the multitude and apart from
the ungodly. Well said that eminent spiritual guide, `Alí b. Bundár
al-Ṣayrafí[24]: “The depravity of men’s hearts is in proportion to the
depravity of the age.”
Now in the following section I will cite some sayings of the Ṣúfís as an
admonition to those sceptics towards whom God is favourably inclined.
Footnote 24:
A famous Ṣúfí of Níshápúr, who died in 359 A.H. (_Nafaḥát_, No. 118).
SECTION.
Muḥammad b. Faḍl al-Balkhí says: “Knowledge is of three kinds—_from_
God, _with_ God, and _of_ God.” Knowledge _of_ God is the science of
Gnosis (_`ilm-i ma`rifat_), whereby He is known to all His prophets and
saints. It cannot be acquired by ordinary means, but is the result of
Divine guidance and information. Knowledge _from_ God is the science of
the Sacred Law (_`ilm-i sharí`at_), which He has commanded and made
obligatory upon us. Knowledge _with_ God is the science of the
“stations” and the “Path” and the degrees of the saints. Gnosis is
unsound without acceptance of the Law, and the Law is not practised
rightly unless the “stations” are manifested. Abú `Alí Thaqafí[25] says:
_Al-`ilm ḥayát al-qalb min al-jahl wa-núr al-`ayn min al-ẕulmat_,
“Knowledge is the life of the heart, which delivers it from the death of
ignorance: it is the light of the eye of faith, which saves it from the
darkness of infidelity.” The hearts of infidels are dead, because they
are ignorant of God, and the hearts of the heedless are sick, because
they are ignorant of His Commandments. Abú Bakr Warráq of Tirmidh says:
“Those who are satisfied with disputation (_kalám_) about knowledge and
do not practise asceticism (_zuhd_) become _zindíqs_ (heretics); and
those who are satisfied with jurisprudence (_fiqh_) and do not practise
abstinence (_wara`_)become wicked.” This means that Unification
(_tawḥíd_), without works, is predestination (_jabr_), whereas the
assertor of Unification ought to hold the doctrine of predestination but
to act as though he believed in free will, taking a middle course
between free will and predestination. Such is the true sense of another
saying uttered by the same spiritual guide, viz.: “Unification is below
predestination and above free will.”
Footnote 25:
Also a native of Níshápúr. He died in 328 A.H. (_Nafaḥát_, No. 248).
Lack of positive religion and of morality arises from heedlessness
(_ghaflat_). Well said that great master, Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh al-Rází:
“Avoid the society of three classes of men—heedless savants,
hypocritical Koran-readers, and ignorant pretenders to Ṣúfiism.” The
heedless savants are they who have set their hearts on worldly gain and
paid court to governors and tyrants, and have been seduced by their own
cleverness to spend their time in subtle disputations, and have attacked
the leading authorities on religion. The hypocritical Koran-readers are
they who praise whatever is done in accordance with their desire, even
if it is bad, and blame whatever they dislike, even if it is good: they
seek to ingratiate themselves with the people by acting hypocritically.
The ignorant pretenders to Ṣúfiism are they who have never associated
with a spiritual director (_pír_), nor learned discipline from a shaykh,
but without any experience have thrown themselves among the people, and
have donned a blue mantle (_kabúdí_), and have trodden the path of
unrestraint.
Abú Yazíd Bisṭámí says: “I strove in the spiritual combat for thirty
years, and I found nothing harder to me than knowledge and its pursuit.”
It is more easy for human nature to walk on fire than to follow the road
of knowledge, and an ignorant heart will more readily cross the Bridge
(_Ṣiráṭ_) a thousand times than learn a single piece of knowledge; and
the wicked man would rather pitch his tent in Hell than put one item of
knowledge into practice. Accordingly you must learn knowledge and seek
perfection therein. The perfection of human knowledge is ignorance of
Divine knowledge. You must know enough to know that you do not know.
That is to say, human knowledge is alone possible to Man, and humanity
is the greatest barrier that separates him from Divinity. As the poet
says:—
_Al-`ajzu `an daraki ´l-idráki idráku
Wa ´l-waqfu fí ṭuruqi ´l-akhyári ishráku._
“True perception is to despair of attaining perception,
But not to advance on the paths of the virtuous is polytheism.”
He who will not learn and perseveres in his ignorance is a polytheist,
but to the learner, when his knowledge becomes perfect, the reality is
revealed, and he perceives that his knowledge is no more than inability
to know what his end shall be, since realities are not affected by the
names bestowed upon them.
CHAPTER II.
ON POVERTY.
Know that Poverty has a high rank in the Way of Truth, and that the poor
are greatly esteemed, as God said: “(Give alms) _unto the poor, who are
kept fighting in God’s cause and cannot go to and fro on the earth; whom
the ignorant deem rich forasmuch as they refrain_ (from begging).”[26]
And again: “_Their sides are lifted from their beds while they call on
their Lord in fear and hope_” (Kor. xxxii, 16). Moreover, the Prophet
chose poverty and said: “O God, make me live lowly and die lowly and
rise from the dead amongst the lowly!” And he also said: “On the day of
Resurrection God will say, ‘Bring ye My loved ones nigh unto Me;’ then
the angels will say, ‘Who are Thy loved ones?’ and God will answer them,
saying, ‘The poor and destitute.’” There are many verses of the Koran
and Traditions to the same effect, which on account of their celebrity
need not be mentioned here. Among the Refugees (_Muhájirín_) in the
Prophet’s time were poor men (_fuqará_) who sat in his mosque and
devoted themselves to the worship of God, and firmly believed that God
would give them their daily bread, and put their trust (_tawakkul_) in
Him. The Prophet was enjoined to consort with them and take due care of
them; for God said: “_Do not repulse those who call on their Lord in the
morning and in the evening, desiring His favour_” (Kor. vi, 52). Hence,
whenever the Prophet saw one of them, he used to say: “May my father and
mother be your sacrifice! since it was for your sakes that God
reproached me.”
Footnote 26:
Kor. ii, 274.
God, therefore, has exalted Poverty and has made it a special
distinction of the poor, who have renounced all things external and
internal, and have turned entirely to the Causer; whose poverty has
become their pride, so that they lamented its going and rejoiced at its
coming, and embraced it and deemed all else contemptible.
Now, Poverty has a form (_rasm_) and an essence (_ḥaqíqat_). Its form is
destitution and indigence, but its essence is fortune and free choice.
He who regards the form rests in the form and, failing to attain his
object, flees from the essence; but he who has found the essence averts
his gaze from all created things, and, in complete annihilation, seeing
only the All-One he hastens towards the fullness of eternal life
(_ba-faná-yi kull andar ru´yat-i kull ba-baqá-yi kull shitáft_). The
poor man _(faqír)_ has nothing and can suffer no loss. He does not
become rich by having anything, nor indigent by having nothing: both
these conditions are alike to him in respect of his poverty. It is
permitted that he should be more joyful when he has nothing, for the
Shaykhs have said: “The more straitened one is in circumstances, the
more expansive (cheerful and happy) is one’s (spiritual) state,” because
it is unlucky for a dervish to have property: if he “imprisons” anything
(_dar band kunad_) for his own use, he himself is “imprisoned” in the
same proportion. The friends of God live by means of His secret
bounties. Worldly wealth holds them back from the path of quietism
(_riḍá_).
_Story._ A dervish met a king. The king said: “Ask a boon of me.” The
dervish replied: “I will not ask a boon from one of my slaves.” “How is
that?” said the king. The dervish said: “I have two slaves who are thy
masters: covetousness and expectation.”
The Prophet said: “Poverty is glorious to those who are worthy of it.”
Its glory consists in this, that the poor man’s body is divinely
preserved from base and sinful acts, and his heart from evil and
contaminating thoughts, because his outward parts are absorbed in
(contemplation of) the manifest blessings of God, while his inward parts
are protected by invisible grace, so that his body is spiritual
(_rúḥání_) and his heart divine (_rabbání_). Then no relation subsists
between him and mankind: this world and the next weigh less than a
gnat’s wing in the scales of his poverty: he is not contained in the two
worlds for a single moment.
SECTION.
The Ṣúfí Shaykhs differ in opinion as to whether poverty or wealth is
superior, both being regarded as human attributes; for true wealth
(_ghiná_) belongs to God, who is perfect in all His attributes. Yaḥyá b.
Mu`ádh al-Rází, Aḥmad b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí, Ḥárith al-Muḥásibí, Abu
´l-`Abbás b. `Aṭá, Ruwaym, Abu ´l-Ḥasan b. Sim`ún,[27] and among the
moderns the Grand Shaykh Abú Sa`íd Faḍlallah b. Muḥammad al-Mayhaní, all
hold the view that wealth is superior to poverty. They argue that wealth
is an attribute of God, whereas poverty cannot be ascribed to Him:
therefore an attribute common to God and Man is superior to one that is
not applicable to God. I answer: “This community of designation is
merely nominal, and has no existence in reality: real community involves
mutual resemblance, but the Divine attributes are eternal and the human
attributes are created; hence your proof is false.” I, who am `Alí b.
`Uthmán al-Jullábí, declare that wealth is a term that may fitly be
applied to God, but one to which Man has no right; while poverty is a
term that may properly be applied to Man, but not to God. Metaphorically
a man is called “rich”, but he is not really so. Again, to give a
clearer proof, human wealth is an effect due to various causes, whereas
the wealth of God, who Himself is the Author of all causes, is not due
to any cause. Therefore there is no community in regard to this
attribute. It is not allowable to associate anything with God either in
essence, attribute, or name. The wealth of God consists in His
independence of anyone and in His power to do whatsoever He wills: such
He has always been and such He shall be for ever. Man’s wealth, on the
other hand, is, for example, a means of livelihood, or the presence of
joy, or the being saved from sin, or the solace of contemplation; which
things are all of phenomenal nature and subject to change.
Footnote 27:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 291, where his “name of honour” is given as Abu
´l-Ḥusayn.
Furthermore, some of the vulgar prefer the rich man to the poor, on the
ground that God has made the former blest in both worlds and has
bestowed the benefit of riches on him. Here they mean by “wealth”
abundance of worldly goods and enjoyment of pleasures and pursuit of
lusts. They argue that God has commanded us to be thankful for wealth
and patient in poverty, i.e. patient in adversity and thankful in
prosperity; and that prosperity is essentially better than adversity. To
this I reply that, when God commanded us to be thankful for prosperity
He made thankfulness the means of increasing our prosperity; but when He
commanded us to be patient in adversity He made patience the means of
drawing nigh unto Himself. He said: “_Verily, if ye return thanks, I
will give you an increase_” (Kor. xiv, 7), and also, “_God is with the
patient_” (Kor. ii, 148).
The Shaykhs who prefer wealth to poverty do not use the term “wealth” in
its popular sense. What they intend is not “acquisition of a benefit”
but “acquisition of the Benefactor”; to gain union (with God) is a
different thing from gaining forgetfulness (of God). Shaykh Abú
Sa`íd[28]—God have mercy on him!—says: “Poverty is wealth in God”
(_al-faqr huwa ´l-ghiná billáh_), i.e. everlasting revelation of the
Truth. I answer to this, that revelation (_mukáshafat_) implies the
possibility of a veil (_ḥijáb_); therefore, if the person who enjoys
revelation is veiled from revelation by the attribute of wealth, he
either becomes in need of revelation or he does not; if he does not, the
conclusion is absurd, and if he does, need is incompatible with wealth;
therefore that term cannot stand. Besides, no one has “wealth in God”
unless his attributes are permanent and his object is invariable; wealth
cannot coincide with the subsistence of an object or with the
affirmation of the attributes of human nature, inasmuch as the essential
characteristics of mortality and phenomenal being are need and
indigence. One whose attributes still survive is not rich, and one whose
attributes are annihilated is not entitled to any name whatever.
Therefore “the rich man is he who is enriched by God” (_al-ghaní man
aghnáhu ´lláh_), because the term “rich in God” refers to the agent
(_fá`il_), whereas the term “enriched by God” denotes the person acted
upon (_maf`úl_); the former is self-subsistent, but the latter subsists
through the agent; accordingly self-subsistence is an attribute of human
nature, while subsistence through God involves the annihilation of
attributes. I, then, who am `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, assert that true
wealth is incompatible with the survival (_baqá_) of any attribute,
since human attributes have already been shown to be defective and
subject to decay; nor, again, does wealth consist in the annihilation of
these attributes, because a name cannot be given to an attribute that no
longer exists, and he whose attributes are annihilated cannot be called
either “poor” or “rich”; therefore the attribute of wealth is not
transferable from God to Man, and the attribute of poverty is not
transferable from Man to God.
Footnote 28:
See Chapter XII, No. 5.
All the Ṣúfí Shaykhs and most of the vulgar prefer poverty to wealth for
the reason that the Koran and the Sunna expressly declare it to be
superior, and herein the majority of Moslems are agreed. I find, among
the anecdotes which I have read, that on one occasion this question was
discussed by Junayd and Ibn `Aṭá. The latter maintained the superiority
of the rich. He argued that at the Resurrection they would be called to
account for their wealth, and that such an account (_ḥisáb_) entails the
hearing of the Divine Word, without any mediation, in the form of
reproach (_`itáb_): and reproach is addressed by the Beloved to the
lover. Junayd answered: “If He will call the rich to account, He will
ask the poor for their excuse; and asking an excuse is better than
calling to account.” This is a very subtle point. In true love excuse is
“otherness” (_bégánagí_) and reproach is contrary to unity (_yagánagí_).
Lovers regard both these things as a blemish, because excuse is made for
some disobedience to the command of the Beloved and reproach is made on
the same score; but both are impossible in true love, for then neither
does the Beloved require an expiation from the lover nor does the lover
neglect to perform the will of the Beloved.
Every man is “poor”, even though he be a prince. Essentially the wealth
of Solomon and the poverty of Solomon are one. God said to Job in the
extremity of his patience, and likewise to Solomon in the plenitude of
his dominion: “_Good servant that thou art_!”[29] When God’s pleasure
was accomplished, it made no difference between the poverty and the
wealth of Solomon.
Footnote 29:
Kor. xxxviii, 29, 44.
The author says: “I have heard that Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí—God have mercy
on him!—said: ‘People have spoken much concerning poverty and wealth,
and have chosen one or the other for themselves, but I choose whichever
state God chooses for me and keeps me in; if He keeps me rich I will not
be forgetful, and if He wishes me to be poor I will not be covetous and
rebellious.’” Therefore, both wealth and poverty are Divine gifts:
wealth is corrupted by forgetfulness, poverty by covetousness. Both
conceptions are excellent, but they differ in practice. Poverty is the
separation of the heart from all but God, and wealth is the
preoccupation of the heart with that which does not admit of being
qualified. When the heart is cleared (of all except God), poverty is not
better than wealth nor is wealth better than poverty. Wealth is
abundance of worldly goods and poverty is lack of them: all goods belong
to God: when the seeker bids farewell to property, the antithesis
disappears and both terms are transcended.
SECTION.
All the Ṣúfí Shaykhs have spoken on the subject of poverty. I will now
cite as many of their sayings as it is possible to include in this book.
One of the moderns says: _Laysa ´l-faqír man khalá min al-zád: innama
´l-faqír man khalá min al-murád_, “The poor man is not he whose hand is
empty of provisions, but he whose nature is empty of desires.” For
example, if God gives him money and he desires to keep it, then he is
rich; and if he desires to renounce it, he is rich no less, because
poverty consists in ceasing to act on one’s own initiative. Yaḥyá b.
Mu`ádh al-Rází says: _Al-faqr khawf al-faqr_, “It is a sign of true
poverty that, although one has reached the perfection of saintship and
contemplation and self-annihilation, one should always be dreading its
decline and departure.” And Ruwaym says: _Min na`t al-faqír ḥifṣu
sirrihi wa-ṣiyánatu nafsihi wa-adá´u faríḍatihi_, “It is characteristic
of the poor man that his heart is protected from selfish cares, and that
his soul is guarded from contaminations, and that he performs the
obligatory duties of religion:” that is to say, his inward meditations
do not interfere with his outward acts, nor _vice versâ_; which is a
sign that he has cast off the attributes of mortality. Bishr Ḥáfí says:
_Afḍal al-maqámát i`tiqád al-ṣabr `ala ´l-faqr ila ´l-qabr_, “The best
of ‘stations’ is a firm resolution to endure poverty continually.” Now
poverty is the annihilation of all “stations”: therefore the resolution
to endure poverty is a sign of regarding works and actions as imperfect,
and of aspiring to annihilate human attributes. But in its obvious sense
this saying pronounces poverty to be superior to wealth, and expresses a
determination never to abandon it. Sḥiblí says: _Al-faqír man lá
yastaghní bi-shay´^{in} dúna ´lláh_, “The poor man does not rest content
with anything except God,” because he has no other object of desire. The
literal meaning is that you will not become rich except by Him, and that
when you have gained Him you have become rich. Your being, then, is
other than God; and since you cannot gain wealth except by renouncing
“other”, your “you-ness” is a veil between you and wealth: when that is
removed, you are rich. This saying is very subtle and obscure. In the
opinion of advanced spiritualists (_ahl-i ḥaqíqat_) it means: _Al-faqr
an lá yustaghná `anhu_, “Poverty consists in never being independent of
poverty.” This is what the Pír, i.e. Master `Abdalláh Anṣárí[30]—may God
be well-pleased with him!—meant when he said that our sorrow is
everlasting, that our aspiration never reaches its goal, and that our
sum (_kulliyyat_) never becomes non-existent in this world or the next,
because for the fruition of anything homogeneity is necessary, but God
has no congener, and for turning away from Him forgetfulness is
necessary, but the dervish is not forgetful. What an endless task, what
a difficult road! The dead (_fání_) never become living (_báqí_), so as
to be united with Him; the living never become dead, so as to approach
His presence. All that His lovers do and suffer is entirely a probation
(_miḥnat_); but in order to console themselves they have invented a
fine-sounding phraseology (_`ibáratí muzakhraf_) and have produced
“stations” and “stages” and a “path”. Their symbolic expressions,
however, begin and end in themselves, and their “stations” do not rise
beyond their own _genus_, whereas God is exempt from every human
attribute and relationship. Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí says: _Na`t al-faqír
al-sukún `inda ´l-`adam wa ´l-badhl `inda ´l-wujúd_; and he says also:
_Al-iḍṭiráb `inda ´l-wujúd_, “When he gets nothing he is silent, and
when he gets something he regards another person as better entitled to
it than himself, and therefore gives it away.” The practice enunciated
in this saying is of great importance. There are two meanings: (1) His
quiescence when he gets nothing is satisfaction (_riḍá_), and his
liberality when he gets something is love (_maḥabbat_), because
“satisfied” means “accepting a robe of honour” (_qábil-i khil`at_), and
the robe of honour is a token of proximity (_qurbat_) whereas the lover
(_muḥibb_) rejects the robe of honour inasmuch as it is a token of
severance (_furqat_); and (2) his quiescence when he gets nothing is
expectation of getting something, and when he has got it, that
“something” is other than God: he cannot be satisfied with anything
other than God; therefore he rejects it. Both these meanings are
implicit in the saying of the Grand Shaykh, Abu ´l-Qásim Junayd:
_Al-faqr khuluww al-qalb `an al-ashkál_, “When his heart is empty of
phenomena he is poor.” Since the existence of phenomena is “other” (than
God), rejection is the only course possible. Shiblí says: _Al-faqr baḥr
al-balá wa-balá´uhu kulluhu `izz^{un}_, “Poverty is a sea of trouble,
and all troubles for His sake are glorious.” Glory is a portion of
“other”. The afflicted are plunged in trouble and know nothing of glory,
until they forget their trouble and regard the Author thereof. Then
their trouble is changed into glory, and their glory into a spiritual
state (_waqt_), and their spiritual state into love, and their love into
contemplation, so that finally the brain of the aspirant becomes wholly
a centre of vision through the predominance of his imagination: he sees
without eye, and hears without ear. Again, it is glorious for a man to
bear the burden of trouble laid upon him by his Beloved, for in truth
misfortune is glory, and prosperity is humiliation. Glory is that which
makes one present with God, and humiliation is that which makes one
absent from God: the affliction of poverty is a sign of “presence”,
while the delight of riches is a sign of “absence”. Therefore one should
cling to trouble of any description that involves contemplation and
intimacy. Junayd says: _Yá ma`shar al-fuqará innakum tu`rafúna billáh
wa-tukra-múna lilláh fa-´nẕurú kayfa takúnúna ma`a a ´lláh idhá
khalawtum bihi_, “O ye that are poor, ye are known through God, and are
honoured for the sake of God: take heed how ye behave when ye are alone
with Him,” i.e. if people call you “poor” and recognize your claim, see
that you perform the obligations of the path of poverty; and if they
give you another name, inconsistent with what you profess, do not accept
it, but fulfil your professions. The basest of men is he who is thought
to be devoted to God, but really is not; and the noblest is he who is
not thought to be devoted to God, but really is. The former resembles an
ignorant physician, who pretends to cure people, but only makes them
worse, and when he falls ill himself needs another physician to
prescribe for him; and the latter is like one who is not known to be a
physician, and does not concern himself with other folk, but employs his
skill in order to maintain his own health. One of the moderns has said:
_Al-faqr `adam^{un} bilá wujúd^{in}_, “Poverty is not-being without
existence.” To interpret this saying is impossible, because what is
non-existent does not admit of being explained. On the surface it would
seem that, according to this dictum, poverty is nothing, but such is not
the case; the explanations and consensus of the Saints of God are not
founded on a principle that is essentially non-existent. The meaning
here is not “the not-being of the essence”, but “the not-being of that
which contaminates the essence”; and all human attributes are a source
of contamination: when that is removed, the result is annihilation of
the attributes (_faná-yi ṣifat_), which deprives the sufferer of the
instrument whereby he attains, or fails to attain, his object; but his
not-going to the essence (_`adam-i rawish ba-`ayn_) seems to him
annihilation of the essence and casts him into perdition.
Footnote 30:
The celebrated mystic of Herát, who died in 481 A.H. See Professor
Browne’s _Literary History of Persia_, vol. ii, p. 269.
I have met with some scholastic philosophers who, failing to understand
the drift of this saying, laughed at it and declared it to be nonsense;
and also with certain pretenders (to Ṣúfiism) who made nonsense of it
and were firmly convinced of its truth, although they had no grasp of
the fundamental principle. Both parties are in the wrong: one ignorantly
denies the truth, and the other makes ignorance a state (of perfection).
Now the expressions “not-being” (_`adam_) and “annihilation” (_faná_),
as they are used by Ṣúfís, denote the disappearance of a blameworthy
instrument (_álat-i madhmúm_) and disapproved attribute in the course of
seeking a praiseworthy attribute; they do not signify the search for
non-reality (_`adam-i ma`ní_) by means of an instrument which exists.
Dervishhood in all its meanings is a metaphorical poverty, and amidst
all its subordinate aspects there is a transcendent principle. The
Divine mysteries come and go over the dervish, so that his affairs are
acquired by himself, his actions attributed to himself, and his ideas
attached to himself. But when his affairs are freed from the bonds of
acquisition (_kasb_), his actions are no more attributed to himself.
Then he is the Way, not the wayfarer, i.e. the dervish is a place over
which something is passing, not a wayfarer following his own will.
Accordingly, he neither draws anything to himself nor puts anything away
from himself: all that leaves any trace upon him belongs to the essence.
I have seen false Ṣúfís, mere tonguesters (_arbáb al-lisán_), whose
imperfect apprehension of this matter seemed to deny the existence of
the essence of poverty, while their lack of desire for the reality of
poverty seemed to deny the attributes of its essence. They called by the
name of “poverty” and “purity” their failure to seek Truth and Reality,
and it looked as though they affirmed their own fancies but denied all
else. Every one of them was in some degree veiled from poverty, because
the conceit of Ṣúfiism (_pindár-i ín ḥadíth_) betokens perfection of
saintship, and the claim to be suspected of Ṣúfiism (_tawallá-yi
tuhmat-i ín ḥadíth_) is the ultimate goal, i.e. this claim belongs only
to the state of perfection. Therefore the seeker has no choice but to
journey in their path and to traverse their “stations” and to know their
symbolic expressions, in order that he may not be a plebeian _(`ámmí)_
among the elect. Those who are ignorant of general principles (_`awámm-i
uṣúl_) have no ground to stand on, whereas those who are ignorant only
as regards the derivative branches are supported by the principles. I
have said all this to encourage you to undertake this spiritual journey
and occupy yourself with the due fulfilment of its obligations.
Now in the chapter on Ṣúfiism I will explain some of the principles and
allegories and mystic sayings of this sect. Then I will mention the
names of their holy men, and afterwards elucidate the different
doctrines held by the Ṣúfi Shaykhs. In the next place, I will treat of
the Verities, Sciences, and Laws of Ṣúfiism. Lastly, I will set forth
their rules of discipline and the significance of their “stations”, in
order that the truth of this matter may become clear to you and to all
my readers.
CHAPTER III.
ON ṢÚFIISM.
God, Almighty and Glorious, has said: “_And those who walk meekly on the
earth, and when the ignorant speak to them answer ‘Peace’_,” (shall be
rewarded with the highest place in Paradise).[31] And the Apostle has
said: “He that hears the voice of Ṣúfís (_ahl al-taṣawwuf_) and does not
say Amen to their prayer is inscribed before God among the heedless.”
The true meaning of this name has been much discussed and many books
have been composed on the subject. Some assert that the Ṣúfí is so
called because he wears a woollen garment (_jáma´-i ṣúf_); others that
he is so called because he is in the first rank (_ṣaff-i awwal_); others
say it is because the Ṣúfís claim to belong to the _Aṣḥáb-i Ṣuffa_,[32]
with whom may God be well-pleased! Others, again, declare that the name
is derived from _ṣafá_ (purity). These explanations of the true meaning
of Ṣúfiism are far from satisfying the requirements of etymology,
although each of them is supported by many subtle arguments. _Ṣafá_
(purity) is universally praised, and its opposite is _kadar_. The
Apostle—on whom be peace!—said: “The _ṣafw_ (pure part, i.e. the best)
of this world is gone, and only its _kadar_ (impurity) remains.”
Therefore, since the people of this persuasion have purged their morals
and conduct, and have sought to free themselves from natural taints, on
that account they are called Ṣúfís; and this designation of the sect is
a proper name (_az asámi-yi a`lám_), inasmuch as the dignity of the
Ṣúfís is too great for their transactions (_mu`ámalát_) to be hidden, so
that their name should need a derivation. In this age, however, God has
veiled most people from Ṣúfiism and from its votaries, and has concealed
its mysteries from their hearts. Accordingly some imagine that it
consists merely in the practice of outward piety without inward
contemplation, and others suppose that it is a form and a system without
essence and root, to such an extent that they have adopted the view of
scoffers (_ahl-i hazl_) and theologians (_`ulamá_), who regard only the
external, and have condemned Ṣùfiism altogether, making no attempt to
discover what it really is. The people in general, blindly conforming to
this opinion, have erased from their hearts the quest for inward purity
and have discarded the tenets of the Ancients and the Companions of the
Prophet. _Verily, purity is characteristic of the Ṣiddíq,[33] if thou
desirest a true Ṣúfí_—because purity (_ṣafá_) has a root and a branch:
its root being severance of the heart from “others” (_aghyár_), and its
branch that the heart should be empty of this deceitful world. Both
these are characteristic of the Greatest _Ṣiddíq_, (the Caliph) Abú Bakr
`Abdalláh b. Abí Quḥáfa, with whom may God be well-pleased! He is the
leader (_imám_) of all the folk of this Path.
Footnote 31:
Kor. xxv, 64.
Footnote 32:
See Chapter IX.
Footnote 33:
The name _zaddíq_ (an Aramaic word meaning “righteous”) was given to
the ascetics and spiritual adepts among the Manichæans. Its Arabic
equivalent, _siddíq_, which means “veracious”, is a term that is
frequently applied to Ṣúfís.
[The author then relates how, on Muḥammad’s decease, when `Umar
threatened to decapitate anyone who asserted that the Prophet was
dead, Abú Bakr stepped forth and cried with a loud voice: “Whoever
worships Muḥammad, let him know that Muḥammad is dead; but whoever
worships Muḥammad’s Lord, let him know that HE is living and dieth
not.” Those who regarded Muḥammad with the eye of mortality ceased to
venerate him as soon as he departed from this world, but to those who
regarded him with the eye of reality his presence and absence were
alike, because they attributed both to God; and looked, not at the
particular change which had come to pass, but at the Author of all
change; and venerated Muḥammad only in proportion as God honoured him;
and did not attach their hearts to anyone (except God); and did not
open their eyes to gaze upon mankind, inasmuch as “he that beholdeth
mankind waneth, but he that returneth unto God reigneth” (_man naẕara
ila ´l-khalq halak wa-man raja`a ila ´l-ḥaqq malak_). And Abú Bakr
showed that his heart was empty of this deceitful world, for he gave
away all his wealth and his clients (_mawálí_), and clad himself in a
woollen garment (_gilím_), and came to the Apostle, who asked him what
he had left for his family. Abú Bakr replied: “Only God and His
Apostle.” All this is characteristic of the sincere Ṣúfí.]
I said that _ṣafá_ (purity) is the opposite of _kadar_ (impurity), and
_kadar_ is one of the qualities of Man. The true Ṣúfí is he that leaves
impurity behind. Thus, human nature (_bashariyyat_) prevailed in the
women of Egypt as they gazed, enraptured, on the wondrous beauty of
Yúsuf (Joseph), on whom be peace! But afterwards the preponderance was
reversed, until at last they beheld him with their human nature
annihilated (_ba-faná-yi bashariyyat_) and cried: “_This is no human
being_” (Kor. xii, 31). They made him their object and gave expression
to their own state. Hence the Shaykhs of this Path—God have mercy on
them!—have said: _Laysa ´l-ṣafá min ṣifat al-bashar li´anna ´l-bashar
madar wa´l-madar lá yakhlú min al-kadar_, “Purity is not one of the
qualities of Man, for Man is clay, and clay involves impurity, and Man
cannot escape from impurity.” Therefore purity bears no likeness to acts
(_af`ál_), nor can the human nature be destroyed by means of effort. The
quality of purity is unrelated to acts and states, and its name is
unconnected with names and nicknames—_purity is characteristic of the
lovers_ (of God), _who are suns without cloud_—because purity is the
attribute of those who love, and the lover is he that is dead (_fání_)
in his own attributes and living (_báqí_) in the attributes of his
Beloved, and their “states” resemble the clear sun in the opinion of
mystics (_arbáb-i ḥál_). The beloved of God, Muḥammad the Chosen One,
was asked concerning the state of Ḥáritha. He answered: _`Abd nawwara
´lláh qalbahu bi ´l-ímán_, “He is a man whose heart is illumined by the
light of faith, so that his face shines like the moon from the effect
thereof, and he is formed by the Divine light.” An eminent Ṣúfí says:
_Ḍiyá al-shams wa´l-qamar idha ´shtaraká namúdhaj^{un} min ṣafá al-ḥubb
wa ´l-tawḥíd idha ´shtabaká_, “The combination of the light of the sun
and moon, when they are in conjunction, is like the purity of Love and
Unification when these are mingled together.” Assuredly, the light of
the sun and moon is worthless beside the light of the Love and
Unification of God Almighty, and they should not be compared; but in
this world there is no light more conspicuous than those two luminaries.
The eye cannot see the light of the sun and moon with complete
demonstration. During the sway of the sun and moon it sees the sky,
whereas the heart (_dil_) sees the empyrean (_`arsh_) by the light of
knowledge and unification and love, and while still in this world
explores the world to come. All the Shaykhs of this Path are agreed that
when a man has escaped from the captivity of “stations” (_maqámát_), and
gets rid of the impurity of “states” (_aḥwál_), and is liberated from
the abode of change and decay, and becomes endowed with all praiseworthy
qualities, he is disjoined from all qualities. That is to say, he is not
held in bondage by any praiseworthy quality of his own, nor does he
regard it, nor is he made self-conceited thereby. His state is hidden
from the perception of intelligences, and his time is exempt from the
influence of thoughts. His presence (_ḥuḍúr_) with God has no end and
his existence has no cause. And when he arrives at this degree, he
becomes annihilated (_fání_) in this world and in the next, and is made
divine (_rabbání_) in the disappearance of humanity; and gold and earth
are the same in his eyes, and the ordinances which others find hard to
keep become easy to him.
[Here follows the story of Ḥáritha, who declared that he had true
faith in God. The Prophet asked: “What is the reality of thy faith?”
Ḥáritha replied: “I have cut off and turned myself away from this
world, so that its stones and its gold and its silver and its clay are
equal in my sight. And I have passed my nights in wakefulness and my
days in thirst until methinks I see the Throne of my Lord manifest,
and the people of Paradise visiting one another, and the people of
Hell wrestling with one another”[34] (or, according to an alternative
reading: “making sudden attacks on one another”).[35] The Prophet
said, repeating the words thrice: “Thou knowest, therefore
persevere.”]
Footnote 34:
_Yataṣára`ún._ B. has _yata`ádawn_, and in marg. _yatasára`ún_. The
true reading is _yata`áwawn_, “barking (or ‘growling’) at one
another.” Cf. _Lisán_, xix, 343, 3.
Footnote 35:
_Yatagháwarún._ This is the reading of J., I. has _yata`áwarún_, L.
_yata`áwadún_, B. _yataghámazún_, and in marg. _yatafáwazún_.
“Ṣúfí” is a name which is given, and has formerly been given, to the
perfect saints and spiritual adepts. One of the Shaykhs says: _Man
ṣaffáhu ´l-ḥubb fa-huwa ṣáf^{in} wa-man ṣaffáhu ´l-ḥabíb fa-huwa
Ṣúfiyy^{un}_, “He that is purified by love is pure, and he that is
absorbed in the Beloved and has abandoned all else is a ‘Ṣúfí’.” The
name has no derivation answering to etymological requirements, inasmuch
as Ṣúfiism is too exalted to have any genus from which it might be
derived; for the derivation of one thing from another demands
homogeneity (_mujánasat_). All that exists is the opposite of purity
(_ṣafá_), and things are not derived from their opposites. To Ṣúfís the
meaning of Ṣúfiism is clearer than the sun and does not need any
explanation or indication. Since “Ṣúfí” admits of no explanation, all
the world are interpreters thereof, whether they recognize the dignity
of the name or no at the time when they learn its meaning. The perfect,
then, among them are called _Ṣúfí_, and the inferior aspirants
(_ṭálibán_) among them are called _Mutaṣawwif_; for _taṣawwuf_ belongs
to the form _tafa``ul_, which implies “taking trouble” (_takalluf_),[36]
and is a branch of the original root. The difference both in meaning and
in etymology is evident. _Purity (ṣafá) is a saintship with a sign and a
relation (riwáyat)_, and _Ṣúfiism (taṣawwuf) is an uncomplaining
imitation of purity (ḥikáyat^{un} li´l-ṣafá bilá shikáyat)._ Purity,
then, is a resplendent and manifest idea, and Ṣúfiism is an imitation of
that idea. Its followers in this degree are of three kinds: the _Ṣúfí_,
the _Mutaṣawwif_, and the _Mustaṣwif_. The _Ṣúfí_ is he that is dead to
self and living by the Truth; he has escaped from the grip of human
faculties and has really attained (to God). The _Mutaṣawwif_ is he that
seeks to reach this rank by means of self-mortification (_mujáhadat_)
and in his search rectifies his conduct in accordance with their (the
Ṣúfís’) example. The _Mustaṣwif_ is he that makes himself like them (the
Ṣúfís) for the sake of money and wealth and power and worldly advantage,
but has no knowledge of these two things.[37] Hence it has been said:
_Al-mustaṣwif `inda ´l-Ṣúfiyyat ka-´l-dhubáb wa-`inda ghayrihim
ka-´l-dhi´áb_, “The _Mustaṣwif_ in the opinion of the Ṣúfís is as
despicable as flies, and his actions are mere cupidity; others regard
him as being like a wolf, and his speech unbridled (_bé afsár_), for he
only desires a morsel of carrion.” Therefore the _Ṣúfí_ is a man of
union (_ṣáḥib wuṣúl_), the _Mutaṣawwif_ a man of principles, (_ṣáḥib
uṣúl_), and the _Mustaṣwif_ a man of superfluities (_ṣáḥib fuḍúl_). He
that has the portion of union loses all end and object by gaining his
end and reaching his object; he that has the portion of principle
becomes firm in the “states” of the mystic path, and steadfastly devoted
to the mysteries thereof; but he that has the portion of superfluity, is
left devoid of all (worth having), and sits down at the gate of
formality (_rasm_), and thereby he is veiled from reality (_ma`ní_) and
this veil renders both union and principle invisible to him. The Shaykhs
of this persuasion have given many subtle definitions of Ṣúfiism which
cannot all be enumerated, but we shall mention some of them in this
book, if God will, who is the Author of success.
Footnote 36:
Examples of this signification of the form _tafa``ul_ are given in
Wright’s Arabic Grammar, vol. i, p. 37, Rem. _b_.
Footnote 37:
Viz., purity (_ṣafá_) and Ṣúfiism (_taṣawwuf_).
SECTION.
Dhu ´l-Nún, the Egyptian, says: _Al-Ṣúfí idhá naṭaqa bána nuṭquhu `an
al-ḥaqá´iq wa-in sakata naṭaqat `anhu ´l-jawáriḥ bi-qaṭ` al-`alá´iq_,
“The Ṣúfí is he whose language, when he speaks, is the reality of his
state, i.e. he says nothing which he is not, and when he is silent his
conduct explains his state, and his state proclaims that he has cut all
worldly ties;” i.e. all that he says is based on a sound principle and
all that he does is pure detachment from the world (_tajríd_); when he
speaks his speech is entirely the Truth, and when he is silent his
actions are wholly “poverty” (_faqr_). Junayd says: _Al-taṣawwuf
na`t^{un} uqíma ´l-`abd fíhi qíla na`t^{un} li-´l-`abd am li-´l-ḥaqq
faqála na`t al-ḥaqq ḥaqíqat^{an} wa-na`t al-`abd rasm^{an}_, “Ṣúfiism is
an attribute wherein is Man’s subsistence.” They said: “Is it an
attribute of God or of mankind?” He replied: “Its essence is an
attribute of God and its formal system is an attribute of mankind;” i.e.
its essence involves the annihilation of human qualities, which is
brought about by the everlastingness of the Divine qualities, and this
is an attribute of God; whereas its formal system involves on the part
of Man the continuance of self-mortification (_mujáhadat_), and this
continuance of self-mortification is an attribute of Man. Or the words
may be taken in another sense, namely, that in real Unification
(_tawḥíd_) there are, correctly speaking, no human attributes at all,
because human attributes are not constant but are only formal (_rasm_),
having no permanence, for God is the agent. Therefore they are really
the attributes of God. Thus (to explain what is meant), God commands His
servants to fast, and when they keep the fast He gives them the name of
“faster” (_ṣá´im_), and _nominally_ this “fasting” (_ṣawm_) belongs to
Man, but _really_ it belongs to God. Accordingly God told His Apostle
and said: _Al-ṣawm lí wa-ana ajzí bihi_, “Fasting is mine,” because all
His acts are His possessions, and when men ascribe things to themselves,
the attribution is formal and metaphorical, not real. And Abu ´l-Ḥasan
Núrí says: _Al-taṣawwuf tarku kulli ḥaẕẕ^{in}_ _li-´l-nafs_, “Ṣúfiism is
the renunciation of all selfish pleasures.” This renunciation is of two
kinds: formal and essential. For example, if one renounces a pleasure,
and finds pleasure in the renunciation, this is formal renunciation; but
if the pleasure renounces him, then the pleasure is annihilated, and
this case falls under the head of true contemplation (_musháhadat_).
Therefore renunciation of pleasure is the act of Man, but annihilation
of pleasure is the act of God. The act of Man is formal and
metaphorical, while the act of God is real. This saying (of Núrí)
elucidates the saying of Junayd which has been quoted above. And Abu
´l-Ḥasan Núrí also says: _Al-Ṣúfiyyat humu ´lladhína ṣafat arwáḥuhum
fa-ṣárú fi ´l-ṣaff al-awwal bayna yadayi ´l-ḥaqq_, “The Ṣúfís are they
whose spirits have been freed from the pollution of humanity, purified
from carnal taint, and released from concupiscence, so that they have
found rest with God in the first rank and the highest degree, and have
fled from all save Him.” And he also says: _Al-Ṣúfí alladhí lá yamlik
wa-lá yumlak_, “The Ṣúfí is he that has nothing in his possession nor is
himself possessed by anything.” This denotes the essence of annihilation
(_faná_), since one whose qualities are annihilated neither possesses
nor is possessed, inasmuch as the term “possession” can properly be
applied only to existent things. The meaning is, that the Ṣúfí does not
make his own any good of this world or any glory of the next world, for
he is not even in the possession and control of himself: he refrains
from desiring authority over others, in order that others may not desire
submission from him. This saying refers to a mystery of the Ṣúfí’s which
they call “complete annihilation” (_faná-yi kullí_). If God will, we
shall mention in this work, for your information, the points wherein
they have fallen into error.
Ibn al-Jallá[38] says: _Al-taṣawwuf ḥaqíqat^{un} lá rasm lahu_, “Ṣúfiism
is an essence without form,” because the form belongs to mankind in
respect to their conduct (_mu`ámalát_), while the essence thereof is
peculiar to God. Since Ṣúfiism consists in turning away from mankind, it
is necessarily without form. And Abú `Amr Dimashqí says: _Al-taṣawwuf
ru´yat al-kawn bi-`ayn al-naqṣ, bal ghaḍḍ al-ṭarf `an al-kawn_, “Ṣúfiism
is: to see the imperfection of the phenomenal world (and this shows that
human attributes are still existent), nay, to shut the eye to the
phenomenal world” (and this shows that human attributes are annihilated;
because the objects of sight are phenomena, and when phenomena
disappear, sight also disappears). Shutting the eye to the phenomenal
world leaves the spiritual vision subsistent, i.e. whoever becomes blind
to self sees by means of God, because the seeker of phenomena is also a
self-seeker, and his action proceeds from and through himself, and he
cannot find any way of escaping from himself. Accordingly one sees
himself to be imperfect, and one shuts his eye to self and does not see;
and although the seer sees his imperfection, nevertheless his eye is a
veil, and he is veiled by his sight, but he who does not see is not
veiled by his blindness. This is a well-established principle in the
Path of aspirants to Ṣúfiism and mystics (_arbáb-i ma`ání_), but to
explain it here would be unsuitable. And Abú Bakr Shiblí says:
_Al-taṣawwuf shirk^{un} li´annahu ṣiyánat al-qalb `an ru´yat al-ghayr
wa-lá ghayr_, “Ṣúfiism is polytheism, because it is the guarding of the
heart from the vision of ‘other’, and ‘other’ does not exist.” That is
to say, vision of other (than God) in affirming the Unity of God is
polytheism, and when “other” has no value in the heart, it is absurd to
guard the heart from remembrance of “other”. And Ḥusrí says:
_Al-taṣawwuf ṣafá al-sirr min kudúrat al-mukhálafat_, “Ṣúfiism is the
heart’s being pure from the pollution of discord.” The meaning thereof
is that he should protect the heart from discord with God, because love
is concord, and concord is the opposite of discord, and the lover has
but one duty in the world, namely, to keep the commandment of the
beloved; and if the object of desire is one, how can discord arise? And
Muḥammad b. `Alí b. al-Ḥusayn b. `Alí b. Abí Ṭálib—may God be pleased
with them all!—says: _Al-taṣawwuf khulq^{un} fa-man záda `alayka fi
´l-khulq záda `alayka fi ´l-taṣawwuf_, “Ṣúfiism is goodness of
disposition: he that has the better disposition is the better Ṣúfí.” Now
goodness of disposition is of two kinds: towards God and towards men.
The former is acquiescence in the Divine decrees, the latter is
endurance of the burden of men’s society for God’s sake. These two
aspects refer to the seeker (_ṭálib_). God is independent of the
seeker’s acquiescence or anger, and these two qualities depend on
consideration of His Unity. And Abú Muḥammad Murta`ish says: _Al-Ṣúfí lá
yasbiqu himmatuhu khaṭwatahu_, “The Ṣúfí is he whose thought keeps pace
with his foot,” i.e. he is entirely present: his soul is where his body
is, and his body where his soul is, and his soul where his foot is, and
his foot where his soul is. This is the sign of presence without
absence. Others say, on the contrary: “He is absent from himself and
present with God.” It is not so: he is present with himself and present
with God. The expression denotes perfect union (_jam` al-jam`_), because
there can be no absence from self so long as one regards one’s self;
when self-regard has ceased, there is presence (with God) without
absence. In this particular sense the saying closely resembles that of
Shiblí: _Al-Ṣúfí lá yará fi ´l-dárayn ma`a ´lláh ghayra ´lláh_, “The
Ṣúfí is he that sees nothing except God in the two worlds.” In short,
human existence is “other”, and when a man does not see “other” he does
not see himself; and becomes totally void of self, whether “self” is
affirmed or denied. And Junayd says: _Al-taṣawwuf mabniyy^{un} `alá
thamán khiṣál al-sakhá wa ´l-riḍá wa ´l-ṣabr wa ´l-ishárat wa ´l-ghurbat
wa-labs al-ṣúf wa ´l-siyáḥat wa ´l-faqr amma ´l-sakhá fa-li-Ibráhím
wa-amma ´l-riḍá fa-li-Ismá`íl wa-amma ´l-ṣabr fa-li-Ayyúb wa-amma
´l-ishárat fa-li-Zakariyyá wa-amma ´l-ghurbat fa-li-Yaḥyá wa-amma labs
al-ṣúf fa-li-Músá wa-amma ´l-siyáḥat fa-li-`Ísá wa-amma ´l-faqr
fa-li-Muḥammad ṣalla ´lláhu `alayhi wa-sallama wa-`alayhim ajma`ín_,
“Ṣúfiism is founded on eight qualities exemplified in eight Apostles:
the generosity of Abraham, who sacrificed his son; the acquiescence of
Ishmael, who submitted to the command of God and gave up his dear life;
the patience of Job, who patiently endured the affliction of worms and
the jealousy of the Merciful; the symbolism of Zacharias, to whom God
said, ‘_Thou shalt not speak unto men for three days save by signs_’
(Kor. iii, 36), and again to the same effect, ‘_When he called upon his
Lord with a secret invocation_’ (Kor. xix, 2); the strangerhood of John,
who was a stranger in his own country and an alien to his own kin
amongst whom he lived; the pilgrimhood of Jesus, who was so detached
therein from worldly things that he kept only a cup and a comb—the cup
he threw away when he saw a man drinking water in the palms of his
hands, and the comb likewise when he saw another man using his fingers
instead of a toothpick; the wearing of wool by Moses, whose garment was
woollen; and the poverty of Muḥammad, to whom God Almighty sent the key
of all the treasures that are upon the face of the earth, saying: ‘Lay
no trouble on thyself, but procure every luxury by means of these
treasures;’ and he answered: ‘O Lord, I desire them not; keep me one day
full-fed and one day hungry.’” These are very excellent principles of
conduct.
Footnote 38:
So J. The Lahore edition has Ibn al-Jalálí, I. Ibn al-Jullábí. See
Chapter X, No. 34.
And Ḥuṣrí says: _Al-Ṣúfí la yújadu ba`da `adamihi wa-lá yu`damu ba`da
wujúdihi_, “The Ṣúfí is he whose existence is without non-existence and
his non-existence without existence,” i.e. he never loses that which he
finds, and he never finds that which he loses. Another meaning is this,
that his finding (_yáft_) has no not-finding (_ná-yáft_), and his
not-finding has no finding at any time, so that there is either an
affirmation without negation or a negation without affirmation. The
object of all these expressions is that the Ṣúfí’s state of mortality
should entirely lapse, and that his bodily feelings (_shawáhid_) should
disappear and his connexion with everything be cut off, in order that
the mystery of his mortality may be revealed and his various parts
united in his essential self, and that he may subsist through and in
himself. The effect of this can be shown in two Apostles: firstly,
Moses, in whose existence there was no non-existence, so that he said:
“_O Lord, enlarge my breast and make my affair easy unto me_” (Kor. xx,
26, 27); secondly, the Apostle (Muḥammad), in whose non-existence there
was no existence, so that God said: “_Did not We enlarge thy breast?_”
(Kor. xciv, 1). The one asked for adornment and sought honour, but the
other was adorned, since he had no request to make for himself.
And `Alí b. Bundár al-Ṣayrafí of Níshápúr says: _Al-taṣawwuf isqáṭ
al-ru´yat li-´l-ḥaqq ẕáhir^{an} wa-báṭin^{an}_, “Ṣúfiism is this, that
the Ṣúfí should not regard his own exterior and interior, but should
regard all as belonging to God.” Thus, if you look at the exterior, you
will find an outward sign of God’s blessing, and, as you look, outward
actions will not have the weight even of a gnat’s wing beside the
blessing of God, and you will cease from regarding the exterior; and
again, if you look at the interior, you will find an inward sign of
God’s aid, and, as you look, inward actions will not turn the scale by a
single grain in comparison with the aid of God, and you will cease from
regarding the interior, and will see that all belongs to God; and when
you see that all is God’s, you will see that you yourself have nothing.
Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Muqrí[39] says: _Al-taṣawwuf istiqámat al-aḥwál
ma`a ´l-ḥaqq_, “Ṣúfiism is the maintenance of right states with God,”
i.e. “states” do not seduce the Ṣúfí from his (right) state, nor cast
him into wrong, since he whose heart is devoted to the Author of states
(_muḥawwil-i aḥwál_) is not cast down from the rank of rectitude nor
hindered from attaining to the Truth.
Footnote 39:
Died in 366 A.H. See _Nafaḥát_, No. 332.
SECTION.
_Maxims of Conduct_ (_mu`ámalát_).
Abú Ḥafṣ Ḥaddád of Níshápúr says: _Al-taṣawwuf kulluhu ádáb^{un}
li-kulli waqt^{in} adab^{un} wa-li-kulli maqám^{in} adab^{un}
wa-li-kulli ḥál^{in} adab^{un} fa-man lazima ádáb al-awqát balagha
mablagh_ _al-rijál fa-man ḍayya`a ´l-ádáb fa-huwa ba`íd^{un} min ḥaythu
yaẕunnu ´l-qurb wa-mardúd^{un} min ḥaythu yaẕunnu ´l-qabúl_, “Ṣúfiism
consists entirely of behaviour; every time, place, and circumstance have
their own propriety; he that observes the proprieties of each occasion
attains to the rank of holy men; and he that neglects the proprieties is
far removed from the thought of nearness (to God) and is excluded from
imagining that he is acceptable to God.” The meaning of this is akin to
the dictum of Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí: _Laysa ´l-taṣawwuf rusúm^{an} wa-lá
`ulúm^{an} wa-lákinnahu akhláq^{un}_, “Ṣúfiism is not composed of
practices and sciences, but it is morals,” i.e. if it consisted of
practices, it could be acquired by effort, and if it consisted of
sciences, it could be gained by instruction: hence it is morals, and it
is not acquired until you demand from yourself the principles of morals,
and make your actions square with them, and fulfil their just claims.
The distinction between practices (_rusúm_) and morals (_akhláq_) is
this, that practices are ceremonial actions proceeding from certain
motives, actions devoid of reality, so that their form is at variance
with their spirit, whereas morals are praiseworthy actions without
ceremony or motive, actions devoid of pretension, so that their form is
in harmony with their spirit.
Murta`ish says: _Al-taṣawwuf ḥusn al-khulq_, “Ṣúfiism is good nature.”
This is of three sorts: firstly, towards God, by fulfilling His
Commandments without hypocrisy; secondly, towards men, by paying respect
to one’s superiors and behaving with kindness to one’s inferiors and
with justice to one’s equals, and by not seeking recompense and justice
from men in general; and thirdly, towards one’s self, by not following
the flesh and the devil. Whoever makes himself right in these three
matters is a good-natured man. This which I have mentioned agrees with a
story told of `Á´isha the veracious (_ṣiddiqa_)—may God be well-pleased
with her! She was asked concerning the nature of the Apostle. “Read from
the Koran,” she replied, “for God has given information in the place
where He says: ‘_Use_ _indulgence and order what is good and turn away
from the ignorant_’ (Kor. vii, 198).” And Murta`ish also says: _Hádhá
madhhab^{un} kulluhu jidd^{un} fa-lá takhliṭúhu bi-shay´^{in} min
al-hazl_, “This religion of Ṣúfiism is wholly earnest, therefore do not
mix jest with it, and do not take the conduct of formalists
(_mutarassimán_) as a model, and shun those who blindly imitate them.”
When the people see these formalists among the aspirants to Ṣúfiism in
our time, and become aware of their dancing and singing and visiting the
court of sultans and quarrelling for the sake of a pittance or a
mouthful of food, their belief in the whole body of Ṣúfís is corrupted,
and they say: “These are the principles of Ṣúfiism, and the tenets of
the ancient Ṣúfís were just the same.” They do not recognize that this
is an age of weakness and an epoch of affliction. Consequently, since
greed incites the sultan to acts of tyranny, and lust incites the savant
to commit adultery and fornication, and ostentation incites the ascetic
to hypocrisy, and vanity incites the Ṣúfí also to dance and sing—you
must know that the evil lies in the men who hold the doctrines, not in
the principles on which the doctrines are based; and that if some
scoffers disguise their folly in the earnestness of true mystics
(_aḥrár_), the earnestness of the latter is not thereby turned to folly.
And Abú `Alí Qarmíni[40] says: _Al-taṣawwuf huwa ´l-akhláq al-raḍiyyat_,
“Ṣúfiism is good morals.” Approved actions are such that the creature in
all circumstances approves of God, and is content and satisfied. Abu ´l
Ḥasan Núrí says: _Al-taṣawwuf huwa ´l-ḥurriyyat wa-´l-futuwwat wa-tark
al-taklíf wa-´l-sakhá wa-badhl al-dunyá_, “Ṣúfiism is liberty, so that a
man is freed from the bonds of desire; and generosity,” i.e. he is
purged from the conceit of generosity; “and abandonment of useless
trouble,” i.e. he does not strive after appurtenances and rewards; “and
munificence,” i.e. he leaves this world to the people of this world.
Footnote 40:
IJ. Qazwíní. B. Abú `Alí Kirmánsháhí Qurayshí. The Shaykh in question
is probably Muẕaffar Kirmánsháhí Qarmíní (_Nafaḥát_, No. 270).
And Abu ´l-Ḥasan Fúshanja[41]—may God have mercy on him!—says:
_Al-taṣawwuf al-yawma ´sm^{un} wa-lá ḥaqíqat^{un} wa-qad kána
ḥaqíqat^{an} wa-la ´sm^{an}_, “To-day Ṣúfiism is a name without a
reality, but formerly it was a reality without a name,” i.e. in the time
of the Companions and the Ancients—may God have mercy on them!—this name
did not exist, but the reality thereof was in everyone; now the name
exists, but not the reality. That is to say, formerly the practice was
known and the pretence unknown, but nowadays the pretence is known and
the practice unknown.
Footnote 41:
Generally written “Fúshanjí”. See _Nafaḥát_, No. 279.
I have brought together and examined in this chapter on Ṣúfiism a number
of the sayings of the Shaykhs, in order that this Path may become clear
to you—God grant you felicity!—and that you may say to the sceptics:
“What do you mean by denying the truth of Ṣúfiism?” If they deny only
the name it is no matter, since ideas are unrelated to things which bear
names; and if they deny the essential ideas, this amounts to a denial of
the whole Sacred Law of the Apostle and his praised qualities. And I
enjoin you in this book—God grant you the felicity with which He has
blessed His Saints!—to hold these ideas in due regard and satisfy their
just claims, so that you may refrain from idle pretensions and have an
excellent belief in the Ṣúfís themselves. It is God that gives success.
CHAPTER IV.
ON THE WEARING OF PATCHED FROCKS (_Muraqqa`át_).
Know that the wearing of a _muraqqa`a_ (patched frock) is the badge of
aspirants to Ṣúfiism. The wearing of these garments is a _Sunna_ (custom
of the Prophet), for the Apostle said: _`Alaykum bi-labs al-ṣúf tajidúna
ḥaláwat al-ímán fí qulúbikum._ And, further, one of the Companions says:
_Kána ´l-nabí salla ´lláh `alayhi wa-sallama yalbasu ´l-ṣúf wa-yarkabu
´l-ḥimár._ And, moreover, the Apostle said to `Á´isha: _Lá tuḍayyi`i
´l-thawb ḥattá turaqqi`íhi._ He said: “See that ye wear woollen raiment,
that ye may feel the sweetness of faith.” And it is related that the
Apostle wore a garment of wool and rode on an ass, and that he said to
`Á´isha: “O `Á´isha, do not let the garment be destroyed, but patch it.”
`Umar, the son of Khaṭṭáb, wore, it is said, a _muraqqa`a_ with thirty
patches inserted on it. Of `Umar, too, we are told that he said: “The
best garment is that which gives the least trouble” (_ki ma´únat-i án
sabuktar buvad_). It is related of the Commander of the Faithful, `Alí,
that he had a shirt of which the sleeves were level with his fingers,
and if at any time he wore a longer shirt he used to tear off the ends
of its sleeves. The Apostle also was commanded by God to shorten his
garments, for God said: “_And purify thy garments_” (Kor. lxxiv, 4),
i.e. shorten them. And Ḥasan of Baṣra says: “I saw seventy comrades who
fought at Badr: all of them had woollen garments; and the greatest
_Ṣiddíq_ (Abú Bakr) wore a garment of wool in his detachment from the
world” (_tajríd_). Ḥasan of Baṣra says further: “I saw Salmán
(al-Fárisí) wearing a woollen frock (_gilím_) with patches.” The
Commander of the Faithful, `Umar b. al-Khaṭṭáb, and the Commander of the
Faithful, `Alí, and Harim b. Ḥayyán relate that they saw Uways Qaraní
with a woollen garment on which patches were inserted. Ḥasan of Baṣra
and Málik Dínár and Sufyán Thawrí were owners of woollen patched frocks.
And it is related of the Imám Abú Ḥanífa of Kúfa—this is written in the
History of the Shaykhs composed by Muḥammad b. `Alí Ḥakím Tirmidhí—that
he at first clothed himself in wool and was on the point of retiring
from the world, when he saw in a dream the Apostle, who said: “It
behoves thee to live amidst the people, because thou art the means
whereby my _Sunna_ will be revived.” Then Abú Ḥanífa refrained from
solitude, but he never put on a garment of any value. And Dáwud Ṭá´í,
who was one of the veritable adepts among the aspirants to Ṣúfiism
(_yakí az muḥaqqiqán-i mutaṣawwifa_), enjoined the wearing of wool. And
Ibráhím the son of Adham came to visit the most venerable Imám Abú
Ḥanífa, clad in a garment of wool. The latter’s disciples looked at him
with contempt and disparagement, until Abú Ḥanífa said: “Our lord
Ibráhím b. Adham has come.” The disciples said: “The Imám utters no
jests: how has he gained this lordship?” Abú Ḥanífa replied: “By
continual devotion. He has been occupied in serving God while we have
been engaged in serving our own bodies. Thus he has become our lord.”
It may well be the case that at the present day some persons wear
patched frocks and religious habits (_muraqqa`át ú khiraq_) for the sake
of public honour and reputation, and that their hearts belie their
external garb; for there may be but one champion in a host, and in every
sect the genuine adepts are few. People, however, reckon as Ṣúfís all
who resemble the Ṣúfís even in a single rule. The Apostle said: _Man
tashabbaha bi-qawm^{in} fa-huwa minhum_, “He that makes himself akin to
a party either in conduct or in belief, is one of that party.” But while
some regard only the outward forms of their practice, others direct
attention to their spirit of inward purity.
Those who wish to associate with aspirants to Ṣúfiism fall into four
classes: (1) He whose purity, enlightenment, subtlety, even balance of
temperament, and soundness of character give him insight into the hearts
of the Ṣúfís, so that he perceives the nearness of their spiritual
adepts to God and the loftiness of their eminent men. He joins himself
to them in hope of attaining to the same degree, and the beginning of
his novitiate is marked by revelation of “states” (_kashf-i aḥwál_), and
purgation from desire, and renunciation of self. (2) He whose health of
body and continence of heart and quiet peace of mind enable him to see
their outward practice, so that he fixes his gaze on their observance of
the holy law and of the different sorts of discipline, and on the
excellence of their conduct: consequently he seeks to associate with
them and give himself up to the practice of piety, and the beginning of
his novitiate is marked by self-mortification (_mujáhadat_) and good
conduct. (3) He whose humanity and custom of social intercourse and
goodness of disposition cause him to consider their actions and to see
the virtue of their outward life: how they treat their superiors with
respect and their inferiors with generosity and their equals as
comrades, and how untroubled they are by thoughts of worldly gain and
contented with what they have; he seeks their society, and renders easy
to himself the hard path of worldly ambition, and makes himself at
leisure one of the good. (4) He whose stupidity and feebleness of
soul—his love of power without merit and of distinction without
knowledge—lead him to suppose that the outward actions of the Ṣúfís are
everything. When he enters their company they treat him kindly and
indulgently, although they are convinced that he is entirely ignorant of
God and that he has never striven to advance upon the mystic path.
Therefore he is honoured by the people as if he were a real adept and is
venerated as if he were one of God’s saints, but his object is only to
assume their dress and hide his deformity under their piety. He is like
an ass laden with books (Kor. lxxii, 5). In this age the majority are
impostors such as have been described. Accordingly, it behoves you not
to seem to be anything except what you really are. It is inward glow
(_ḥurqat_) that makes the Ṣúfí, not the religious habit (_khirqat_). To
the true mystic there is no difference between the mantle (_`abá_) worn
by dervishes, and the coat (_qabá_) worn by ordinary people. An eminent
Shaykh was asked why he did not wear a patched frock (_muraqqa`a_). He
replied: “It is hypocrisy to wear the garb of the Ṣúfís and not to bear
the burdens which Ṣúfiism entails.” If, by wearing this garb, you wish
to make known to God that you are one of the elect, God knows that
already; and if you wish to show to the people that you belong to God,
should your claim be true, you are guilty of ostentation; and should it
be false, of hypocrisy. The Ṣúfís are too great to need a special
garment for this purpose. Purity (_ṣafá_) is a gift from God, whereas
wool (_ṣúf_) is the clothing of animals. The Ṣúfí Shaykhs enjoined their
disciples to wear patched frocks, and did the same themselves, in order
that they might be marked men, and that all the people might keep watch
over them: thus if they committed a transgression, every tongue would
rebuke them, and if they wished to sin while clad in this garment, they
would be held back by shame. In short, the _muraqqa`a_ is the garb of
God’s saints. The vulgar use it merely as a means of gaining worldly
reputation and fortune, but the elect prefer contumely to honour, and
affliction to prosperity. Hence it is said “the _muraqqa`a_ is a garb of
happiness for the vulgar, but a mail-coat (_jawshan_) of affliction for
the elect.” You must seek what is spiritual, and shun what is external.
The Divine is veiled by the human, and that veil is annihilated only by
passing through the “states” and “stages” of the mystic Way. Purity
(_ṣafá_) is the name given to such annihilation. How can he who has
gained it choose one garment rather than another, or take pains to adorn
himself at all? How should he care whether people call him a Ṣúfí or by
some other name?
SECTION.
_Muraqqa`as_ should be made with a view to ease and lightness, and when
the original cloth is torn a patch should be inserted. There are two
opinions of the Shaykhs as to this matter. Some hold that it is improper
to sew the patch on neatly and accurately, and that the needle should be
drawn through the cloth at random,[42] and that no trouble should be
taken. Others again hold that the stitches should be straight and
regular, and that it is part of the practice of the dervishes to keep
the stitches straight and to take pains therein; for sound practice
indicates sound principles.
Footnote 42:
Literally, “in whatever place it raises its head.”
Now I, who am `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, asked the Grand Shaykh, Abu
´l-Qásim Gurgání at Ṭús, saying: “What is the least thing necessary for
a dervish in order that he may become worthy of poverty?” He replied: “A
dervish must not have less than three things: first, he must know how to
sew on a patch rightly; second, he must know how to listen rightly;
third, he must know how to set his foot on the ground rightly.” A number
of dervishes were present with me when he said this. As soon as we came
to the door each one began to apply this saying to his own case, and
some ignorant fellows fastened on it with avidity. “This,” they cried,
“is poverty indeed,” and most of them were hastening to sew patches on
nicely and to set their feet on the ground correctly; and everyone of
them imagined that he knew how to listen to sayings on Ṣúfiism.
Wherefore, since my heart was devoted to that Sayyid, and I was
unwilling that his words should fall to the ground, I said: “Come, let
each of us say something upon this subject.” So everyone stated his
views, and when my turn came I said: “A right patch is one that is
stitched for poverty, not for show; if it is stitched for poverty, it is
right, even though it be stitched wrong. And a right word is one that is
heard esoterically (_ba-ḥál_), not wilfully (_ba-munyat_), and is
applied earnestly, not frivolously, and is apprehended by life, not by
reason. And a right foot is one that is put on the ground with true
rapture, not playfully and formally.” Some of my remarks were reported
to the Sayyid (Abu ´l-Qásim Gurgání), who said: “`Alí has spoken
well—God reward him!” The aim of this sect in wearing patched frocks is
to alleviate the burden of this world and to be sincere in poverty
towards God. It is related in the genuine Traditions that Jesus, son of
Mary—God bless him!—was wearing a _muraqqa`a_ when he was taken up to
heaven. A certain Shaykh said: “I dreamed that I saw him clad in a
woollen patched frock, and light was shining from every patch. I said:
‘O Messiah, what are these lights on thy garment?’ He answered: ‘The
lights of necessary grace; for I sewed on each of those patches through
necessity, and God Almighty hath turned into a light every tribulation
which He inflicted on my heart.’”
I saw in Transoxania an old man who belonged to the sect of Malámatís.
He neither ate nor wore anything in which human beings had a hand. His
food consisted of things thrown away by men, such as putrid vegetables,
sour gourds, rotten carrots, and the like. His clothes were made of rags
which he had picked up from the road and washed: of these he had made a
_muraqqa`a_. And I have heard that among the mystics of recent times
there was an old man of flourishing condition (_qawí ḥál_) and of
excellent character, living at Marv al-Rúd, who had sewn so many
patches, without taking pains, on his prayer-rug and cap, that scorpions
brought forth their young in them. And my Shaykh—may God be well pleased
with him!—wore for fifty-one years a single cloak (_jubba_), on which he
used to sew pieces of cloth without taking any pains. I have found the
following tale among the anecdotes of the (holy) men of `Iráq. There
were two dervishes, one a votary of the contemplative life (_ṣáḥib
musháhadat_), and the other a votary of the purgative life (_ṣáḥib
mujáhadat_). The former never clothed himself except in the pieces of
cloth which were torn off by dervishes in a state of ecstasy (_samá`_)
from their own garments, while the other used for the same purpose only
the pieces torn off by dervishes who were asking forgiveness: thus the
outward garb of each was in harmony with his inward disposition. This is
observance of the “state” (_pás dáshtan-i ḥál_). Shaykh Muḥammad b.
Khafíf wore a coarse woollen frock (_palás_) for twenty years, and every
year he used to undergo four fasts of forty days’ duration (_chilla_),
and every forty days he would compose a work on the mysteries of the
Sciences of the Divine Verities. In his time there was an old man,[43]
one of the adepts learned in the Way (_Ṭaríqat_) and the Truth
(_Ḥaqíqat_), who resided at Parg[44] in Fárs and was called Muḥammad b.
Zakariyyá.[45] He had never worn a _muraqqa`a_. Now Shaykh Muḥammad b.
Khafíf was asked: “What is involved in wearing a _muraqqa`a_, and who is
permitted to do so?” He replied: “It involves those obligations which
are fulfilled by Muḥammad b. Zakariyyá in his white shirt, and the
wearing of such a frock is permitted to him.”
Footnote 43:
This story is related in _`Aṭṭár’s Tadhkirat al-Awliyá_ (pt. ii, p.
125, l. 17 sqq.), where it is expressly said that the old man was
_not_ “learned in the Way”.
Footnote 44:
I. in margin has Park. The _Nuzhat al-Quhúb_ gives the name as برک
(Bark), and refers it to a village in the district of Kirmán.
Footnote 45:
B., I., and J. have Dhakariyyá (Zakariyya), L. ذكرى. The MSS. of the
_Tadhkirat al-Awliyá_ vary between Dhakírí and ذكرى.
SECTION.
It is not the way of the Ṣúfís to abandon their customs. If they seldom
wear garments of wool at the present day, there are two reasons for this
fact: (1) that wools have deteriorated (_pashmhá shúrída shuda ast_) and
the animals (which produce wool) have been carried off from one place to
another by raiders; and (2) that a sect of heretics has adopted the
woollen garment as a badge (_shi`ár_). And it is praiseworthy to depart
from the badge of heretics, even although one departs at the same time
from a traditional practice (_sunna_).
To take pains (_takalluf_) in sewing _muraqqa`as_ is considered
allowable by the Ṣúfís because they have gained a high reputation among
the people; and since many imitate them and wear _muraqqa`as_, and are
guilty of improper acts, and since the Ṣúfís dislike the society of
others than themselves—for these reasons they have invented a garb which
none but themselves can sew, and have made it a mark of mutual
acquaintance and a badge. So much so that when a certain dervish came to
one of the Shaykhs wearing a garment on which the patch had been sewn
with too wide stitches (_khaṭṭ ba-pahná áwarda búd_) the Shaykh banished
him from his presence. The argument is that purity (_ṣafá_) is founded
on delicacy of nature and fineness of temperament, and undoubtedly
crookedness in one’s nature is not good. It is natural to disapprove of
incorrect actions, just as it is natural to derive no pleasure from
incorrect poetry.
Others, again, do not trouble themselves about clothes at all. They wear
either a religious habit (_`abá_) or an ordinary coat (_qabá_),
whichever God may have given them; and if He keeps them naked, they
remain in that state. I, who am `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, approve of
this doctrine, and I have practised it in my journeys. It is related
that Aḥmad b. Khaḍrúya wore a coat when he visited Abú Yazíd, and that
Sháh b. Shujá` wore a coat when he visited Abú Ḥafṣ. This was not their
usual dress, for sometimes they wore a _muraqqa`a_ and sometimes a
woollen garment or a white shirt, as it might happen. The human soul is
habituated to things, and fond of custom, and when anything has become
habitual to the soul it soon grows natural, and when it has grown
natural it becomes a veil. Hence the Apostle said: _Khayr al-ṣiyám ṣawm
akhí Dáwud `alayhi ´l-salám_, “The best of fasts is that of my brother
David.” They said: “O Apostle of God, what kind of fast is that?” He
replied: “David used to keep his fast one day and break it on the next
day,” in order that his soul should not become accustomed either to
keeping the fast or to breaking it, for fear that he might be veiled
thereby. And, as regards this matter, Abú Ḥámid Dústán[46] of Merv was
the most sound. His disciples used to put a garment on him, but those
who wanted it used to seek him out when he was at leisure and alone, and
divest him of it; and he would never say to the person who put it on
him: “Why do you put it on?” nor to the person who took it off: “Why do
you take it off?” Moreover, at the present day there is at Ghazna—may
God protect it!—an old man with the sobriquet Mu´ayyad, who has no
choice or discrimination with respect to his clothes; and he is sound in
that degree.
Footnote 46:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 350.
Now, as to their garments being mostly blue (_kabúd_), one of the
reasons is that they have made wandering (_siyáḥat_) and travelling the
foundation of their Path; and on journeys a white garment does not
retain its original appearance, and is not easily washed, and besides,
everyone covets it. Another cause is this, that a blue dress is the
badge of the bereaved and afflicted, and the apparel of mourners; and
this world is the abode of trouble, the pavilion of affliction, the den
of sorrow, the house of parting, the cradle of tribulation: the (Ṣúfí)
disciples, seeing that their heart’s desire is not to be gained in this
world, have clad themselves in blue and have sat down to mourn union
(with God). Others behold in the practice (of devotion) only
imperfection, in the heart only evil, in life only loss of time:
therefore they wear blue; for loss (_fawt_) is worse than death
(_mawt_). One wears blue for the death of a dear friend, another for the
loss of a cherished hope.
A dervish was asked why he wore blue. He replied: “The Apostle left
three things: poverty, knowledge, and the sword. The sword was taken by
potentates, who misused it; knowledge was chosen by savants, who were
satisfied with merely teaching it; poverty was chosen by dervishes, who
made it a means of enriching themselves. I wear blue as a sign of
mourning for the calamity of these three classes of men.” Once Murta`ish
was walking in one of the quarters of Baghdád. Being thirsty, he went to
a door and asked for a drink of water. The daughter of the householder
brought him some water in a jug. Murta`ish was smitten with her beauty
and would not leave the spot until the master of the house came to him.
“O sir,” cried Murta`ish, “she gave me a drink of water and robbed me of
my heart.” The householder replied: “She is my daughter, and I give her
to you in marriage.” So Murta`ish went into the house, and the wedding
was immediately solemnized. The bride’s father, who was a wealthy man,
sent Murta`ish to the bath, where they took off his patched frock
(_muraqqa`a_) and clothed him in a night-dress. At nightfall he rose to
say his prayers and engage in solitary devotion. Suddenly he called out,
“Bring my patched frock.” They asked, “What ails you?” He answered, “I
heard a voice within, whispering: ‘On account of one disobedient look We
have removed thy _muraqqa`a_, the garb of piety, from thy body: if thou
lookest again We shall remove the raiment of intimacy from thy heart.’”
Only two kinds of men are fitted to wear the _muraqqa`a_: (1) those who
are cut off from the world, and (2) those who feel a longing for the
Lord (_mushtáqán-i mawlá_).
The Ṣúfí Shaykhs observe the following rule. When a novice joins them,
with the purpose of renouncing the world, they subject him to spiritual
discipline for the space of three years. If he fulfil the requirements
of this discipline, well and good; otherwise, they declare that he
cannot be admitted to the Path (_Ṭaríqat_). The first year is devoted to
service of the people, the second year to service of God, and the third
year to watching over his own heart. He can serve the people only when
he places himself in the rank of servants and all other people in the
rank of masters, i.e. he must regard all, without any discrimination, as
being better than himself, and must consider it his duty to serve all
alike; not in such a way as to deem himself superior to those whom he
serves, for this is manifest perdition and evident fraud, and is one of
the infectious cankers of the age (_az áfát-i zamána andar zamána yakí
ínast_). And he can serve God Almighty only when he cuts off all his
selfish interests relating either to this world or to the next, and
worships God absolutely for His sake alone, inasmuch as whoever worships
God for any thing’s sake worships himself and not God. And he can watch
over his heart only when his thoughts are collected and cares are
dismissed from his heart, so that in the presence of intimacy (with God)
he preserves his heart from the assaults of heedlessness. When these
three qualifications are possessed by the novice, he may wear the
_muraqqa`a_ as a true mystic, not merely as an imitator of others.
Now as to the person who invests the novice with the _muraqqa`a_, he
must be a man of rectitude (_mustaqím al-ḥál_) who has traversed all the
hills and dales of the Path, and tasted the rapture of “states” and
perceived the nature of actions, and experienced the severity of the
Divine majesty and the clemency of the Divine beauty. Furthermore, he
must examine the state of his disciples and judge what point they will
ultimately reach: whether they will retire (_ráji`án_), or stand still
(_wáqifán_), or attain (_bálighán_). If he knows that some day they will
abandon this Path, he must forbid them to enter upon it; if they will
come to a stand, he must enjoin them to practise devotion; and if they
will reach the goal, he must give them spiritual nourishment. The Ṣúfí
Shaykhs are physicians of men’s souls. When the physician is ignorant of
the patient’s malady he kills him by his art, because he does not know
how to treat him and does not recognize the symptoms of danger, and
prescribes food and drink unsuitable to his disease. The Apostle said:
“The shaykh in his tribe is like the prophet in his nation.”
Accordingly, as the prophets showed insight in their call to the people,
and kept everyone in his due degree, so the Shaykh likewise should show
insight in his call, and should give to everyone his proper spiritual
food, in order that the object of his call may be secured.
The adept, then, who has attained the perfection of saintship takes the
right course when he invests the novice with the _muraqqa`a_ after a
period of three years during which he has educated him in the necessary
discipline. In respect of the qualifications which it demands, the
_muraqqa`a_ is comparable to a winding-sheet (_kafan_): the wearer must
resign all his hopes of the pleasures of life, and purge his heart of
all sensual delights, and devote his life entirely to the service of God
and completely renounce selfish desires. Then the Director (_Pír_)
ennobles him by clothing him in that robe of honour, while he on his
part fulfils the obligations which it involves, and strives with all his
might to perform them, and deems it unlawful to satisfy his own wishes.
Many allegories (_ishárát_) have been uttered concerning the
_muraqqa`a_. Shaykh Abú Ma`mar of Iṣfahán has written a book on the
subject, and the generality of aspirants to Ṣúfiism display much
extravagance (_ghuluww_) in this matter. My aim, however, in the present
work is not to relate sayings, but to elucidate the difficulties of
Ṣúfiism. The best allegory concerning the _muraqqa`a_ is this, that its
collar (_qabba_) is patience, its two sleeves fear and hope, its two
gussets (_tiríz_) contraction and dilation, its belt self-abnegation,
its hem (_kursí_)[47] soundness in faith, its fringe (_faráwíz_)
sincerity. Better still is the following: “Its collar is annihilation of
intercourse (with men), its two sleeves are observance (_ḥifẕ_) and
continence (_`iṣmat_), its two gussets are poverty and purity, its belt
is persistence in contemplation, its hem (_kursí_) is tranquillity in
(God’s) presence, and its fringe is settlement in the abode of union.”
When you have made a _muraqqa`a_ like this for your spiritual self it
behoves you to make one for your exterior also. I have composed a
separate book on this subject, entitled “The Mysteries of Patched Frocks
and Means of Livelihood” (_Asrár al-khiraq wa-´l-ma´únát_), of which the
novice should get a copy.
Footnote 47:
This conjectural translation of _kursí_ was suggested to me by Colonel
Ranking. The dictionaries give no explanation of the word as it is
used here.
If the novice, having donned the _muraqqa`a_, should be forced to tear
it under compulsion of the temporal authority, this is permissible and
excusable; but should he tear it of free will and deliberately, then
according to the law of the sect he is not allowed to wear a _muraqqa`a_
in future, and if he do so, he stands on the same footing as those in
our time who are content to wear _muraqqa`as_ for outward show, with no
spiritual meaning. As regards the rending of garments the true doctrine
is this, that when Ṣúfís pass from one stage to another they immediately
change their dress in thankfulness for having gained a higher stage; but
whereas every other garment is the dress of a single stage, the
_muraqqa`a_ is a dress which comprises all the stages of the Path of
poverty and purity, and therefore to discard it is equivalent to
renouncing the whole Path. I have made a slight allusion to this
question, although this is not the proper place for it, in order to
settle the particular point at issue; but, please God, I will give a
detailed explanation of the principle in the chapter on rending
(_kharq_), and in the revelation of the mystery of “audition” (_samá`_).
Furthermore, it has been said that one who invests a novice with the
_muraqqa`a_ should possess such sovereign mystical powers that any
stranger on whom he looks kindly should become a friend, and any sinner
whom he clothes in this garment should become a saint.
Once I was travelling with my Shaykh in Ádharbáyaján, and we saw two or
three persons wearing _muraqqa`as_, who were standing beside a
wheat-barn and holding up their skirts in the hope that the farmer would
throw them some wheat. On seeing this the Shaykh exclaimed: “_Those are
they who have purchased error at the price of true guidance, but their
traffic has not been profitable_” (Kor. ii, 15). I asked him how they
had fallen into this calamity and disgrace. He said: “Their spiritual
directors were greedy to gather disciples, and they themselves are
greedy to collect worldly goods.” It is related of Junayd that he saw at
the Báb al-Ṭáq[48] a beautiful Christian youth and said: “O Lord, pardon
him for my sake, for Thou hast created him exceeding fair.” After a
while the youth came to Junayd and made profession of Islam and was
enrolled among the saints. Abú `Alí Siyáh was asked: “Who is permitted
to invest novices with the _muraqqa`a_?” He replied: “That one who
oversees the whole kingdom of God, so that nothing happens in the world
without his knowledge.”
Footnote 48:
A gate in the eastern quarter of Baghdád.
CHAPTER V.
ON THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS HELD CONCERNING POVERTY AND PURITY.
The Doctors of the Mystic Path are not agreed as to the respective
merits of Poverty (_faqr_) and Purity (_ṣafwat_). Some hold that Poverty
is more perfect than Purity. Poverty, they say, is complete annihilation
in which every thought ceases to exist, and Purity is one of the
“stations” (_maqámát_) of Poverty: when annihilation is gained, all
“stations” vanish into nothing. This is ultimately the same question as
that touching Poverty and Wealth, which has already been discussed.
Those who set Purity above Poverty say that Poverty is an existent thing
(_shay ast mawjúd_) and is capable of being named, whereas Purity is the
being pure (_ṣafá_) from all existing things: _ṣafá_ is the essence of
annihilation (_faná_), and Poverty is the essence of subsistence
(_baqá_): therefore Poverty is one of the names of “stations”, but
Purity is one of the names of perfection. This matter has been disputed
at great length in the present age, and both parties have resorted to
far-fetched and amazing verbal subtleties; but it will be allowed on all
sides that Poverty and Purity are not mere words and nothing else. The
disputants have made up a doctrine out of words and have neglected to
apprehend meanings: they have abandoned discussion of the Truth.
Negation of arbitrary will they call negation of essence, and
affirmation of desire they regard as affirmation of essence. The Mystic
Path is far removed from such idle fictions. In short, the Saints of God
attain to a place where place no longer exists, where all degrees and
“stations” disappear, and where outward expressions fall off from the
underlying realities, so that neither “spiritual delight” (_shurb_) is
left, nor “taste” (_dhawq_), nor “sobriety” (_ṣaḥw_), nor “effacement”
(_maḥw_). These controversialists, however, seek a forced name with
which to cloak ideas that do not admit of being named or of being used
as attributes; and everyone applies to them whatever name he thinks most
estimable. Now, in dealing with the ideas themselves, the question of
superiority does not arise, but when names are given to them, one will
necessarily be preferred to another. Accordingly, to some people the
name of Poverty seemed to be superior and of greater worth because it is
connected with renunciation and humility, while others preferred Purity,
and held it the more honourable because it comes nearer to the notion of
discarding all that contaminates and annihilating all that has a taint
of the world. They adopted these two names as symbols of an
inexpressible idea, in order that they might converse with each other on
that subject and make their own state fully known; and there is no
difference of opinion in this sect (the Ṣúfís), although some use the
term “Poverty” and others the term “Purity” to express the same idea.
With the verbalists (_ahl-i `ibárat_), on the contrary, who are ignorant
of the true meaning of these ideas, the whole question is an affair of
words. To conclude, whoever has made that idea his own and fixed his
heart upon it, heeds not whether they call him “Poor” (_faqír_) or
“Pure” (_Ṣúfí_), since both these appellations are forced names for an
idea that cannot be brought under any name.
This controversy dates from the time of Abu ´l-Ḥasan Sumnún. He, on
occasions when he was in a state of revelation (_kashf_) akin to
subsistence (_baqá_), used to set Poverty above Purity; and on being
asked by spiritualists (_arbáb-i ma`ání_) why he did so, he replied:
“Inasmuch as I naturally delight in annihilation and abasement, and no
less in subsistence and exaltation, I prefer Purity to Poverty when I am
in a state akin to annihilation, and Poverty to Purity when I am in a
state akin to subsistence; for Poverty is the name of subsistence and
Purity that of annihilation. In the latter state I annihilate from
myself the sight (consciousness) of subsistence, and in the former state
I annihilate from myself the sight of annihilation, so that my nature
becomes dead both to annihilation and to subsistence.” Now this,
regarded as an explanation (_`ibárat_), is an excellent saying, but
neither annihilation nor subsistence can be annihilated: every
subsistent thing that suffers annihilation is annihilated from itself,
and every annihilated thing that becomes subsistent is subsistent from
itself. Annihilation is a term of which it is impossible to speak
hyperbolically. If a person says that annihilation is annihilated, he
can only be expressing hyperbolically the non-existence of any vestige
of the idea of annihilation; but so long as any vestige of existence
remains, annihilation has not yet come to pass; and when it has been
attained, the “annihilation” thereof is nothing but self-conceit
flattered by meaningless phrases. In the vanity and rashness of youth I
composed a discourse of this kind, entitled the “Book of Annihilation
and Subsistence” (_Kitáb-i Faná ú Baqá_), but in the present work I will
set forth the whole matter with caution, please God the Almighty and
Glorious.
This is the distinction between Purity and Poverty in the spiritual
sense. It is otherwise when Purity and Poverty are considered in their
practical aspect, namely, the denuding one’s self of worldly things
(_tajríd_) and the casting away of all one’s possessions. Here the real
point is the difference between Poverty (_faqr_) and Lowliness
(_maskanat_). Some Shaykhs assert that the Poor (_faqír_) are superior
to the Lowly (_miskín_), because God has said, “_the poor who are
straitened in the way of Allah, unable to go to and fro on the earth_”
(Kor. ii, 274): the Lowly possess means of livelihood, which the Poor
renounce: therefore Poverty is honour and Lowliness abasement, for,
according to the rule of the Mystic Path, he who possesses the means of
livelihood is base, as the Apostle said: “Woe befall those who worship
the dínár and the dirhem, woe befall those who worship garments with a
nap!” He who renounces the means of livelihood is honoured, inasmuch as
he depends on God, while he who has means depends on them. Others,
again, declare the Lowly to be superior, because the Apostle said: “Let
me live lowly, and let me die lowly, and raise me from the dead among
the lowly!” whereas, speaking of Poverty, he said, “Poverty is near to
being unbelief.” On this account the Poor are dependent on a means, but
the Lowly are independent. In the domain of Sacred Law, some divines
hold that the Poor are those who have a sufficiency ([_s.]áḥib bulgha_),
and the Lowly those who are free from worldly cares (_mujarrad_); but
other divines hold the converse of this view. Hence the name “Ṣúfí” is
given to the Lowly by followers of the Path (_ahl-i maqámát_) who adopt
the former opinion: they prefer Purity (_ṣafwat_) to Poverty. Those
Ṣúfís who accept the latter view prefer Poverty to Purity, for a similar
reason.
CHAPTER VI.
ON BLAME (_Malámat_).
The path of Blame has been trodden by some of the Ṣúfí Shaykhs. Blame
has a great effect in making love sincere. The followers of the Truth
(_ahl-i ḥaqq_) are distinguished by their being the objects of vulgar
blame, especially the eminent ones of this community. The Apostle, who
is the exemplar and leader of the adherents of the Truth, and who
marches at the head of the lovers (of God), was honoured and held in
good repute by all until the evidence of the Truth was revealed to him
and inspiration came upon him. Then the people loosed their tongues to
blame him. Some said, “He is a soothsayer;” others, “He is a poet;”
others, “He is a madman;” others, “He is a liar;” and so forth. And God
says, describing the true believers: “_They fear not the blame of
anyone; that is the grace of God which He bestows on whomsoever He
pleases; God is bounteous and wise_” (Kor. v, 59). Such is the ordinance
of God, that He causes those who discourse of Him to be blamed by the
whole world, but preserves their hearts from being preoccupied by the
world’s blame. This He does in His jealousy: He guards His lovers from
glancing aside to “other” (_ghayr_), lest the eye of any stranger should
behold the beauty of their state; and He guards them also from seeing
themselves, lest they should regard their own beauty and fall into
self-conceit and arrogance. Therefore He hath set the vulgar over them
to loose the tongues of blame against them, and hath made the “blaming
soul” (_nafs-i lawwáma_) part of their composition, in order that they
may be blamed by others for whatever they do, and by themselves for
doing evil or for doing good imperfectly.
Now this is a firm principle in the Way to God, for in this Path there
is no taint or veil more difficult to remove than self-conceit. God in
His kindness hath barred the way of error against His friends. Their
actions, however good, are not approved by the vulgar, who do not see
them as they really are; and they themselves do not regard their works
of mortification, however numerous, as proceeding from their own
strength and power: consequently they are not pleased with themselves
and are protected from self-conceit. Whoever is approved by God is
disapproved by the vulgar, and whoever is elected by himself is not
among the elect of God. Thus Iblís was approved by mankind and accepted
by the angels, and he was pleased with himself; but since God was not
pleased with him, their approval only brought a curse upon him. Adam, on
the other hand, was disapproved by the angels, who said: “_Wilt Thou
place there_ [on the earth] _one who will do evil therein?_” (Kor. ii,
28), and was not pleased with himself, for he said: “_O Lord, we have
done ourselves a wrong_” (Kor. vii, 22); but since God was pleased with
him, the disapproval of the angels and his own displeasure bore the
fruit of mercy. Let all men, therefore, know that those accepted by us
are rejected by the people, and that those accepted by the people are
rejected by us. Hence the blame of mankind is the food of the friends of
God, because it is a token of Divine approval; it is the delight of the
saints of God, because it is a sign of nearness to Him: they rejoice in
it even as other men rejoice in popularity. There is a Tradition, which
the Apostle received from Gabriel, that God said: “My friends (saints)
are under My cloak: save Me, none knoweth them except My friends.”
SECTION.
Now blame (_malámat_) is of three kinds: it may result (1) from
following the right way (_malámat-i rást raftan_), or (2) from an
intentional act (_malámat-i qaṣd kardan_), or (3) from abandonment of
the law (_malámat-i tark kardan_). In the first case, a man is blamed
who minds his own business and performs his religious duties and does
not omit any practice of devotion: he is entirely indifferent to the
behaviour of the people towards him. In the second case a man is greatly
honoured by the people and pointed out among them: his heart inclines to
the honour in which he is held, and becomes attached to those by whom it
is bestowed: he wishes to make himself independent of them and devote
himself wholly to God; therefore he purposely incurs their blame by
committing some act which is offensive to them but which is no violation
of the law: in consequence of his behaviour they wash their hands of
him. In the third case, a man is driven by his natural infidelity and
erroneous beliefs to abandon the sacred law and abjure its observances,
and say to himself, “I am treading the path of blame:” in this case his
behaviour depends on himself alone.
He who follows the right way and refuses to act hypocritically, and
refrains from ostentation, pays no heed to the blame of the vulgar, but
invariably takes his own course: it is all one to him what name they
call him by. I find among the anecdotes (of holy men) that one day
Shaykh Abú Ṭáhir Ḥaramí was seen in the bazaar, riding a donkey and
attended by one of his disciples. Some person cried out, “Here comes
that old freethinker!” The indignant disciple rushed at the speaker,
trying to strike him, and the whole bazaar was filled with tumult. The
Shaykh said to his disciple: “If you will be quiet, I will show you
something that will save you from trouble of this sort.” When they
returned home, he bade the disciple bring a certain box, which contained
letters, and told him to look at them. “Observe,” he said, “how the
writers address me. One calls me ‘the Shaykh of Islam’, another ‘the
pure Shaykh’, another ‘the ascetic Shaykh’, another ‘the Shaykh of the
two Sanctuaries’, and so on. They are all titles, there is no mention of
my name. I am none of these things, but every person gives me the title
which accords with his belief concerning me. If that poor fellow did the
same just now, why should you quarrel with him?”
He who incurs blame purposely and resigns honour and withdraws from
authority is like the Caliph `Uthmán who, although he possessed four
hundred slaves, one day came forth from his plantation of date-palms
carrying a bundle of firewood on his head. On being asked why he did
this, he answered: “I wish to make trial of myself.” He would not let
the dignity which he enjoyed hinder him from any work. A similar tale
related of the Imám Abú Ḥanífa will be found in this treatise. And a
story is told about Abú Yazíd, that, when he was entering Rayy on his
way from the Ḥijáz, the people of that city ran to meet him in order
that they might show him honour. Their attentions distracted him and
turned his thoughts away from God. When he came to the bazaar, he took a
loaf from his sleeve and began to eat. They all departed, for it was the
month of Ramaḍán. He said to a disciple who was travelling with him:
“You see! as soon as I perform a single article of the law,[49] they all
reject me.” In those days it was necessary, for incurring blame, to do
something disapproved or extraordinary; but in our time, if anyone
desires blame, he need only lengthen a little his voluntary prayers or
fulfil the religious practices which are prescribed: at once everybody
will call him a hypocrite and impostor.
Footnote 49:
Abú Yazíd, being at that time on a journey, was not legally bound to
observe the fast.
He who abandons the law and commits an irreligious act, and says that he
is following the rule of “blame”, is guilty of manifest wrong and
wickedness and self-indulgence. There are many in the present age who
seek popularity by this means, forgetting that one must already have
gained popularity before deliberately acting in such a way as to make
the people reject him; otherwise, his making himself unpopular is a mere
pretext for winning popularity. On a certain occasion I was in the
company of one of these vain pretenders. He committed a wicked act and
excused himself by saying that he did it for the sake of blame. One of
the party said, “That is nonsense.” He heaved a sigh. I said to him: “If
you claim to be a Malámatí and are firm in your belief, this gentleman’s
disapproval of what you have done ought to encourage you to persevere;
and since he is seconding you in your chosen course, why are you so
unfriendly and angry with him? Your behaviour is more like pretence than
pursuit of blame. Whoever claims to be guided by the Truth must give
some proof of his assertion, and the proof consists in observing the
_Sunna_ (Ordinances of the Prophet). You make this claim, and yet I see
that you have failed to perform an obligatory religious duty. Your
conduct puts you outside the pale of Islam.”
SECTION.
The doctrine of Blame was spread abroad in this sect by the Shaykh of
his age, Ḥamdún Qaṣṣár. He has many fine sayings on the subject. It is
recorded that he said: _Al-malámat tark al-salámat_, “Blame is the
abandonment of welfare.” If anyone purposely abandons his own welfare
and girds himself to endure misfortune, and renounces his pleasures and
familiar ties, in hope that the glory of God will be revealed to him,
the more he is separated from mankind the more he is united to God.
Accordingly, the votaries of Blame turn their backs on that thing,
namely welfare (_salámat_), to which the people of this world turn their
faces, for the aspirations of the former are Unitarian (_waḥdání_).
Aḥmad b. Fátik relates that Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr, in reply to the question
“Who is the Ṣúfí?” said: “He who is single in essence” (_waḥdání
al-dhát_). Ḥamdún also said concerning Blame: “It is a hard way for the
vulgar to follow, but I will tell one part thereof: the Malámatí is
characterized by the hope of the Murjites and the fear of the
Qadarites.” This saying has a hidden meaning which demands explanation.
It is the nature of man to be deterred by popularity more than any other
thing from seeking access to God. Consequently he who fears this danger
is always striving to avoid it, and there are two perils which confront
him: firstly, the fear that he may be veiled from God by the favour of
his fellow-creatures; and secondly, the fear of committing some act for
which the people will blame him and thereby fall into sin. Accordingly,
the Malámatí must, in the first instance, take care to have no quarrel
with the people for what they say of him, either in this world or the
next, and for the sake of his own salvation he must commit some act
which, legally, is neither a great sin (_kabíra_) nor a trivial offence
(_ṣaghíra_), in order that the people may reject him. Hence his fear in
matters of conduct is like the fear of the Qadarites, and his hope in
dealing with those who blame him is like the hope of the Murjites. In
true love there is nothing sweeter than blame, because blame of the
Beloved makes no impression on the lover’s heart: he heeds not what
strangers say, for his heart is ever faithful to the object of his love.
“_’Tis sweet to be reviled for passion’s sake._”
This sect (the Ṣúfís) are distinguished above all creatures in the
universe by choosing to be blamed in the body on account of the welfare
of their souls; and this high degree is not attained by the Cherubim or
any spiritual beings, nor has it been reached by the ascetics, devotees,
and seekers of God belonging to the nations of antiquity, but it is
reserved for those of this nation who journey on the path of entire
severance from the things of the world.
In my opinion, to seek Blame is mere ostentation, and ostentation is
mere hypocrisy. The ostentatious man purposely acts in such a way as to
win popularity, while the Malámatí purposely acts in such a way that the
people reject him. Both have their thoughts fixed on mankind and do not
pass beyond that sphere. The dervish, on the contrary, never even thinks
of mankind, and when his heart has been broken away from them he is as
indifferent to their reprobation as to their favour: he moves unfettered
and free. I once said to a Malámatí of Transoxania, with whom I had
associated long enough to feel at my ease: “O brother, what is your
object in these perverse actions?” He replied: “To make the people
non-existent in regard to myself.” “The people,” I said, “are many, and
during a lifetime you will not be able to make them non-existent in
regard to yourself; rather make yourself non-existent in regard to the
people, so that you may be saved from all this trouble. Some who are
occupied with the people imagine that the people are occupied with them.
If you wish no one to see you, do not see yourself. Since all your evils
arise from seeing yourself, what business have you with others? If a
sick man whose remedy lies in abstinence seeks to indulge his appetite,
he is a fool.” Others, again, practise the method of Blame from an
ascetic motive: they wish to be despised by the people in order that
they may mortify themselves, and it is their greatest delight to find
themselves wretched and abased. Ibráhím b. Adham was asked, “Have you
ever attained your desire?” He answered: “Yes, twice; on one occasion I
was in a ship where nobody knew me. I was clad in common clothes and my
hair was long, and my guise was such that all the people in the ship
mocked and laughed at me. Among them was a buffoon, who was always
coming and pulling my hair and tearing it out, and treating me with
contumely after the manner of his kind. At that time I felt entirely
satisfied, and I rejoiced in my garb. My joy reached its highest pitch
one day when the buffoon rose from his place and _super me minxit_. On
the second occasion I arrived at a village in heavy rain, which had
soaked the patched frock on my body, and I was overcome by the wintry
cold. I went to a mosque, but was refused admittance. The same thing
happened at three other mosques where I sought shelter. In despair, as
the cold strengthened its grip on my heart, I entered a bathhouse and
drew my skirt close up to the stove. The smoke enveloped me and
blackened my clothes and my face. Then also I felt entirely satisfied.”
Once I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, found myself in a difficulty. After
many devotional exercises undertaken in the hope of clearing it away, I
repaired—as I had done with success on a former occasion—to the tomb of
Abú Yazíd, and stayed beside it for a space of three months, performing
every day three ablutions and thirty purifications in the hope that my
difficulty might be removed. It was not, however; so I departed and
journeyed towards Khurásán. One night I arrived at a village in that
country where there was a convent (_khánaqáh_) inhabited by a number of
aspirants to Ṣúfiism. I was wearing a dark-blue frock (_muraqqa`-i
khishan_), such as is prescribed by the _Sunna_;[50] but I had with me
nothing of the Ṣúfí’s regular equipment (_álat-i ahl-i rasm_) except a
staff and a leathern water-bottle (_rakwa_). I appeared very
contemptible in the eyes of these Ṣúfís, who did not know me. They
regarded only my external habit and said to one another, “This fellow is
not one of us.” And so in truth it was: I was not one of them, but I had
to pass the night in that place. They lodged me on a roof, while they
themselves went up to a roof above mine, and set before me dry bread
which had turned green, while I was drawing into my nostrils the savour
of the viands with which they regaled themselves. All the time they were
addressing derisive remarks to me from the roof. When they finished the
food, they began to pelt me with the skins of the melons which they had
eaten, by way of showing how pleased they were with themselves and how
lightly they thought of me. I said in my heart: “O Lord God, were it not
that they are wearing the dress of Thy friends, I would not have borne
this from them.” And the more they scoffed at me the more glad became my
heart, so that the endurance of this burden was the means of delivering
me from that difficulty which I have mentioned; and forthwith I
perceived why the Shaykhs have always given fools leave to associate
with them and for what reason they submit to their annoyance.
Footnote 50:
I. adds in margin “for travellers”.
CHAPTER VII.
CONCERNING THEIR IMÁMS WHO BELONGED TO THE COMPANIONS.
1. THE CALIPH ABÚ BAKR, THE VERACIOUS (_al-Ṣiddíq_).
He is placed by the Ṣúfí Shaykhs at the head of those who have adopted
the contemplative life (_musháhadat_), on account of the fewness of the
stories and traditions which he related; while `Umar is placed at the
head of those who have adopted the purgative life (_mujáhadat_), because
of his rigour and assiduity in devotion. It is written among the genuine
Traditions, and is well known to scholars, that when Abú Bakr prayed at
night he used to recite the Koran in a low voice, whereas `Umar used to
recite in a loud voice. The Apostle asked Abú Bakr why he did this. Abú
Bakr replied: “He with whom I converse will hear.” `Umar, in his turn,
replied: “I wake the drowsy and drive away the Devil.” The one gave a
token of contemplation, the other of purgation. Now purgation, compared
with contemplation, is like a drop of water in a sea, and for this
reason the Apostle said that `Umar, the glory of Islam, was only
(equivalent to) a single one of the good deeds of Abú Bakr (_hal anta
illá ḥasanat^{un} min ḥasanáti Abí Bakr_). It is recorded that Abú Bakr
said: “Our abode is transitory, our life therein is but a loan, our
breaths are numbered, and our indolence is manifest.” By this he
signified that the world is too worthless to engage our thoughts; for
whenever you occupy yourself with what is perishable, you are made blind
to that which is eternal: the friends of God turn their backs on the
world and the flesh which veil them from Him, and they decline to act as
if they were owners of a thing that is really the property of another.
And he said: “O God, give me plenty of the world and make me desirous of
renouncing it!” This saying has a hidden sense, viz.: “First bestow on
me worldly goods that I may give thanks for them, and then help me to
abstain from them for Thy sake, so that I may have the treble merit of
thanksgiving and liberality and abstinence, and that my poverty may be
voluntary, not compulsory.” These words refute the Director of mystical
practice, who said: “He whose poverty is compulsory is more perfect than
he whose poverty is voluntary; for if it be compulsory, he is the
creature (_ṣan`at_) of poverty, and if it be voluntary, poverty is his
creature; and it is better that his actions should be free from any
attempt to gain poverty for himself than that he should seek to acquire
it by his own effort.” I say in answer to this: The creature of poverty
is most evidently that person who, while enjoying independence, is
possessed by the desire for poverty, and labours to recover it from the
clutches of the world; not that person who, in the state of poverty, is
possessed by the desire for independence and has to go to the houses of
evildoers and the courts of governors for the sake of earning money. The
creature of poverty is he who falls from independence to poverty, not he
who, being poor, seeks to become powerful. Abú Bakr is the foremost of
all mankind after the prophets, and it is not permissible that anyone
should take precedence of him, for he set voluntary poverty above
compulsory poverty. This doctrine is held by all the Ṣúfí Shaykhs except
the spiritual Director whom we have mentioned.
Zuhrí relates that, when Abú Bakr received the oaths of allegiance as
Caliph, he mounted the pulpit and pronounced an oration, in the course
of which he said: “By God, I never coveted the command nor desired it
even for a day or a night, nor ever asked God for it openly or in
secret, nor do I take any pleasure in having it.” Now, when God causes
anyone to attain perfect sincerity and exalts him to the rank of fixity
(_tamkín_) he waits for Divine inspiration, that it may guide him; and
according as he is bidden, he will be either a beggar or a prince,
without exercising his own choice and will. Thus Abú Bakr, the
Veracious, resigned himself to the will of God from first to last. Hence
the whole sect of Ṣúfís have made him their pattern in stripping
themselves of worldly things, in fixity (_tamkín_), in eager desire for
poverty, and in longing to renounce authority. He is the Imám of the
Moslems in general, and of the Ṣúfís in particular.
2.THE CALIPH `UMAR B. AL-KHAṬṬÁB.
He was specially distinguished by sagacity and resolution, and is the
author of many fine sayings on Ṣúfiism. The Apostle said: “The Truth
speaks by the tongue of `Umar;” and again, “There have been inspired
relaters (_muḥaddath^{un}_) in the peoples of antiquity, and if there be
any such in my people, it is `Umar.” `Umar said: “Retirement (_`uzlat_)
is a means of relieving one’s self of bad company.” Retirement is of two
sorts: firstly, turning one’s back on mankind (_i`ráḍ az khalq_), and
secondly, entire severance from them (_inqiṭá` az íshán_). Turning one’s
back on mankind consists in choosing a solitary retreat, and in
renouncing the society of one’s fellow-creatures externally, and in
quiet contemplation of the faults in one’s own conduct, and in seeking
release for one’s self from intercourse with men, and in making all
people secure from one’s evil actions. But severance from mankind is a
spiritual state, which is not connected with anything external. When a
person is severed from mankind in spirit, he knows nothing of created
beings and no thought thereof can take possession of his mind. Such a
person, although he is living among the people, is isolated from them,
and his spirit dwells apart from them. This is a very exalted station.
`Umar followed the right path herein, for externally he lived among the
people as their Commander and Caliph. His words show clearly that
although spiritualists may outwardly mix with mankind, their hearts
always cling to God and return to Him in all circumstances. They regard
any intercourse they may have with men as an affliction sent by God; and
that intercourse does not divert them from God, since the world never
becomes pure in the eyes of those whom God loves. `Umar said: “An abode
which is founded upon affliction cannot possibly be without affliction.”
The Ṣúfís make him their model in wearing a patched frock (_muraqqa`a_)
and rigorously performing the duties of religion.
3. THE CALIPH `UTHMÁN B. `AFFÁN.
It is related by `Abdalláh b. Rabáḥ and Abú Qatáda as follows: “We were
with the Commander of the Faithful, `Uthmán, on the day when his house
was attacked. His slaves, seeing the crowd of rebels gathered at the
door, took up arms. `Uthmán said: ‘Whoever of you does not take up arms
is a free man.’ We went forth from the house in fear of our lives. Ḥasan
b. `Alí met us on the way, and we returned with him to `Uthmán, that we
might know on what business he was going. After he had saluted `Uthmán
and condoled with him he said: ‘O Prince of the Faithful, I dare not
draw sword against Moslems without thy command. Thou art the true Imám.
Give the order and I will defend thee.’ `Uthmán replied: ‘O my cousin,
go back to thy house and sit there until God shall bring His decree to
pass. We do not wish to shed blood.’”
These words betoken resignation in the hour of calamity, and show that
the speaker had attained the rank of friendship with God (_khullat_).
Similarly, when Nimrod lit a fire and put Abraham in the sling
(_pala_)[51] of a catapult, Gabriel came to Abraham and said, “Dost thou
want anything?” He answered, “From thee, no.” Gabriel said, “Then ask
God.” He answered, “Since He knows in what plight I am I need not ask
Him.” Here `Uthmán was in the position of the Friend (Khalíl)[52] in the
catapult, and the seditious mob was in the place of the fire, and Ḥasan
was in the place of Gabriel; but Abraham was saved, while `Uthmán
perished. Salvation (_naját_) is connected with subsistence (_baqá_) and
destruction (_halák_) with annihilation (_faná_): on this topic
something has been said above. The Ṣúfís take `Uthmán as their exemplar
in sacrificing life and property, in resigning their affairs to God, and
in sincere devotion.
Footnote 51:
Arabic _kiffat_. See Dozy, _Supplément_, ii, 476.
Footnote 52:
Abraham is called by Moslems “the Friend of God” (_al-Khalíl_).
4. THE CALIPH `ALÍ B. ABÍ ṬÁLIB.
His renown and rank in this Path (of Ṣúfiism) were very high. He
explained the principles (_uṣúl_) of Divine truth with exceeding
subtlety, so that Junayd said: “`Alí is our Shaykh as regards the
principles and as regards the endurance of affliction,” i.e. in the
theory and practice of Ṣúfiism; for Ṣúfís call the theory of this Path
“principles” (_uṣúl_), and its practice consists entirely in the
endurance of affliction. It is related that some one begged `Alí to give
him a precept (_waṣiyyat_). `Alí replied: “Do not let your wife and
children be your chief cares; for if they be friends of God, God will
look after His friends, and if they are enemies of God, why should you
take care of God’s enemies?” This question is connected with the
severance of the heart from all things save God, who keeps His servants
in whatever state He willeth. Thus Moses left the daughter of
Shu`ayb[53] in a most miserable plight and committed her to God; and
Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael and brought them to a barren valley and
committed them to God. Both these prophets, instead of making wife and
child their chief care, fixed their hearts on God. This saying resembles
the answer which `Alí gave to one who asked what is the purest thing
that can be acquired. He said: “It is that which belongs to a heart made
rich by God” (_ghaná al-qalb billáh_). The heart that is so enriched is
not made poor by having no worldly goods nor glad by having them. This
subject really turns on the theory regarding poverty and purity, which
has been already discussed. `Alí is a model for the Ṣúfís in respect to
the truths of outward expressions and the subtleties of inward meanings,
the stripping one’s self of all property either of this world or of the
next, and consideration of the Divine providence.
Footnote 53:
Moses is said to have married one of the daughters of Shu`ayb. See
Kor. xxviii, 22-8, where Shu`ayb, however, is not mentioned by name.
CHAPTER VIII.
CONCERNING THEIR IMÁMS WHO BELONGED TO THE HOUSE OF THE PROPHET.
1. ḤASAN B. `ALÍ.
He was profoundly versed in Ṣúfiism. He said, by way of precept: “See
that ye guard your hearts, for God knows your secret thoughts.”
“Guarding the heart” consists in not turning to others (than God) and in
keeping one’s secret thoughts from disobedience to the Almighty. When
the Qadarites got the upper hand, and the doctrine of Rationalism became
widely spread, Ḥasan of Baṣra wrote to Ḥasan b. `Alí begging for
guidance, and asking him to state his opinion on the perplexing subject
of predestination and on the dispute whether men have any power to act
(_istiṭá`at_). Ḥasan b. `Alí replied that in his opinion those who did
not believe in the determination (_qadar_) of men’s good and evil
actions by God were infidels, and that those who imputed their sins to
God were miscreants, i.e. the Qadarites deny the Divine providence, and
the Jabarites impute their sins to God; hence men are free to acquire
their actions according to the power given them by God, and thus our
religion takes the middle course between free-will and predestination. I
have read in the Anecdotes that when Ḥasan b. `Alí was seated at the
door of his house in Kúfa, a Bedouin came up and reviled him and his
father and his mother. Ḥasan rose and said: “O Bedouin, perhaps you are
hungry or thirsty, or what ails you?” The Bedouin took no heed, but
continued to abuse him. Ḥasan ordered his slave to bring a purse of
silver, and gave it to the fellow, saying: “O Bedouin, excuse me, for
there is nothing else in the house; had there been more, I should not
have grudged it to you.” On hearing this, the Bedouin exclaimed: “I bear
witness that thou art the grandson of the Apostle of God. I came hither
to make trial of thy mildness.” Such are the true saints and Shaykhs who
care not whether they are praised or blamed, and listen calmly to abuse.
2. ḤUSAYN B. `ALÍ
He is the martyr of Karbalá, and all Ṣúfís are agreed that he was in the
right. So long as the Truth was apparent, he followed it; but when it
was lost he drew the sword and never rested until he sacrificed his dear
life for God’s sake. The Apostle distinguished him by many tokens of
favour. Thus `Umar b. al-Khaṭṭáb relates that one day he saw the Apostle
crawling on his knees, while Ḥusayn rode on his back holding a string,
of which the other end was in the Apostle’s mouth. `Umar said: “What an
excellent camel thou hast, O father of `Abdalláh!” The Apostle replied:
“What an excellent rider is he, O `Umar!” It is recorded that Ḥusayn
said: “Thy religion is the kindest of brethren towards thee,” because a
man’s salvation consists in following religion, and his perdition in
disobeying it.
3. `ALÍ B. ḤUSAYN B. `ALÍ, CALLED ZAYN AL-`ÁBIDÍN.
He said that the most blessed man in this world and in the next is he
who, when he is pleased, is not led by his pleasure into wrong, and when
he is angry, is not carried by his anger beyond the bounds of right.
This is the character of those who have attained perfect rectitude
(_kamál-i mustaqímán_). Ḥusayn used to call him `Alí the Younger (`Alí
Aṣghar). When Ḥusayn and his children were killed at Karbalá, there was
none left except `Alí to take care of the women; and he was ill. The
women were brought unveiled on camels to Yazíd b. Mu`áwiya—may God curse
him, but not his father!—at Damascus. Some one said to `Alí: “How are ye
this morning, O `Alí and O members of the House of Mercy?” `Alí replied:
“We are in the same position among our people as the people of Moses
among Pharaoh’s folk, who slaughtered their sons and took their women
alive; we do not know morning from evening on account of the reality of
our affliction.”
[The author then relates the well-known story of Hishám b. `Abd
al-Malik’s encounter with `Alí b. Ḥusayn at Mecca—how the Caliph, who
desired to kiss the Black Stone but was unable to reach it, saw the
crowd immediately make way for `Alí and retire to a respectful
distance; how a man of Syria asked the Caliph to tell him the name of
this person who was held in so great veneration; how Hishám feigned
ignorance, for fear that his partisans should be shaken in allegiance
to himself; and how the poet Farazdaq stepped forward and recited the
splendid encomium beginning—[54]
“_This is he whose footprint is known to the valley of Mecca,
He whom the Temple knows, and the unhallowed territory and the holy
ground.
This is the son of the best of all the servants of God,
This is the pious, the elect, the pure, the eminent._”
Hishám was enraged and threw Farazdaq into prison. `Alí sent to him a
purse containing 12,000 dirhems; but the poet returned it, with the
message that he had uttered many lies in the panegyrics on princes and
governors which he was accustomed to compose for money, and that he
had addressed these verses to `Alí as a partial expiation for his sins
in that respect, and as a proof of his affection towards the House of
the Prophet. `Alí, however, begged to be excused from taking back what
he had already given away; and Farazdaq at last consented to receive
the money.]
Footnote 54:
Twenty-five verses are quoted.
4. ABÚ JA`FAR MUḤAMMAD B. `ALÍ B. ḤUSAYN AL-BÁQIR.
Some say that his “name of honour” was Abú `Abdalláh. His nickname was
Báqir. He was distinguished for his knowledge of the abstruse sciences
and for his subtle indications as to the meaning of the Koran. It is
related that on one occasion a king, who wished to destroy him, summoned
him to his presence. When Báqir appeared, the king begged his pardon,
bestowed gifts upon him, and dismissed him courteously. On being asked
why he had acted in this manner, the king replied: “When he came in, I
saw two lions, one on his right hand and one on his left, who threatened
to destroy me if I should attempt to do him any harm.” In his
explanation of the verse, “_Whosoever believes in the_ ṭághút _and
believes in God_” (Kor. ii, 257), Báqir said: “Anything that diverts
thee from contemplation of the Truth is thy _ṭághút_.” One of his
intimate friends relates that when a portion of the night had passed and
Báqir had finished his litanies, he used to cry aloud to God: “O my God
and my Lord, night has come, and the power of monarchs has ceased, and
the stars are shining in the sky, and all mankind are asleep and silent,
and the Banú Umayya have gone to rest and shut their doors and set
guards to watch over them; and those who desired anything from them have
forgotten their business. Thou, O God, art the Living, the Lasting, the
Seeing, the Knowing. Sleep and slumber cannot overtake Thee. He who does
not acknowledge that Thou art such as I have described is unworthy of
Thy bounty. O Thou whom no thing withholds from any other thing, whose
eternity is not impaired by Day and Night, whose doors of Mercy are open
to all who call upon Thee, and whose entire treasures are lavished on
those who praise Thee: Thou dost never turn away the beggar, and no
creature in earth or heaven can prevent the true believer who implores
Thee from gaining access to Thy court. O Lord, when I remember death and
the grave and the reckoning, how can I take joy in this world?
Therefore, since I acknowledge Thee to be One, I beseech Thee to give me
peace in the hour of death, without torment, and pleasure in the hour of
reckoning, without punishment.”
5. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD JA`FAR B. MUḤAMMAD ṢÁDIQ.
He is celebrated among the Ṣúfí Shaykhs for the subtlety of his
discourse and his acquaintance with spiritual truths, and he has written
famous books in explanation of Ṣúfiism. It is related that he said:
“Whoever knows God turns his back on all else.” The gnostic (_`árif_)
turns his back on “other” (than God) and is cut off from worldly things,
because his knowledge (_ma`rifat_) is pure nescience (_nakirat_),
inasmuch as nescience forms part of his knowledge, and knowledge forms
part of his nescience. Therefore the gnostic is separated from mankind
and from thought of them, and he is joined to God. “Other” has no place
in his heart, that he should pay any heed to them, and their existence
has no worth for him, that he should fix the remembrance of them in his
mind. And it is related that he said: “There is no right service without
repentance, because God hath put repentance before service, and hath
said, _Those who repent and serve_” (Kor. ix, 113). Repentance
(_tawbat_) is the first of the “stations” in this Path, and service
(_`ibádat_) is the last. When God mentioned the disobedient He called
them to repentance and said, “_Repent unto God together_” (Kor. xxiv,
31); but when He mentioned the Apostle He referred to his “servantship”
(_`ubúdiyyat_), and said, “_He revealed to His servant that which He
revealed_” (Kor. liii, 10). I have read in the Anecdotes that Dáwud Ṭá´í
came to Ja`far Ṣádiq and said: “O son of the Apostle of God, counsel me,
for my mind is darkened.” Ja`far replied: “O Abú Sulaymán, thou art the
ascetic of thy time: what need hast thou of counsel from me?” He
answered: “O son of the Apostle, thy family are superior to all mankind,
and it is incumbent on thee to give counsel to all.” “O Abú Sulaymán,”
cried Ja`far, “I am afraid that at the Resurrection my grandsire will
lay hold on me, saying, ‘Why didst not thou fulfil the obligation to
follow in my steps?’ This is not a matter that depends on authentic and
sure affinity (to Muḥammad), but on good conduct in the presence of the
Truth.” Dáwud Ṭá´í began to weep and exclaimed: “O Lord God, if one
whose clay is moulded with the water of Prophecy, whose grandsire is the
Apostle, and whose mother is Fáṭima (_Batúl_)—if such a one is
distracted by doubts, who am I that I should be pleased with my dealings
(towards God)?” One day Ja`far said to his clients: “Come, let us take a
pledge that whoever amongst us shall gain deliverance on the Day of
Resurrection shall intercede for all the rest.” They said: “O son of the
Apostle, how canst thou have need of our intercession since thy
grandsire intercedes for all mankind?” Ja`far replied: “My actions are
such that I shall be ashamed to look my grandsire in the face on the
Last Day.” To see one’s faults is a quality of perfection, and is
characteristic of those who are established in the Divine presence,
whether they be prophets, saints, or apostles. The Apostle said: “When
God wishes a man well, He gives him insight into his faults.” Whoever
bows his head with humility, like a servant, God will exalt his state in
both worlds.
Now I shall mention briefly the People of the Veranda (_Ahl-i Ṣuffa_).
In a book entitled “The Highway of Religion” (_Minháj al-Dín_), which I
composed before the present work, I have given a detailed account of
each of them, but here it will suffice to mention their names and “names
of honour”.
CHAPTER IX.
CONCERNING THE PEOPLE OF THE VERANDA (_Ahl-i Ṣuffa_).
Know that all Moslems are agreed that the Apostle had a number of
Companions, who abode in his Mosque and engaged in devotion, renouncing
the world and refusing to seek a livelihood. God reproached the Apostle
on their account and said: “_Do not drive away those who call unto their
Lord at morn and eve, desiring His face_” (Kor. vi, 52). Their merits
are proclaimed by the Book of God, and in many traditions of the Apostle
which have come down to us. It is related by Ibn `Abbás that the Apostle
passed by the People of the Veranda, and saw their poverty and their
self-mortification and said: “Rejoice! for whoever of my community
perseveres in the state in which ye are, and is satisfied with his
condition, he shall be one of my comrades in Paradise.” Among the _Ahl-i
Ṣuffa_[55] were Bilál b. Rabáḥ, Salmán al-Fárisí, Abú `Ubayda b.
al-Jarráḥ, Abu ´l-Yaqẕán `Ammár b. Yásir, `Abdalláh b. Mas`úd
al-Hudhalí, his brother `Utba b. Mas`úd, Miqdád b. al-Aswad, Khabbáb b.
al-Aratt, Ṣuhayb b. Sinán, `Utba b. Ghazwán, Zayd b. al-Khaṭṭáb, brother
of the Caliph `Umar; Abú Kabsha, the Apostle’s client; Abu ´l-Marthad
Kinána b. al-Ḥusayn al-`Adawí; Sálim, client of Hudhayfa al-Yamání;
`Ukkásha b. Miḥṣan; Mas`úd b. Rabí` al-Fárisí; Abú Dharr Jundab b.
Junáda al-Ghifárí; `Abdalláh b. `Umar; Ṣafwán b. Bayḍá; Abú Dardá `Uwaym
b. `Ámír; Abú Lubába b. `Abd al-Mundhir; and `Abdalláh b. Badr
al-Juhaní.
Footnote 55:
I have corrected many of the following names, which are erroneously
written in the Persian text, by reference to various Arabic works.
Shaykh Abú `Abd al-Raḥmán Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-Sulamí,[56] the
traditionist (_naqqál_) of Ṣúfiism and transmitter of the sayings of the
Ṣúfí Shaykhs, has written a separate history of the _Ahl-i Ṣuffa_, in
which he has recorded their virtues and merits and names and “names of
honour”. He has included among them Misṭaḥ b. Uthátha b. `Abbád, whom I
dislike because he began the slanders about `Á´isha, the Mother of the
Believers. Abú Hurayra, and Thawbán, and Mu`ádh b. al-Ḥárith, and Sá´ib
b. Khallád, and Thábit b. Wadí`at, and Abú `Ísá `Uwaym b. Sá`ida, and
Sálim b. `Umayr b. Thábit, and Abu ´l-Yasar Ka`b b. `Amr, and Wahb b.
Ma`qal, and `Abdalláh b. Unays, and Ḥajjáj b. `Umar al-Aslamí belonged
to the _Ahl-i Ṣuffa_. Now and then they had recourse to some means of
livelihood (_ta`alluq ba-sababí kardandí_), but all of them were in one
and the same degree (of dignity). Verily, the generation of the
Companions was the best of all generations; and they were the best and
most excellent of mankind, since God bestowed on them companionship with
the Apostle and preserved their hearts from blemish.
Footnote 56:
See Brockelmann, i, 200.
CHAPTER X.
CONCERNING THEIR IMÁMS WHO BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS (_al-Tábi`ún_).
1. UWAYS AL-QARANÍ.
He lived in the time of the Apostle, but was prevented from seeing him,
firstly by the ecstasy which overmastered him, and secondly by duty to
his mother. The Apostle said to the Companions: “There is a man at
Qaran, called Uways, who at the Resurrection will intercede for a
multitude of my people, as many as the sheep of Rabí`a and Muḍar.” Then
turning to `Umar and `Alí, he said: “You will see him. He is a lowly
man, of middle height, and hairy; on his left side there is a white
spot, as large as a dirhem, which is not from leprosy (_pístí_), and he
has a similar spot on the palm of his hand. When you see him, give him
my greeting, and bid him pray for my people.” After the Apostle’s death
`Umar came to Mecca, and cried out in the course of a sermon: “O men of
Najd, are there any natives of Qaran amongst you?” They answered, “Yes”;
whereupon `Umar sent for them and asked them about Uways. They said: “He
is a madman who dwells in solitude and associates with no one. He does
not eat what men eat, and he feels no joy or sorrow. When others smile
he weeps, and when others weep he smiles.” `Umar said: “I wish to see
him.” They replied: “He lives in a desert, far from our camels.” `Umar
and `Alí set out in quest of him. They found him praying, and waited
until he was finished. He saluted them and showed them the marks on his
side and the palm of his hand. They asked his blessing and gave him the
Apostle’s greeting, and enjoined him to pray for the Moslem people.
After they had stayed with him for a while, he said: “You have taken
trouble (to see me); now return, for the Resurrection is near, when we
shall see each other without having to say farewell. At present I am
engaged in preparing for the Resurrection.” When the men of Qaran came
home, they exhibited great respect for Uways. He left his native place
and came to Kúfa. One day he was seen by Harim b. Ḥayyán, but after that
nobody saw him until the period of civil war. He fought for `Alí, and
fell a martyr at the battle of Ṣiffín.
It is related that he said: “Safety lies in solitude,” because the heart
of the solitary is free from thought of “other”, and in no circumstances
does he hope for anything from mankind. Let none imagine, however, that
solitude (_waḥdat_) merely consists in living alone. So long as the
Devil associates with a man’s heart, and sensual passion holds sway in
his breast, and any thought of this world or the next occurs to him in
such a way as to make him conscious of mankind, he is not truly in
solitude; since it is all one whether he takes pleasure in the thing
itself or in the thought of it. Accordingly, the true solitary is not
disturbed by society, but he who is preoccupied seeks in vain to acquire
freedom from thought by secluding himself. In order to be cut off from
mankind one must become intimate with God, and those who have become
intimate with God are not hurt by intercourse with mankind.
2. HARIM B. ḤAYYÁN.
He went to visit Uways Qaraní, but on arriving at Qaran he found that
Uways was no longer there. Deeply disappointed, he returned to Mecca,
where he learned that Uways was living at Kúfa. He repaired thither, but
could not discover him for a long time. At last he set out for Baṣra and
on the way he saw Uways, clad in a patched frock, performing an ablution
on the banks of the Euphrates. As soon as he came up from the shore of
the river and combed his beard, Harim advanced to meet him and saluted
him. Uways said: “Peace be with thee, O Harim b. Ḥayyán!” Harim cried:
“How did you know that I am Harim?” Uways answered: “My spirit knew thy
spirit.” He said to Harim: “Keep watch over thy heart” (_`alayka
bi-qalbika_), i.e. “Guard thy heart from thoughts of ‘other’”. This
saying has two meanings: (1) “Make thy heart obedient to God by
self-mortification”, and (2) “Make thyself obedient to thy heart”. These
are two sound principles. It is the business of novices (_murídán_) to
make their hearts obedient to God in order to purge them from
familiarity with vain desires and passions, and sever them from unseemly
thoughts, and fix them on the method of gaining spiritual health, on the
keeping of the commandments, and on contemplation of the signs of God,
so that their hearts may become the shrine of Love. To make one’s self
obedient to one’s heart is the business of adepts (_kámilán_), whose
hearts God has illumined with the light of Beauty, and delivered from
all causes and means, and invested with the robe of proximity (_qurb_),
and thereby has revealed to them His bounties and has chosen them to
contemplate Him and to be near Him: hence He has made their bodies
accordant with their hearts. The former class are masters of their
hearts (_ṣáḥib al-qulúb_), the latter are under the dominion of their
hearts (_maghlúb al-qulúb_); the former retain their attributes (_báqi
´l-ṣifat_), the latter have lost their attributes (_fáni ´l-ṣifat_). The
truth of this matter goes back to the words of God: _Illá `íbádaka
minhumu ´l-mukhlaṣína_, “Except such of them as are Thy purified
(chosen) servants” (Kor. xv, 40). Here some read _mukhliṣína_ instead of
_mukhlaṣína_. The _mukhliṣ_ (purifying one’s self) is active, and
retains his attributes, but the _mukhlaṣ_ (purified) is passive, and has
lost his attributes. I will explain this question more fully elsewhere.
The latter class, who make their bodies accordant with their hearts, and
whose hearts abide in contemplation of God, are of higher rank than
those who by their own effort make their hearts comply with the Divine
commandments. This subject has its foundation in the principles of
sobriety (_ṣahw_) and intoxication (_sukr_), and in those of
contemplation (_musháhadat_) and self-mortification (_mujáhadat_).
3. ḤASAN OF BAṢRA.
His “name of honour” was Abú `Alí; according to others, Abú Muḥammad or
Abú Sa`íd. He is held in high regard and esteem by the Ṣúfís. He gave
subtle directions relating to the science of practical religion (_`ilm-i
mu`ámalat_). I have read in the Anecdotes that a Bedouin came to him and
asked him about patience (_ṣabr_). Ḥasan replied: “Patience is of two
sorts: firstly, patience in misfortune and affliction; and secondly,
patience to refrain from the things which God has commanded us to
renounce and has forbidden us to pursue.” The Bedouin said: “Thou art an
ascetic; I never saw anyone more ascetic than thou art.” “O Bedouin!”
cried Ḥasan, “my asceticism is nothing but desire, and my patience is
nothing but lack of fortitude.” The Bedouin begged him to explain this
saying, “for [said he] thou hast shaken my belief.” Ḥasan replied: “My
patience in misfortune and my submission proclaim my fear of Hell-fire,
and this is lack of fortitude (_jaza`_); and my asceticism in this world
is desire for the next world, and this is the quintessence of desire.
How excellent is he who takes no thought of his own interest! so that
his patience is for God’s sake, not for the saving of himself from Hell;
and his asceticism is for God’s sake, not for the purpose of bringing
himself into Paradise. This is the mark of true sincerity.” And it is
related that he said: “Association with the wicked produces suspicion of
the good.” This saying is very apt and suitable to the people of the
present age, who all disbelieve in the honoured friends of God. The
reason of their disbelief is that they associate with pretenders to
Ṣúfiism, who have only its external forms; and perceiving their actions
to be perfidious, their tongues false, their ears listening to idle
quatrains, their eyes following pleasure and lust, and their hearts set
on amassing unlawful or dubious lucre, they fancy that aspirants to
Ṣúfiism behave in the same manner, or that this is the doctrine of the
Ṣúfís themselves, whereas, on the contrary, the Ṣúfís act in obedience
to God, and speak the word of God, and keep the love of God in their
hearts and the voice (_samá`_) of God in their ears, and the beauty of
Divine contemplation in their eyes, and all their thoughts are fixed on
the gaining of holy mysteries in the place where Vision is vouchsafed to
them. If evildoers have appeared among them and have adopted their
practices, the evil must be referred to those who commit it. Anyone who
associates with the wicked members of a community does so through his
own wickedness, for he would associate with the good if there were any
good in him.
4. SA`ÍD B. AL-MUSAYYIB.
It is said that he was a man of devout nature who made a show of
hypocrisy, not a hypocrite who pretended to be devout. This way of
acting is approved in Ṣúfiism and is held laudable by all the Shaykhs.
He said: “Be content with a little of this world while thy religion is
safe, even as some are content with much thereof while their religion is
lost,” i.e. poverty without injury to religion is better than riches
with heedlessness. It is related that when he was at Mecca a man came to
him and said: “Tell me a lawful thing in which there is nothing
unlawful.” He replied: “Praise (_dhikr_) of God is a lawful thing in
which there is nothing unlawful, and praise of aught else is an unlawful
thing in which there is nothing lawful,” because your salvation lies in
the former and your perdition in the latter.
CHAPTER XI.
CONCERNING THEIR IMÁMS WHO LIVED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE FOLLOWERS
(_al-Tábi`ún_) DOWN TO OUR DAY.
1. ḤABÍB AL-`AJAMÍ.
His conversion (_tawbat_) was begun by Ḥasan of Baṣra. At first he was a
usurer and committed all sorts of wickedness, but God gave him a sincere
repentance, and he learned from Ḥasan something of the theory and
practice of religion. His native tongue was Persian (_`ajamí_), and he
could not speak Arabic correctly. One evening Ḥasan of Baṣra passed by
the door of his cell. Ḥabíb had uttered the call to prayer and was
standing, engaged in devotion. Ḥasan came in, but would not pray under
his leadership, because Ḥabíb was unable to speak Arabic fluently or
recite the Koran correctly. The same night, Ḥasan dreamed that he saw
God and said to Him: “O Lord, wherein does Thy good pleasure consist?”
and that God answered: “O Ḥasan, you found My good pleasure, but did not
know its value: if yesternight you had said your prayers after Ḥabíb,
and if the rightness of his intention had restrained you from taking
offence at his pronunciation, I should have been well pleased with you.”
It is common knowledge among Ṣúfís that when Ḥasan of Baṣra fled from
Ḥajjáj he entered the cell of Ḥabíb. The soldiers came and said to
Ḥabíb: “Have you seen Ḥasan anywhere?” Ḥabíb said: “Yes.” “Where is he?”
“He is in my cell.” They went into the cell, but saw no one there.
Thinking that Ḥabíb was making fun of them, they abused him and called
him a liar. He swore that he had spoken the truth. They returned twice
and thrice, but found no one, and at last departed. Ḥasan immediately
came out and said to Ḥabíb: “I know it was owing to thy benedictions
that God did not discover me to these wicked men, but why didst thou
tell them I was here?” Ḥabíb replied: “O Master, it was not on account
of my benedictions that they failed to see thee, but through the
blessedness of my speaking the truth. Had I told a lie, we both should
have been shamed.” Ḥabíb was asked: “With what thing is God pleased?” He
answered: “With a heart which is not sullied by hypocrisy,” because
hypocrisy (_nifáq_) is the opposite of concord (_wifáq_), and the state
of being well pleased (_riḍá_) is the essence of concord. There is no
connexion between hypocrisy and love, and love subsists in the state of
being well pleased (with whatever is decreed by God). Therefore
acquiescence (_riḍá_) is a characteristic of God’s friends, while
hypocrisy is a characteristic of His enemies. This is a very important
matter. I will explain it in another place.
2. MÁLIK B. DÍNÁR.
He was a companion of Ḥasan of Baṣra. Dínár was a slave, and Málik was
born before his father’s emancipation. His conversion began as follows.
One evening he had been enjoying himself with a party of friends. When
they were all asleep a voice came from a lute which they had been
playing: “O Málik! why dost thou not repent?” Málik abandoned his evil
ways and went to Ḥasan of Baṣra, and showed himself steadfast in
repentance. He attained to such a high degree that once when he was in a
ship, and was suspected of stealing a jewel, he no sooner lifted his
eyes to heaven than all the fishes in the sea came to the surface, every
one carrying a jewel in its mouth. Málik took one of the jewels, and
gave it to the man whose jewel was missing; then he set foot on the sea
and walked until he reached the shore. It is related that he said: “The
deed that I love best is sincerity in doing,” because an action only
becomes an action in virtue of its sincerity. Sincerity bears the same
relation to an action as the spirit to the body: as the body without the
spirit is a lifeless thing, so an action without sincerity is utterly
unsubstantial. Sincerity belongs to the class of internal actions,
whereas acts of devotion belong to the class of external actions: the
latter are completed by the former, while the former derive their value
from the latter. Although a man should keep his heart sincere for a
thousand years, it is not sincerity until his sincerity is combined with
action; and although he should perform external actions for a thousand
years, his actions do not become acts of devotion until they are
combined with sincerity.
3. ABÚ ḤALÍM ḤABÍB B. SALÍM[57] AL-RÁ`Í.
He was a companion of Salmán Fárisí. He related that the Apostle said:
“The believer’s intentions are better than his acts.” He had flocks of
sheep, and his home was on the bank of the Euphrates. His religious Path
(_ṭaríq_) was retirement from the world. A certain Shaykh relates as
follows: “Once I passed by him and found him praying, while a wolf
looked after his sheep. I resolved to pay him a visit, since he appeared
to me to have the marks of greatness. When we had exchanged greetings, I
said: ‘O Shaykh! I see the wolf in accord with the sheep.’ He replied:
‘That is because the shepherd is in accord with God.’ With those words
he held a wooden bowl under a rock, and two fountains gushed from the
rock, one of milk and one of honey. ‘O Shaykh!’ I cried, as he bade me
drink, ‘how hast thou attained to this degree?’ He answered: ‘By
obedience to Muḥammad, the Apostle of God. O my son! the rock gave water
to the people of Moses,[58] although they disobeyed him, and although
Moses is not equal in rank to Muḥammad: why should not the rock give
milk and honey to me, inasmuch as I am obedient to Muḥammad, who is
superior to Moses?’ I said: ‘Give me a word of counsel.’ He said: ‘Do
not make your heart a coffer of covetousness and your belly a vessel of
unlawful things.’”
Footnote 57:
L. Aslam.
Footnote 58:
Kor. vii, 160.
My Shaykh had further traditions concerning him, but I could not
possibly set down more than this (_andar waqt-i man ḍíqí búd ú bísh az
ín mumkin na-shud_), my books having been left at Ghazna—may God guard
it!—while I myself had become a captive among uncongenial folk (_dar
miyán-i nájinsán_) in the district of Laháwur, which is a dependency of
Múltán. God be praised both in joy and sorrow!
4. ABÚ ḤÁZIM AL-MADANÍ.
He was steadfast in poverty, and thoroughly versed in different kinds of
self-mortification. `Amr b. `Uthmán al-Makkí, who shows great zeal on
his behalf (_andar amr-i way ba-jidd báshad_), relates that on being
asked what he possessed he answered: “Satisfaction (_riḍá_) with God and
independence of mankind.” A certain Shaykh went to see him and found him
asleep. When he awoke he said: “I dreamed just now that the Apostle gave
me a message to thee, and bade me inform thee that it is better to
fulfil the duty which is owed to one’s mother than to make the
pilgrimage. Return, therefore, and try to please her.” The person who
tells the story turned back and did not go to Mecca. This is all that I
have heard about Abú Ḥázim.
5. MUḤAMMAD B. WÁSI`.
He associated with many of the Followers and with some of the ancient
Shaykhs, and had a perfect knowledge of Ṣúfiism. It is related that he
said: “I never saw anything without seeing God therein.” This is an
advanced stage (_maqám_) of Contemplation. When a man is overcome with
love for the Agent, he attains to such a degree that in looking at His
act he does not see the act but the Agent only and entirely, just as
when one looks at a picture and sees only the painter. The true meaning
of these words is the same as in the saying of Abraham, the Friend of
God (_Khalíl_) and the Apostle, who said to the sun and moon and stars:
“_This is my Lord_” (Kor. vi, 76-8), for he was then overcome with
longing (_shawq_), so that the qualities of his beloved appeared to him
in everything that he saw. The friends of God perceive that the universe
is subject to His might and captive to His dominion, and that the
existence of all created things is as nothing in comparison with the
power of the Agent thereof. When they look thereon with longing, they do
not see what is subject and passive and created, but only the
Omnipotent, the Agent, the Creator. I shall treat of this in the chapter
on Contemplation. Some persons have fallen into error, and have alleged
that the words of Muḥammad b. Wási`, “I saw God therein,” involve a
place of division and descent (_makán-i tajziya ú ḥulúl_), which is
sheer infidelity, because place is homogeneous with that which is
contained in it, and if anyone supposes that place is created the
contained object must also be created; or if the latter be eternal the
former also must be eternal: hence this assertion entails two evil
consequences, both of which are infidelity, viz., either that created
things are eternal (_qadím_) or that the Creator is non-eternal
(_muḥdath_). Accordingly, when Muḥammad b. Wási` said that he saw God in
things, he meant, as I have explained above, that he saw in those things
the signs and evidences and proofs of God.
I shall discuss in the proper place some subtle points connected with
this question.
6. ABÚ ḤANÍFA NU`MÁN B. THÁBIT AL-KHARRÁZ.
He is the Imám of Imáms and the exemplar of the Sunnites. He was firmly
grounded in works of mortification and devotion, and was a great
authority on the principles of Ṣúfiism. At first he wished to go into
seclusion and abandon the society of mankind, for he had made his heart
free from every thought of human power and pomp. One night, however, he
dreamed that he was collecting the bones of the Apostle from the tomb,
and choosing some and discarding others. He awoke in terror and asked
one of the pupils of Muḥammad b. Sírín[59] (to interpret the dream).
This man said to him: “You will attain a high rank in knowledge of the
Apostle and in preserving his ordinances (_sunnat_), so that you will
sift what is genuine from what is spurious.” Another time Abú Ḥanífa
dreamed that the Apostle said to him: “You have been created for the
purpose of reviving my ordinances.” He was the master of many Shaykhs,
e.g. Ibráhím b. Adham and Fuḍayl b. `Iyáḍ and Dáwud Ṭá´í and Bishr Ḥáfí.
Footnote 59:
A well-known divine, who died in 110 A.H. See Ibn Khallikán, No. 576.
An extant work on the interpretation of dreams is attributed to him
(Brockelmann, i, 66).
In the reign of the Caliph Manṣúr a plan was formed to appoint to the
office of Cadi one of the following persons: Abú Ḥanífa, Sufyán Thawrí,
Mis`ar b. Kidám, and Shurayḥ. While they were journeying together to
visit Manṣúr, who had summoned them to his presence, Abú Ḥanífa said to
his companions: “I will reject this office by means of a certain trick,
Mis`ar will feign to be mad, Sufyán will run away, and Shurayḥ will be
made Cadi.” Sufyán fled and embarked in a ship, imploring the captain to
conceal him and save him from execution. The others were ushered into
the presence of the Caliph. Manṣúr said to Abú Ḥanífa: “You must act as
Cadi.” Abú Ḥanífa replied: “O Commander of the Faithful, I am not an
Arab, but one of their clients; and the chiefs of the Arabs will not
accept my decisions.” Manṣúr said: “This matter has nothing to do with
lineage: it demands learning, and you are the most eminent doctor of the
day.” Abú Ḥanífa persisted that he was unfit to hold the office. “What I
have just said shows it,” he exclaimed; “for if I have spoken the truth
I am disqualified, and if I have told a falsehood it is not right that a
liar should be judge over Moslems, and that you should entrust him with
the lives, property, and honour of your subjects.” He escaped in this
way. Then Mis`ar came forward and seized the Caliph’s hand and said:
“How are you, and your children, and your beasts of burden?” “Away with
him,” cried Manṣúr, “he is mad!” Finally, Shurayḥ was told that he must
fill the vacant office. “I am melancholic,” said he, “and light-witted,”
whereupon Manṣúr advised him to drink ptisanes and potions (_`aṣídahá-yi
muwáfiq ú nabídhhá-yi muthallath_) until his intellect was fully
restored. So Shurayḥ was made Cadi, and Abú Ḥanífa never spoke a word to
him again. This story illustrates not only the sagacity of Abú Ḥanífa,
but also his adherence to the path of righteousness and salvation, and
his determination not to let himself be deluded by seeking popularity
and worldly renown. It shows, moreover, the soundness of blame
(_malámat_), since all these three venerable men resorted to some trick
in order to avoid popularity. Very different are the doctors of the
present age, who make the palaces of princes their _qibla_ and the
houses of evildoers their temple.
Once a doctor of Ghazna, who claimed to be a learned divine and a
religious leader, declared it heresy to wear a patched frock
(_muraqqa`a_). I said to him: “You do not call it heretical to wear
robes of brocade,[60] which are made entirely of silk and, besides being
in themselves unlawful for men to wear, have been begged with
importunity, which is unlawful, from evildoers whose property is
absolutely unlawful. Why, then, is it heretical to wear a lawful
garment, procured from a lawful place, and purchased with lawful money?
If you were not ruled by inborn conceit and by the error of your soul,
you would express a more judicious opinion. Women may wear a dress of
silk lawfully, but it is unlawful for men, and only permissible
(_mubáḥ_) for lunatics. If you acknowledge the truth of both these
statements you are excused (for condemning the patched frock). God save
us from lack of fairness!”
Footnote 60:
The text has _jáma-i ḥashíshí ú díbaqí_. Apparently the former word
should be written “_khashíshí_”. It is described in Vullers’s Persian
Dictionary as “a kind of garment”.
Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh al-Rází relates as follows: “I dreamed that I said to
the Apostle, ‘O Apostle of God, where shall I seek thee?’ He answered:
‘In the science of Abú Ḥanífa.’”
Once, when I was in Syria, I fell asleep at the tomb of Bilál the
Muezzin,[61] and dreamed that I was at Mecca, and that the Apostle came
in through the gate of the Banú Shayba, tenderly clasping an old man to
his bosom in the same fashion as people are wont to carry children; and
that I ran to him and kissed the back of his foot, and stood marvelling
who the old man might be; and that the Apostle was miraculously aware of
my secret thought and said to me, “This is thy Imám and the Imám of thy
countryman,” meaning Abú Ḥanífa. In consequence of this dream I have
great hopes for myself and also for the people of my country. It has
convinced me, moreover, that Abú Ḥanífa was one of those who, having
annihilated their natural qualities, continue to perform the ordinances
of the sacred law, as appears from the fact that he was carried by the
Apostle. If he had walked by himself, his attributes must have been
subsistent, and such a one may either miss or hit the mark; but inasmuch
as he was carried by the Apostle, his attributes must have been
non-existent while he was sustained by the living attributes of the
Apostle. The Apostle cannot err, and it is equally impossible that one
who is sustained by the Apostle should fall into error.
Footnote 61:
Bilál b. Rabáḥ, the Prophet’s Muezzin, was buried at Damascus.
When Dáwud Ṭá´í had acquired learning and become a famous authority, he
went to Abú Ḥanífa and said to him: “What shall I do now?” Abú Ḥanífa
replied: “Practise what you have learned, for theory without practice is
like a body without a spirit.” He who is content with learning alone is
not learned, and the truly learned man is not content with learning
alone.
Similarly, Divine guidance (_hidáyat_) involves self-mortification
(_mujáhadat_), without which contemplation (_musháhadat_) is
unattainable. There is no knowledge without action, since knowledge is
the product of action, and is brought forth and developed and made
profitable by the blessings of action. The two things cannot be divorced
in any way, just as the light of the sun cannot be separated from the
sun itself.
7. `ABDALLÁH B. MUBÁRAK AL-MARWAZÍ.
He was the Imám of his time and consorted with many eminent Shaykhs. He
is the author of celebrated works and famous miracles. The occasion of
his conversion is related as follows: He was in love with a girl, and
one night in winter he stationed himself at the foot of the wall of her
house, while she came on to the roof, and they both stayed gazing at
each other until daybreak. When `Abdalláh heard the call to morning
prayers he thought it was time for evening prayers; and only when the
sun began to shine did he discover that he had spent the whole night in
rapturous contemplation of his beloved. He took warning by this, and
said to himself: “Shame on thee, O son of Mubárak! Dost thou stand on
foot all night for thine own pleasure, and yet become furious when the
Imám reads a long chapter of the Koran?” He repented and devoted himself
to study, and entered upon a life of asceticism, in which he attained
such a high degree that once his mother found him asleep in the garden,
while a great snake was driving the gnats away from him with a spray of
basil which it held in its mouth. Then he left Merv and lived for some
time in Baghdád, associating with the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, and also resided for
some time at Mecca. When he returned to Merv, the people of the town
received him with friendship and founded for him a professorial chair
and a lecture hall (_dars ú majlis nihádand_). At that epoch half the
population of Merv were followers of Tradition and the other half
adherents of Opinion, just as at the present day. They called him _Raḍí
al-faríqayn_ because of his agreement with both sides, and each party
claimed him as one of themselves. He built two convents (_ribáṭ_) at
Merv—one for the followers of Tradition and one for the followers of
Opinion—which have retained their original constitution down to the
present day. Afterwards he went back to the Ḥijáz and settled at Mecca.
On being asked what wonders he had seen, he replied: “I saw a Christian
monk (_ráhib_), who was emaciated by self-mortification and bent double
by fear of God. I asked him to tell me the way to God. He answered, ‘If
you knew God, you would know the way to Him.’ Then he said, ‘I worship
Him although I do not know him, whereas you disobey Him although you
know Him,’ i.e. ‘knowledge entails fear, yet I see that you are
confident; and infidelity entails ignorance, yet I feel fear within
myself.’ I laid this to heart, and it restrained me from many ill
deeds.” It is related that `Abdalláh b. Mubárak said: “Tranquillity is
unlawful to the hearts of the Saints of God,” for they are agitated in
this world by seeking God (_ṭalab_) and in the next world by rapture
(_ṭarab_); they are not permitted to rest here, while they are absent
from God, nor there, while they enjoy the presence, manifestation, and
vision of God. Hence this world is even as the next world in their eyes,
and the next world even as this world, because tranquillity of heart
demands two things, either attainment of one’s aim or indifference to
the object of one’s desire. Since He is not to be attained in this world
or the next, the heart can never have rest from the palpitation of love;
and since indifference is unlawful to those who love Him, the heart can
never have rest from the agitations of seeking Him. This is a firm
principle in the path of spiritual adepts.
8. ABÚ `ALÍ AL-FUḌAYL B. `IYÁḌ.
He is one of the paupers (_ṣa`álík_) of the Ṣúfís, and one of their most
eminent and celebrated men. At first he used to practise brigandage
between Merv and Báward, but he was always inclined to piety, and
invariably showed a generous and magnanimous disposition, so that he
would not attack a caravan in which there was any woman, or take the
property of anyone whose stock was small; and he let the travellers keep
a portion of their property, according to the means of each. One day a
merchant set out from Merv. His friends advised him to take an escort,
but he said to them: “I have heard that Fuḍayl is a God-fearing man;”
and instead of doing as they wished he hired a Koran-reader and mounted
him on a camel in order that he might read the Koran aloud day and night
during the journey. When they reached the place where Fuḍayl was lying
in ambush, the reader happened to be reciting: “_Is not the time yet
come unto those who believe, that their hearts should humbly submit to
the admonition of God?_” (Kor. lvii, 15). Fuḍayl’s heart was softened.
He repented of the business in which he was engaged, and having a
written list of those whom he had robbed he satisfied all their claims
upon him. Then he went to Mecca and resided there for some time and
became acquainted with certain saints of God. Afterwards he returned to
Kúfa, where he associated with Abú Ḥanífa. He has handed down relations
which are held in high esteem by Traditionists, and he is the author of
lofty sayings concerning the verities of Ṣúfiism and Divine Knowledge.
It is recorded that he said: “Whoever knows God as He ought to be known
worships Him with all his might,” because everyone who knows God
acknowledges His bounty and beneficence and mercy, and therefore loves
Him; and since he loves Him he obeys Him so far as he has the power, for
it is not difficult to obey those whom one loves. Accordingly, the more
one loves, the more one is obedient, and love is increased by true
knowledge.[62] It is related that he said: “The world is a madhouse, and
the people therein are madmen, wearing shackles and chains.” Lust is our
shackle and sin is our chain.
Footnote 62:
Here the author relates two anecdotes illustrating the devotion of
Muḥammad.
Faḍl b. Rabí` relates as follows: “I accompanied Hárún al-Rashíd to
Mecca. When we had performed the pilgrimage, he said to me, ‘Is there
any man of God here that I may visit him?’ I replied, ‘Yes, there is
`Abd al-Razzáq Ṣan`ání.’[63] We went to his house and talked with him
for a while. When we were about to leave, Hárún bade me ask him whether
he had any debts. He said, ‘Yes,’ and Hárún gave orders that they should
be paid. On coming out, Hárún said to me, ‘O Faḍl, my heart still
desires to see a man greater than this one.’ I conducted him to Sufyán
b. `Uyayna.[64] Our visit ended in the same way. Hárún gave orders to
pay his debts and departed. Then he said to me, ‘I recollect that Fuḍayl
b. `Iyáḍ is here; let us go and see him.’ We found him in an upper
chamber, reciting a verse of the Koran. When we knocked at the door, he
cried, ‘Who is there?’ I replied, ‘The Commander of the Faithful.’ ‘What
have I to do with the Commander of the Faithful?’ said he. I said, ‘Is
there not an Apostolic Tradition to the effect that no one shall seek to
abase himself in devotion to God?’ He answered, ‘Yes, but acquiescence
in God’s will (_riḍá_) is everlasting glory in the opinion of quietists:
you see my abasement, but I see my exaltation.’ Then he came down and
opened the door, and extinguished the lamp and stood in a corner. Hárún
went in and tried to find him. Their hands met. Fuḍayl exclaimed, ‘Alas!
never have I felt a softer hand: ’t will be very wonderful if it escape
from the Divine torment.’ Hárún began to weep, and wept so violently
that he swooned. When he came to himself, he said, ‘O Fuḍayl, give me a
word of counsel.’ Fuḍayl said: ‘O Commander of the Faithful, thy
ancestor (`Abbás) was the uncle of Muṣṭafá. He asked the Prophet to give
him dominion over men. The Prophet answered, “O my uncle, I will give
thee dominion for one moment over thyself,” i.e. one moment of thy
obedience to God is better than a thousand years of men’s obedience to
thee, since dominion brings repentance on the Day of Resurrection’
(_al-imárat yawm al-qiyámat nadámat_). Hárún said, ‘Counsel me further.’
Fuḍayl continued: ‘When `Umar b. `Abd al-`Azíz was appointed Caliph, he
summoned Sálim b. `Abdalláh and Rajá b. Ḥayát, and Muḥammad b. Ka`b
al-Quraẕí, and said to them, “What am I to do in this affliction? for I
count it an affliction, although people in general consider it to be a
blessing.” One of them replied: “If thou wouldst be saved to-morrow from
the Divine punishment, regard the elders of the Moslems as thy fathers,
and their young men as thy brothers, and their children as thy children.
The whole territory of Islam is thy house, and its people are thy
family. Visit thy father, and honour thy brother, and deal kindly with
thy children.“’ Then Fuḍayl said: ‘O Commander of the Faithful, I fear
lest that handsome face of thine fall into Hell-fire. Fear God, and
perform thy obligations to Him better than this.’ Hárún asked Fuḍayl
whether he had any debts. He answered, ‘Yes, the debt which I owe to
God, namely, obedience to Him; woe is me, if He call me to account for
it!’ Hárún said, ‘O Fuḍayl, I am speaking of debts to men.’ He replied,
‘God be praised! His bounty towards me is great, and I have no reason to
complain of Him to His servants.’ Hárún offered him a purse of a
thousand dinars, saying, ‘Use the money for some purpose of thine own.’
Fuḍayl said, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, my counsels have done thee no
good. Here again thou art behaving wrongly and unjustly.’ Hárún
exclaimed, ‘How is that?’ Fuḍayl said, ‘I wish thee to be saved, but
thou wouldst cast me into perdition: is not this unjust?’ We took leave
of him with tears in our eyes, and Hárún said to me, ‘O Faḍl, Fuḍayl is
a king indeed.’”
Footnote 63:
He died in 211 A.H. See Ibn Khallikán, No. 409.
Footnote 64:
Died in 168 A.H. See Ibn Khallikán, No. 266.
All this shows his hatred of the world and its people, and his contempt
for its gauds, and his refusal to abase himself before worldlings for
the sake of worldly gain.
9. ABU ´L-FAYḌ DHU ´L-NÚN B. IBRÁHÍM AL-MIṢRÍ.
He was the son of a Nubian, and his name was Thawbán. He is one of the
best of this sect, and one of the most eminent of their hidden
spiritualists (_`ayyárán_), for he trod the path of affliction and
travelled on the road of blame (_malámat_). All the people of Egypt were
lost in doubt as to his true state, and did not believe in him until he
was dead. On the night of his decease seventy persons dreamed that they
saw the Apostle, who said: “I have come to meet Dhu ´l-Nún, the friend
of God.” And after his death the following words were found inscribed on
his forehead: _This is the beloved of God, who died in love of God,
slain by God_. At his funeral the birds of the air gathered above his
bier, and wove their wings together so as to shadow it. On seeing this,
all the Egyptians felt remorse and repented of the injustice which they
had done to him. He has many fine and admirable sayings on the verities
of mystical knowledge. He says, for example: “The gnostic (_`árif_) is
more lowly every day, because he is approaching nearer to his Lord every
moment,” inasmuch as he thereby becomes aware of the awfulness of the
Divine Omnipotence, and when the majesty of God has taken possession of
his heart, he sees how far he is from God and that there is no way of
reaching Him; hence his lowliness is increased. Thus Moses said, when he
conversed with God: “O Lord, where shall I seek Thee?” God answered:
“Among those whose hearts are broken.” Moses said: “O Lord, no heart is
more broken and despairing than mine.” God answered: “Then I am where
thou art.” Accordingly, anyone who pretends to know God without
lowliness and fear is an ignorant fool, not a gnostic. The sign of true
knowledge is sincerity of will, and a sincere will cuts off all
secondary causes and severs all ties of relationship, so that nothing
remains except God. Dhu ´l-Nún says: “Sincerity (_ṣidq_) is the sword of
God on the earth: it cuts everything that it touches.” Now sincerity
regards the Causer, and does not consist in affirmation of secondary
causes. To affirm the latter is to destroy the principle of sincerity.
Among the stories told of Dhu ´l-Nún I have read that one day he was
sailing with his disciples in a boat on the River Nile, as is the custom
of the people of Egypt when they desire recreation. Another boat was
coming up, filled with merry—makers, whose unseemly behaviour so
disgusted the disciples that they begged Dhu ´l-Nún to implore God to
sink the boat. Dhu ´l-Nún raised his hands and cried: “O Lord, as Thou
hast given these people a pleasant life in this world, give them a
pleasant life in the next world too!” The disciples were astonished by
his prayer. When the boat came nearer and those in it saw Dhu ´l-Nún,
they began to weep and ask pardon, and broke their lutes and repented
unto God. Dhu ´l-Nún said to his disciples: “A pleasant life in the next
world is repentance in this world. You and they are all satisfied
without harm to anyone.” He acted thus from his extreme affection
towards the Moslems, following the example of the Apostle, who,
notwithstanding the ill-treatment which he received from the infidels,
never ceased to say: “O God! direct my people, for they know not.” Dhu
´l-Nún relates that as he was journeying from Jerusalem to Egypt he saw
in the distance some one advancing towards him, and felt impelled to ask
a question. When the person came near he perceived that it was an old
woman carrying a staff (_`ukkáza_[65]), and wearing a woollen tunic
(_jubba_). He asked her whence she came. She answered: “From God.” “And
whither goest thou?” “To God.” Dhu ´l-Nún drew forth a piece of gold
which he had with him and offered it to her, but she shook her hand in
his face and cried: “O Dhu ´l-Nún, the notion which thou hast formed of
me arises from the feebleness of thy intelligence. I work for God’s
sake, and accept nothing unless from Him. I worship Him alone and take
from Him alone.” With these words she went on her way.
Footnote 65:
According to a marginal gloss in I, _`ukkáza_ is a tripod on which a
leathern water-bottle is suspended.
The old woman’s saying that she worked for God’s sake is a proof of her
sincerity in love. Men in their dealings with God fall into two classes.
Some imagine that they work for God’s sake when they are really working
for themselves; and though their work is not done with any worldly
motive, they desire a recompense in the next world. Others take no
thought of reward or punishment in the next world, any more than of
ostentation and reputation in this world, but act solely from reverence
for the commandments of God. Their love of God requires them to forget
every selfish interest while they do His bidding. The former class fancy
that what they do for the sake of the next world they do for God’s sake,
and fail to recognize that the devout have a greater self-interest in
devotion than the wicked have in sin, because the sinner’s pleasure
lasts only for a moment, whereas devotion is a delight for ever.
Besides, what gain accrues to God from the religious exercises of
mankind, or what loss from their non-performance? If all the world acted
with the veracity of Abú Bakr, the gain would be wholly theirs, and if
with the falsehood of Pharaoh, the loss would be wholly theirs, as God
hath said: “_If ye do good, it is to yourselves, and if ye do evil, it
is to yourselves_” (Kor. xvii, 7); and also: “_Whoever exerts himself_
[in religion] _does so for his_ _own advantage. Verily, God is
independent of created beings_” (Kor. xxix, 5). They seek for themselves
an everlasting kingdom and say, “We are working for God’s sake”; but to
tread the path of love is a different thing. Lovers, in fulfilling the
Divine commandment, regard only the accomplishment of the Beloved’s
will, and have no eyes for anything else.
A similar topic will be discussed in the chapter on Sincerity
(_ikhláṣ_).
10. ABÚ ISḤÁQ IBRÁHÍM B. ADHAM B. MANṢÚR.
He was unique in his Path, and the chief of his contemporaries. He was a
disciple of the Apostle Khiḍr. He met a large number of the ancient Ṣúfí
Shaykhs, and associated with the Imám Abú Ḥanífa, from whom he learned
divinity (_`ilm_). In the earlier part of his life he was Prince of
Balkh. One day he went to the chase, and having become separated from
his suite was pursuing an antelope. God caused the antelope to address
him in elegant language and say: “Wast thou created for this, or wast
thou commanded to do this?” He repented, abandoned everything, and
entered on the path of asceticism and abstinence. He made the
acquaintance of Fuḍayl b. `Iyáḍ and Sufyán Thawrí, and consorted with
them. After his conversion he never ate any food except what he had
earned by his own labour. His sayings on the verities of Ṣúfiism are
original and exquisite. Junayd said: “Ibráhím is the key of the
(mystical) sciences.” It is related that he said: “Take God as thy
companion and leave mankind alone,” i.e. when anyone is rightly and
sincerely turned towards God, the rightness of his turning towards God
requires that he should turn his back on mankind, inasmuch as the
society of mankind has nothing to do with thoughts of God. Companionship
with God is sincerity in fulfilling His commands, and sincerity in
devotion springs from purity of love, and pure love of God proceeds from
hatred of passion and lust. Whoever is familiar with sensual affections
is separated from God, and whoever is separated from sensual affections
is dwelling with God. Therefore thou art all mankind in regard to
thyself: turn away from thyself, and thou hast turned away from all
mankind. Thou dost wrong to turn away from mankind and towards thyself,
and to be concerned with thyself, whereas the actions of all mankind are
determined by the providence and predestination of God. The outward and
inward rectitude (_istiqámat_) of the seeker is founded on two things,
one of which is theoretical and the other practical. The former consists
in regarding all good and evil as predestined by God, so that nothing in
the universe passes into a state of rest or motion until God has created
rest or motion in that thing; the latter consists in performing the
command of God, in rightness of action towards Him, and in keeping the
obligations which he Has imposed. Predestination can never become an
argument for neglecting His commands. True renunciation of mankind is
impossible until thou hast renounced thyself. As soon as thou hast
renounced thyself, all mankind are necessary for the fulfilment of the
will of God; and as soon as thou hast turned to God, thou art necessary
for the accomplishment of the decree of God. Hence it is not permissible
to be satisfied with mankind. If thou wilt be satisfied with anything
except God, at least be satisfied with another (_ghayr_) for
satisfaction with another is to regard unification (_tawḥíd_), whereas
satisfaction with thyself is to affirm the nullity of the Creator
(_ta`tíl_). For this reason Shaykh Abu ´l-Ḥasan Sáliba[66] used to say
that it is better for novices to be under the authority of a cat than
under their own authority, because companionship with another is for
God’s sake, while companionship with one’s self is calculated to foster
the sensual affections. This topic will be discussed in the proper
place. Ibráhím b. Adham tells the following story: “When I reached the
desert, an old man came up and said to me, ‘O Ibráhím, do you know what
place this is, and where you are journeying without provisions and on
foot?’ I knew that he was Satan. I produced from the bosom of my shirt
four _dániqs_—the price of a basket which I had sold in Kúfa—and cast
them away and made a vow that I would perform a prayer of four hundred
genuflexions for every mile that I travelled. I remained four years in
the desert, and God was giving me my daily bread without any exertion on
my part. During that time Khiḍr consorted with me and taught me the
Great Name of God. Then my heart became wholly empty of ‘other’
(_ghayr_).”
Footnote 66:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 347, where he is called Abu ´l-Ḥusayn Sáliba.
11. BISHR B. AL-ḤÁRITH AL-ḤÁFÍ.
He associated with Fuḍayl and was the disciple of his own maternal
uncle, `Alí b. Khashram. He was versed in the principal, as well as the
derivative, sciences. His conversion began as follows. One day, when he
was drunk, he found on the road a piece of paper on which was written:
“_In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful._” He picked it up
with reverence, perfumed it, and laid in a clean place. The same night
he dreamed that God said to him: “O Bishr, as thou hast made My name
sweet, I swear by My glory that I will make thy name sweet both in this
world and the next.” Thereupon he repented and took to asceticism. So
intensely was he absorbed in contemplation of God that he never put
anything on his feet. When he was asked the reason of this, he said:
“The Earth is His carpet, and I deem it wrong to tread on His carpet
while there is anything between my foot and His carpet.” This is one of
his peculiar practices: in the concentration of his mind on God a shoe
seemed to him a veil (between him and God). It is related that he said:
“Whoever desires to be honoured in this world and exalted in the next
world, let him shun three things: let him not ask a boon of anyone, nor
speak ill of anyone, nor accept an invitation to eat with anyone.” No
man who knows the way to God will ask a boon of human beings, since to
do so is a proof of his ignorance of God: if he knew the Giver of all
boons, he would not ask a boon from a fellow-creature. Again, the man
who speaks ill of anyone is criticizing the decree of God, inasmuch as
both the individual himself and his actions are created by God; and on
whom can the blame for an action be thrown except on the agent? This
does not apply, however, to the blame which God has commanded us to
bestow upon infidels. Thirdly, as to his saying, “Do not eat of men’s
food,” the reason is that God is the Provider. If He makes a creature
the means of giving you daily bread, do not regard that creature, but
consider that the daily bread which God has caused to come to you does
not belong to him but to God. If he thinks that it is his, and that he
is thereby conferring a favour on you, do not accept it. In the matter
of daily bread one person does not confer on another any favour at all,
because, according to the opinion of the orthodox, daily bread is food
(_ghidhá_), although the Mu`tazilites hold it to be property (_milk_);
and God, not any created being, nourishes mankind with food. This saying
may be explained otherwise, if it be taken in a profane sense (_majáz_).
12. ABÚ YAZÍD ṬAYFÚR B. `ÍSÁ AL-BISṬÁMÍ.
He is the greatest of the Shaykhs in state and dignity, so that Junayd
said: “Abú Yazíd holds the same rank among us as Gabriel among the
angels.” His grandfather was a Magian, and his father was one of the
notables of Bisṭám. He is the author of many trustworthy relations
concerning the Traditions of the Apostle, and he is one of the ten
celebrated Imáms of Ṣúfiism. No one before him penetrated so deeply into
the arcana of this science. In all circumstances he was a lover of
theology and a venerator of the sacred law, notwithstanding the spurious
doctrine which has been foisted on him by some persons with the object
of supporting their own heresies. From the first, his life was based on
self-mortification and the practice of devotion. It is recorded that he
said: “For thirty years I was active in self-mortification, and I found
nothing harder than to learn divinity and follow its precepts. But for
the disagreement of divines I should have utterly failed in my
endeavour. The disagreement of divines is a mercy save on the point of
Unification.” This is true indeed, for human nature is more prone to
ignorance than to knowledge, and while many things can be done easily
with ignorance, not a single step can be made easily with knowledge. The
bridge of the sacred law is much narrower and more dangerous than the
Bridge (_Ṣiráṭ_) in the next world. Therefore it behoves thee so to act
in all circumstances that, if thou shouldst not attain a high degree and
an eminent station, thou mayst at any rate fall within the pale of the
sacred law. Even if thou lose all else, thy practices of devotion will
remain with thee. Neglect of those is the worst mischief that can happen
to a novice.
It is related that Abú Yazíd said: “Paradise hath no value in the eyes
of lovers, and lovers are veiled (from God) by their love,” i.e.
Paradise is created, whereas love is an uncreated attribute of God.
Whoever is detained by a created thing from that which is uncreated, is
without worth and value. Created things are worthless in the eyes of
lovers. Lovers are veiled by love, because the existence of love
involves duality, which is incompatible with unification (_tawḥíd_). The
way of lovers is from oneness to oneness, but there is in love this
defect, that it needs a desirer (_muríd_) and an object of desire
(_murád_). Either God must be the desirer and Man the desired, or _vice
versâ_. In the former case, Man’s being is fixed in God’s desire, but if
Man is the desirer and God the object of desire, the creature’s search
and desire can find no way unto Him: in either case the canker of being
remains in the lover. Accordingly, the annihilation of the lover in the
everlastingness of love is more perfect than his subsistence through the
everlastingness of love.
It is related that Abú Yazíd said: “I went to Mecca and saw a House
standing apart. I said, ‘My pilgrimage is not accepted, for I have seen
many stones of this sort.’ I went again, and saw the House and also the
Lord of the House. I said, ‘This is not yet real unification.’ I went a
third time, and saw only the Lord of the House. A voice in my heart
whispered, ‘O Báyazíd, if thou didst not see thyself, thou wouldst not
be a polytheist (_mushrik_) though thou sawest the whole universe; and
since thou seest thyself, thou art a polytheist though blind to the
whole universe.’ Thereupon I repented, and once more I repented of my
repentance, and yet once more I repented of seeing my own existence.”
This is a subtle tale concerning the soundness of his state, and gives
an excellent indication to spiritualists.
13. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH AL-ḤÁRITH B. ASAD AL-MUḤÁSIBÍ.
He was learned in the principal and derivative sciences, and his
authority was recognized by all the theologians of his day. He wrote a
book, entitled _Ri`áyat_,[67] on the principles of Ṣúfiism, as well as
many other works. In every branch of learning he was a man of lofty
sentiment and noble mind. He was the chief Shaykh of Baghdád in his
time. It is related that he said: _Al-`ilm bi-ḥarakát al-qulúb fí
muṭála`at al-ghuyúb ashraf min al-`amal bi-ḥarakát al-jawáriḥ_, i.e. he
who is acquainted with the secret motions of the heart is better than he
who acts with the motions of the limbs. The meaning is that knowledge is
the place of perfection, whereas ignorance is the place of search, and
knowledge at the shrine is better than ignorance at the door: knowledge
brings a man to perfection, but ignorance does not even allow him to
enter (on the way to perfection). In reality knowledge is greater than
action, because it is possible to know God by means of knowledge, but
impossible to attain to Him by means of action. If He could be found by
action without knowledge, the Christians and the monks in their
austerities would behold Him face to face and sinful believers would
have no vision of Him. Therefore knowledge is a Divine attribute and
action a human attribute. Some relaters of this saying have fallen into
error by reading _al-`amal bi-ḥarakát al-qulúb_,[68] which is absurd,
since human actions have nothing to do with the motions of the heart. If
the author uses this expression to denote reflection and contemplation
of the inward feelings, it is not strange, for the Apostle said: “A
moment’s reflection is better than sixty years of devotion,” and
spiritual actions are in truth more excellent than bodily actions, and
the effect produced by inward feelings and actions is really more
complete than the effect produced by outward actions. Hence it is said:
“The sleep of the sage is an act of devotion and the wakefulness of the
fool is a sin,” because the sage’s heart is controlled (by God) whether
he sleeps or wakes, and when the heart is controlled the body also is
controlled. Accordingly, the heart that is controlled by the sway of God
is better than the sensual part of Man which controls his outward
motions and acts of self-mortification. It is related that Ḥárith said
one day to a dervish, _Kun lilláh wa-illá lá takun_, “Be God’s or be
nothing,” i.e. either be subsistent through God or perish to thine own
existence; either be united with Purity (_ṣafwat_) or separated by
Poverty (_faqr_); either in the state described by the words “Bow ye
down to Adam” (Kor. ii, 32) or in the state described by the words “_Did
there not come over Man a time when he was not anything worthy of
mention?_” (Kor. lxxvi, 1). If thou wilt give thyself to God of thy own
free choice, thy resurrection will be through thyself, but if thou wilt
not, then thy resurrection will be through God.
Footnote 67:
Its full title is _Ri`áyat li-ḥuqúq Allah_, “The observance of what is
due to God.”
Footnote 68:
This reading is given in the _Ṭabaqát al-Ṣúfiyya_ of Abú `Abd
al-Raḥmán al-Sulamí (British Museum MS., Add. 18,520, f. 13_a_).
14. ABÚ SULAYMÁN DÁWUD B. NUṢAYR AL-ṬÁ´Í.
He was a pupil of Abú Ḥanífa and a contemporary of Fuḍayl and Ibráhím b.
Adham. In Ṣúfiism he was a disciple of Ḥabíb Rá`í. He was deeply versed
in all the sciences and unrivalled in jurisprudence (_fiqh_); but he
went into seclusion and turned his back on authority, and took the path
of asceticism and piety. It is related that he said to one of his
disciples: “If thou desirest welfare, bid farewell to this world, and if
thou desirest grace (_karámat_), pronounce the _takbír_[69] over the
next world,” i.e. both these are places of veiling (places which prevent
thee from seeing God). Every kind of tranquillity (_farághat_) depends
on these two counsels. Whoever would be tranquil in body, let him turn
his back on this world; and whoever would be tranquil in heart, let him
clear his heart of all desire for the next world. It is a well-known
story that Dáwud used constantly to associate with Muḥammad b.
al-Ḥasan,[70] but would never receive the Cadi Abú Yúsuf. On being asked
why he honoured one of these eminent divines but refused to admit the
other to his presence, he replied that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan had become a
theologian after being rich and wealthy, and theology was the cause of
his religious advancement and worldly abasement, whereas Abú Yúsuf had
become a theologian after being poor and despised, and had made theology
the means of gaining wealth and power. It is related that Ma`rúf Karkhí
said: “I never saw anyone who held worldly goods in less account than
Dáwud Ṭá´í; the world and its people had no value whatsoever in his
eyes, and he used to regard dervishes (_fuqará_) as perfect although
they were corrupt.”
Footnote 69:
The _takbír_, i.e. the words _Allah akbar_, “God is most great,” is
pronounced four times in Moslem funeral prayers.
Footnote 70:
Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan and Abú Yúsuf were celebrated lawyers of the
Ḥanafite school. See Brockelmann, i, 171.
15. ABU ´L-ḤASAN SARÍ B. MUGHALLIS AL-SAQAṬÍ.
He was the maternal uncle of Junayd. He was well versed in all the
sciences and eminent in Ṣúfiism, and he was the first of those who have
devoted their attention to the arrangement of “stations” (_maqámát_) and
to the explanation of spiritual “states” (_aḥwál_). Most of the Shaykhs
of `Iráq are his pupils. He had seen Ḥabíb Rá`í and associated with him.
He was a disciple of Ma`rúf Karkhí. He used to carry on the business of
a huckster (_saqaṭ-firúsh_) in the bazaar at Baghdád. When the bazaar
caught fire, he was told that his shop was burnt. He replied: “Then I am
freed from the care of it.” Afterwards it was discovered that his shop
had not been burnt, although all the shops surrounding it were
destroyed. On seeing this, Sarí gave all that he possessed to the poor
and took the path of Ṣúfiism. He was asked how the change in him began.
He answered: “One day Ḥabíb Rá`í passed my shop, and I gave him a crust
of bread, telling him to give it to the poor. He said to me, ‘May God
reward thee!’ From the day when I heard this prayer my worldly affairs
never prospered again.” It is related that Sarí said: “O God, whatever
punishment Thou mayst inflict upon me, do not punish me with the
humiliation of being veiled from Thee,” because, if I am not veiled from
Thee, my torment and affliction will be lightened by the remembrance and
contemplation of Thee; but if I am veiled from Thee, even Thy bounty
will be deadly to me. There is no punishment in Hell more painful and
hard to bear than that of being veiled. If God were revealed in Hell to
the people of Hell, sinful believers would never think of Paradise,
since the sight of God would so fill them with joy that they would not
feel bodily pain. And in Paradise there is no pleasure more perfect than
unveiledness (_kashf_). If the people there enjoyed all the pleasures of
that place and other pleasures a hundredfold, but were veiled from God,
their hearts would be utterly broken. Therefore it is the custom of God
to let the hearts of those who love Him have vision of Him always, in
order that the delight thereof may enable them to endure every
tribulation; and they say in their orisons: “We deem all torments more
desirable than to be veiled from Thee. When Thy beauty is revealed to
our hearts, we take no thought of affliction.”
16. ABÚ `ALÍ SHAQÍQ B. IBRÁHÍM AL-AZDÍ.
He was versed in all the sciences—legal, practical, and theoretical—and
composed many works on various branches of Ṣúfiism. He consorted with
Ibráhím b. Adham and many other Shaykhs. It is related that he said:
“God hath made the pious living in their death, and hath made the wicked
dead during their lives,” i.e., the pious, though they be dead, yet
live, since the angels utter blessings on their piety until they are
made immortal by the recompense which they receive at the Resurrection.
Hence, in the annihilation wrought by death they subsist through the
everlastingness of retribution. Once an old man came to Shaqíq and said
to him: “O Shaykh, I have sinned much and now wish to repent.” Shaqíq
said: “Thou hast come late.” The old man answered: “No, I have come
soon. Whoever comes before he is dead comes soon, though he may have
been long in coming.” It is said that the occasion of Shaqíq’s
conversion was this, that one year there was a famine at Balkh, and the
people were eating one another’s flesh. While all the Moslems were
bitterly distressed, Shaqíq saw a youth laughing and making merry in the
bazaar. The people said: “Why do you laugh? Are not you ashamed to
rejoice when everyone else is mourning?” The youth said: “I have no
sorrow. I am the servant of a man who owns a village as his private
property, and he has relieved me of all care for my livelihood.” Shaqíq
exclaimed: “O Lord God, this youth rejoices so much in having a master
who owns a single village, but Thou art the King of kings, and Thou hast
promised to give us our daily bread; and nevertheless we have filled our
hearts with all this sorrow because we are engrossed with worldly
things.” He turned to God and began to walk in the way of the Truth, and
never troubled himself again about his daily bread. Afterwards he used
to say: “I am the pupil of a youth; all that I have learned I learned
from him.” His humility led him to say this.
17. ABÚ SULAYMÁN `ABD AL-RAḤMÁN B.`ATIYYA AL-DÁRÁNÍ.
He was held in honour by the Ṣúfís and was (called) the sweet basil of
hearts (_rayḥán-i dilhá_). He is distinguished by his severe austerities
and acts of self-mortification. He was versed in the science of “time”
(_`ilm-i waqt_)[71] and in knowledge of the cankers of the soul, and had
a keen eye for its hidden snares. He spoke in subtle terms concerning
the practice of devotion, and the watch that should be kept over the
heart and the limbs. It is related that he said: “When hope predominates
over fear, one’s ‘time’ is spoilt,” because “time” is the preservation
of one’s “state” (_ḥál_), which is preserved only so long as one is
possessed by fear. If, on the other hand, fear predominates over hope,
belief in Unity (_tawḥíd_) is lost, inasmuch as excessive fear springs
from despair, and despair of God is polytheism (_shirk_). Accordingly,
the maintenance of belief in Unity consists in right hope, and the
maintenance of “time” in right fear, and both are maintained when hope
and fear are equal. Maintenance of belief in Unity makes one a believer
(_mu´min_), while maintenance of “time” makes one pious (_muṭí`_). Hope
is connected entirely with contemplation (_musháhadat_), in which is
involved a firm conviction (_i`tiqád_); and fear is connected entirely
with purgation (_mujáhadat_), in which is involved an anxious
uncertainty (_iḍṭiráb_). Contemplation is the fruit of purgation, or, to
express the same idea differently, every hope is produced by despair.
Whenever a man, on account of his actions, despairs of his future
welfare, that despair shows him the way to salvation and welfare and
Divine mercy, and opens to him the door of gladness, and clears away
sensual corruptions from his heart, and reveals to it the Divine
mysteries.
Footnote 71:
See note on p. 13.
Aḥmad b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí relates that one night, when he was praying in
private, he felt great pleasure. Next day he told Abú Sulaymán, who
replied: “Thou art a weak man, for thou still hast mankind in view, so
that thou art one thing in private and another in public.” There is
nothing in the two worlds that is sufficiently important to hold man
back from God. When a bride is unveiled to the people, the reason is
that everyone may see her and that she may be honoured the more through
being seen, but it is not proper that she should see anyone except the
bridegroom, since she is disgraced by seeing anyone else. If all mankind
should see the glory of a pious man’s piety, he would suffer no harm,
but if he sees the excellence of his own piety he is lost.
18. ABÚ MAḤFÚẔ MA`RÚF B. FÍRÚZ AL-KARKHÍ.
He is one of the ancient and principal Shaykhs, and was famed for his
generosity and devoutness. This notice of him should have come earlier
in the book, but I have placed it here in accordance with two venerable
persons who wrote before me, one of them a relater of traditions and the
other an independent authority (_ṣáḥib taṣarruf_)—I mean Shaykh Abú `Abd
al-Raḥmán al-Sulamí, who in his work adopts the arrangement which I have
followed, and the Master and Imám Abu ´l-Qásimal-Qushayrí, who has put
the notice of Ma`rúf in the same order in the introductory portion of
his book.[72] I have chosen this arrangement because Ma`rúf was the
master of Sarí Saqaṭí and the disciple of Dáwud Ṭá´í. At first Ma`rúf
was a non-Moslem (_bégána_), but he made profession of Islam to `Alí b.
Músá al-Riḍá, who held him in the highest esteem. It is related that he
said: “There are three signs of generosity—to keep faith without
resistance, to praise without being incited thereto by liberality, and
to give without being asked.” In men all these qualities are merely
borrowed, and in reality they belong to God, who acts thus towards His
servants. God keeps unresisting faith with those who love Him, and
although they show resistance in keeping faith with Him, He only
increases His kindness towards them. The sign of God’s keeping faith is
this, that in eternity past He called His servant to His presence
without any good action on the part of His servant, and that to-day He
does not banish His servant on account of an evil action. He alone
praises without the incitement of liberality, for He has no need of His
servant’s actions, and nevertheless extols him for a little thing that
he has done. He alone gives without being asked, for He is generous and
knows the state of everyone and fulfils his desire unasked. Accordingly,
when God gives a man grace and makes him noble, and distinguishes him by
His favour, and acts towards him in the three ways mentioned above, and
when that man, as far as lies in his power, acts in the same way towards
his fellow-creatures, then he is called generous and gets a reputation
for generosity. Abraham the Apostle possessed these three qualities in
very truth, as I shall explain in the proper place.
Footnote 72:
This statement is not accurate. The notice of Ma`rúf Karkhí is the
fourth in Qushayrí’s list of biographies at the beginning of his
treatise on Ṣúfiism, and stands between the notices of Fuḍayl b. `Iyáḍ
and Sarí Saqaṭí. In the _Ṭabaqát al-Ṣúfiyya_, by Abú `Abd al-Raḥmán
al-Sulamí, the notice of Ma`rúf comes tenth in order, but occupies the
same position as it does here in so far as it is preceded by the
article on Abú Sulaymán Dárání and is followed by the article on Ḥátim
al-Aṣamm. It appears from the next sentence that al-Hujwírí intended
to place the life of Ma`rúf between those of Dáwud Ṭá´í and Sarí
Saqaṭí (Nos. 14 and 15), but neither of the two above-mentioned
authorities has adopted this arrangement.
19. ABÚ `ABD AL-RAḤMÁN ḤÁTIM B. `ULWÁN[73] AL-AṢAMM.
He was one of the great men of Balkh and one of the ancient Shaykhs of
Khurásán, a disciple of Shaqíq and the teacher of Aḥmad Khaḍrúya. In all
his circumstances, from beginning to end, he never once acted
untruthfully, so that Junayd said: “Ḥátim al-Aṣamm is the veracious one
(_ṣiddíq_) of our time.” He has lofty sayings on the subtleties of
discerning the cankers of the soul and the weaknesses of human nature,
and is the author of famous works on ethics (_`ilm-i mu`ámalát_). It is
related that he said: “Lust is of three kinds—lust in eating, lust in
speaking, and lust in looking. Guard thy food by trust in God, thy
tongue by telling the truth, and thine eye by taking example
(_`ibrat_).” Real trust in God proceeds from right knowledge, for those
who know Him aright have confidence that He will give them their daily
bread, and they speak and look with right knowledge, so that their food
and drink is only love, and their speech is only ecstasy, and their
looking is only contemplation. Accordingly, when they know aright they
eat what is lawful, and when they speak aright they utter praise (of
God), and when they look aright they behold Him, because no food is
lawful except what He has given and permits to be eaten, and no praise
is rightly offered to anyone in the eighteen thousand worlds except to
Him, and it is not allowable to look on anything in the universe except
His beauty and majesty. It is not lust when thou receivest food from Him
and eatest by His leave, or when thou speakest of Him by His leave, or
when thou seest His actions by His leave. On the other hand, it _is_
lust when of thy own will thou eatest even lawful food, or of thy own
will thou speakest even praise of Him, or of thy own will thou lookest
even for the purpose of seeking guidance.
Footnote 73:
LIJ. have عنوان [**Arabic] علوان.
20. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH MUḤAMMAD B. IDRÍS AL-SHÁFI`Í.
While he was at Medína he was a pupil of the Imám Málik, and when he
came to `Iráq he associated with Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. He always had a
natural desire for seclusion, and used to seek an intimate comprehension
of this way of life, until a party gathered round him and followed his
authority. One of them was Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal. Then Sháfi`í became occupied
with seeking position and exercising his authority as Imám, and was
unable to retire from the world. At first he was not favourably disposed
towards aspirants to Ṣúfiism, but after seeing Sulaymán Rá`í and
obtaining admission to his society, he continued to seek the truth
wherever he went. It is related that he said: “When you see a divine
busying himself with indulgences (_rukhaṣ_) no good thing will come from
him,” i.e. divines are the leaders of all classes of men, and no one may
take precedence of them in any matter, and the way of God cannot be
traversed without precaution and the utmost self-mortification, and to
seek indulgences in divinity is the act of one who flees from
self-mortification and prefers an alleviation for himself. Ordinary
people seek indulgences to keep themselves within the pale of the sacred
law, but the elect practise self-mortification to feel the fruit thereof
in their hearts. Divines are among the elect, and when one of them is
satisfied with behaving like ordinary people, nothing good will come
from him. Moreover, to seek indulgences is to think lightly of God’s
commandment, and divines love God: a lover does not think lightly of the
command of his beloved.
A certain Shaykh relates that one night he dreamed of the Prophet and
said to him: “O Apostle of God, a tradition has come down to me from
thee that God hath upon the earth saints of diverse rank (_awtád ú
awliyá ú abrár_).” The Apostle said that the relater of the tradition
had transmitted it correctly, and in answer to the Shaykh’s request that
he might see one of these holy men, he said: “Muḥammad b. Idrís is one
of them.”
21. THE IMÁM AḤMAD B. ḤANBAL.
He was distinguished by devoutness and piety, and was the guardian of
the Traditions of the Apostle. Ṣúfís of all sects regard him as blessed.
He associated with great Shaykhs, such as Dhu ´l-Nún of Egypt, Bishr
al-Ḥáfí, Sarí al-Saqaṭí, Ma`rúf al-Karkhí, and others. His miracles were
manifest and his intelligence sound. The doctrines attributed to him
to-day by certain Anthropomorphists are inventions and forgeries; he is
to be acquitted of all notions of that sort. He had a firm belief in the
principles of religion, and his creed was approved by all the divines.
When the Mu`tazilites came into power at Baghdád, they wished to extort
from him a confession that the Koran was created, and though he was a
feeble old man they put him to the rack and gave him a thousand lashes.
In spite of all this he would not say that the Koran was created. While
he was undergoing punishment his _izár_ became untied. His own hands
were fettered, but another hand appeared and tied it. Seeing this
evidence, they let him go. He died, however, of the wounds inflicted on
that occasion. Shortly before his death some persons visited him and
asked what he had to say about those who flogged him. He answered: “What
should I have to say? They flogged me for God’s sake, thinking that I
was wrong and that they were right. I will not claim redress from them
at the Resurrection for mere blows.” He is the author of lofty sayings
on ethics. When questioned on any point relating to practice he used to
answer the question himself, but if it was a point of mystical theory
(_ḥaqá´iq_) he would refer the questioner to Bishr Ḥáfí. One day a man
asked him: “What is sincerity (_ikhláṣ_)?” He replied: “To escape from
the cankers of one’s actions,” i.e. let thy actions be free from
ostentation and hypocrisy and self-interest. The questioner then asked:
“What is trust (_tawakkul_)?” Ahmad replied: “Confidence in God, that He
will provide thy daily bread.” The man asked: “What is acquiescence
(_riḍá_)?” He replied: “To commit thy affairs to God.” “And what is love
(_maḥabbat_)?” Ahmad said: “Ask this question of Bishr Ḥáfí, for I will
not answer it while he is alive.” Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal was constantly exposed
to persecution: during his life by the attacks of the Mu`tazilites, and
after his death by the suspicion of sharing the views of the
Anthropomorphists. Consequently the orthodox Moslems are ignorant of his
true state and hold him suspect. But he is clear of all that is alleged
against him.
22. ABU ´L-ḤASAN AḤMAD B. ABI ´L-ḤAWÁRÍ.
He was one of the most eminent of the Syrian Shaykhs and is praised by
all the leading Ṣúfís. Junayd said: “Aḥmad b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí is the sweet
basil of Syria (_rayḥánat al-Shám_).” He was the pupil of Abú Sulaymán
Dárání, and associated with Sufyán b. `Uyayna and Marwán b. Mu`áwiya the
Koran-reader (_al-Qárí_).[74] He had been a wandering devotee
(_sayyáḥ_). It is related that he said: “This world is a dunghill and a
place where dogs gather; and one who lingers there is less than a dog,
for a dog takes what he wants from it and goes, but the lover of the
world never departs from it or leaves it at any time,” At first he was a
student and attained the rank of the Imáms, but afterwards he threw all
his books into the sea, and said: “Ye were excellent guides, but it is
impossible to occupy one’s self with a guide after one has reached the
goal,” because a guide is needed only so long as the disciple is on the
road: when the shrine comes into sight the road and the gate are
worthless. The Shaykhs have said that Aḥmad did this in the state of
intoxication (_sukr_). In the mystic Path he who says “I have arrived”
has gone astray. Since arriving is non-accomplishment, occupation is
(superfluous) trouble, and freedom from occupation is idleness, and in
either case the principle of union (_wuṣúl_) is non-existence, for both
occupation and its opposite are human qualities. Union and separation
alike depend on the eternal will and providence of God. Hence it is
impossible to attain to union with Him. The terms “nearness” and
“neighbourhood” are not applicable to God. A man is united to God when
God holds him in honour, and separated from God when God holds him in
contempt. I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, say that possibly that eminent
Shaykh in using the word “union” (_wuṣúl_) may have meant “discovery of
the way to God”, for the way to God is not found in books; and when the
road lies plain before one no explanation is necessary. Those who have
attained true knowledge have no use for speech, and even less for books.
Other Shaykhs have done the same thing as Aḥmad b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí, for
example the Grand Shaykh Abú Sa`íd Faḍlalláh b. Muḥammad al-Mayhaní, and
they have been imitated by a number of formalists whose only object is
to gratify their indolence and ignorance. It would seem that those noble
Shaykhs acted as they did from the desire of severing all worldly ties
and making their hearts empty of all save God. This, however, is proper
only in the intoxication of commencement (_ibtidá_) and in the fervour
of youth. Those who have become fixed (_mutamakkin_) are not veiled
(from God) by the whole universe: how, then, by a sheet of paper? It may
be said that the destruction of a book signifies the impossibility of
expressing the real meaning (of an idea). In that case the same
impossibility should be predicated of the tongue, because spoken words
are no better than written ones. I imagine that Aḥmad b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí,
finding no listener in his fit of ecstasy, wrote down an explanation of
his feelings on pieces of paper, and having amassed a large quantity,
did not regard them as suitable to be divulged and accordingly cast them
into the water. It is also possible that he had collected many books,
which diverted him from his devotional practices, and that he got rid of
them for this reason.
Footnote 74:
Marwán b. Mu`áwiya al-Fazárí of Kúfa died in 193 A.H. See Dhahabí’s
_Ṭabaqát al-Ḥuffáẕ_, ed. by Wüstenfeld, p. 63, No. 44. Al-Qárí is
probably a mistranscription of al-Fazárí.
23. ABÚ ḤÁMID AḤMAD B. KHAḌRÚYA AL-BALKHÍ.
He adopted the path of blame (_malámat_) and wore a soldier’s dress. His
wife, Fáṭima, daughter of the Amír of Balkh, was renowned as a Ṣúfí.
When she desired to repent (of her former life), she sent a message to
Aḥmad bidding him ask her in marriage of her father. Aḥmad refused,
whereupon she sent another message in the following terms: “O Aḥmad, I
thought you would have been too manly to attack those who travel on the
way to God. Be a guide (_ráhbar_), not a brigand (_ráhbur_).” Aḥmad
asked her in marriage of her father, who gave her to him in the hope of
receiving his blessing. Fáṭima renounced all traffic with the world and
lived in seclusion with her husband. When Aḥmad went to visit Báyazíd
she accompanied him, and on seeing Báyazíd she removed her veil and
talked to him without embarrassment. Aḥmad became jealous and said to
her: “Why dost thou take this freedom with Báyazíd?” She replied:
“Because you are my natural spouse, but he is my religious consort;
through you I come to my desire, but through him to God. The proof is
that he has no need of my society, whereas to you it is necessary.” She
continued to treat Báyazíd with the same boldness, until one day he
observed that her hand was stained with henna and asked her why. She
answered: “O Báyazíd, so long as you did not see my hand and the henna I
was at my ease with you, but now that your eye has fallen on me our
companionship is unlawful.” Then Aḥmad and Fáṭima came to Níshápúr and
abode there. The people and Shaykhs of Níshápúr were well pleased with
Aḥmad. When Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh al-Rází passed through Níshápúr on his way
from Rayy to Balkh, Aḥmad wished to give him a banquet, and consulted
with Fáṭima as to what things were required. She told him to procure so
many oxen and sheep, such and such a quantity of sweet herbs,
condiments, candles, and perfumes, and added, “We must also kill twenty
donkeys.” Aḥmad said: “What is the sense of killing donkeys?” “Oh!” said
she, “when a noble comes as guest to the house of a noble the dogs of
the quarter have something too.” Báyazíd said of her: “Whoever wishes to
see a man disguised in women’s clothes, let him look at Fáṭima!” And Abú
Ḥafṣ Ḥaddád says: “But for Aḥmad b. Khaḍrúya generosity would not have
been displayed.” He has lofty sayings to his credit, and faultless
utterances (_anfás-i muhadhdhab_), and is the author of famous works in
every branch of ethics and of brilliant discourses on mysticism. It is
related that he said: “The way is manifest and the truth is clear, and
the shepherd has uttered his call; after this if anyone loses himself,
it is through his own blindness,” i.e., it is wrong to seek the way,
since the way to God is like the blazing sun; do thou seek thyself, for
when thou hast found thyself thou art come to thy journey’s end,
inasmuch as God is too manifest to admit of His being sought. He is
recorded to have said: “Hide the glory of thy poverty,” i.e., do not say
to people, “I am a dervish,” lest thy secret be discovered, for it is a
great grace bestowed on thee by God. It is related that he said: “A
dervish invited a rich man to a repast in the month of Ramaḍán, and
there was nothing in his house except a loaf of dry bread. On returning
home the rich man sent to him a purse of gold. He sent it back, saying,
‘This serves me right for revealing my secret to one like you.’ The
genuineness of his poverty led him to act thus.”
24. ABÚ TURÁB `ASKAR B. AL-ḤUSAYN AL-NAKHSHABÍ AL-NASAFÍ.
He was one of the chief Shaykhs of Khurásán, and was celebrated for his
generosity, asceticism, and devoutness. He performed many miracles, and
experienced marvellous adventures without number in the desert and
elsewhere. He was one of the most noted travellers among the Ṣúfís, and
used to cross the deserts in complete disengagement from worldly things
(_ba-tajríd_). His death took place in the desert of Baṣra. After many
years had elapsed he was found standing erect with his face towards the
Ka`ba, shrivelled up, with a bucket in front of him and a staff in his
hand; and the wild beasts had not touched him or come near him. It is
related that he said: “The food of the dervish is what he finds, and his
clothing is what covers him, and his dwelling-place is wherever he
alights,” i.e. he does not choose his own food or his own dress, or make
a home for himself. The whole world is afflicted by these three items,
and personal initiative therein keeps us in a state of distraction
(_mashghúlí_) while we make efforts to procure them. This is the
practical aspect of the matter, but in a mystical sense the food of the
dervish is ecstasy, and his clothing is piety, and his dwelling-place is
the Unseen, for God hath said, “_If they stood firm in the right path,
We should water them with abundant rain_” (Kor. lxxii, 16); and again,
“_and fair apparel; but the garment of piety, that is better_” (Kor.
vii, 25); and the Apostle said, “Poverty is to dwell in the Unseen.”
25. ABÚ ZAKARIYYÁ YAḤYÁ B. MU`ÁDH AL-RÁZÍ.
He was perfectly grounded in the true theory of hope in God, so that
Ḥuṣrí says: “God had two Yaḥyás, one a prophet and the other a saint.
Yaḥyá b. Zakariyyá trod the path of fear so that all pretenders were
filled with fear and despaired of their salvation, while Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh
trod the path of hope so that he tied the hands of all pretenders to
hope.” They said to Ḥuṣrí: “The state of Yaḥyá b. Zakariyyá is well
known, but what was the state of Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh?” He replied: “I have
been told that he was never in the state of ignorance (_jáhiliyyat_) and
never committed any of the greater sins (_kabíra_).” In the practice of
devotion he showed an intense perseverance which was beyond the power of
anyone else. One of his disciples said to him: “O Shaykh, thy station is
the station of hope, but thy practice is the practice of those who
fear.” Yaḥyá answered: “Know, my son, that to abandon the service of God
is to go astray.” Fear and hope are the two pillars of faith. It is
impossible that anyone should fall into error through practising either
of them. Those who fear engage in devotion through fear of separation
(from God), and those who hope engage in it through hope of union (with
God). Without devotion neither fear nor hope can be truly felt, but when
devotion is there this fear and hope are altogether metaphorical; and
metaphors (_`ibárat_) are useless where devotion (_`ibádat_) is
required. Yaḥyá is the author of many books, fine sayings, and original
precepts. He was the first of the Shaykhs of this sect, after the
Orthodox Caliphs, to mount the pulpit. I am very fond of his sayings,
which are delicately moulded and pleasant to the ear and subtle in
substance and profitable in devotion. It is related that he said: “This
world is an abode of troubles (_ashghál_) and the next world is an abode
of terrors (_ahwál_), and Man never ceases to be amidst troubles or
terrors until he finds rest either in Paradise or in Hell-fire.” Happy
the soul that has escaped from troubles and is secure from terrors, and
has detached its thoughts from both worlds, and has attained to God!
Yaḥyá held the doctrine that wealth is superior to poverty. Having
contracted many debts at Rayy, he set out for Khurásán. When he arrived
at Balkh the people of that city detained him for some time in order
that he might discourse to them, and they gave him a hundred thousand
dirhems. On his way back to Rayy he was attacked by brigands, who seized
the whole sum. He came in a destitute condition to Níshápúr, where he
died. He was always honoured and held in respect by the people.
26. ABÚ ḤAFṢ `AMR B. SÁLIM[75] AL-NÍSHÁPÚRÍ AL-ḤADDÁDÍ.[76]
He was an eminent Ṣúfí, who is praised by all the Shaykhs. He associated
with Abú `Abdalláh al-Abíwardí and Aḥmad b. Khaḍrúya. Sháh Shujá` came
from Kirmán to visit him. He did not know Arabic, and when he went to
Baghdád to visit the Shaykhs there, his disciples said to one another:
“It is a great shame that the Grand Shaykh of Khurásán should need an
interpreter to make him understand what they say.” However, when he met
the Shaykhs of Baghdád, including Junayd, in the Shúníziyya Mosque, he
conversed with them in elegant Arabic, so that they despaired of
rivalling his eloquence. They asked him: “What is generosity?” He said:
“Let one of you begin and declare what it is.” Junayd said: “In my
opinion generosity consists in not regarding your generosity and in not
referring it to yourself.” Abú Ḥafṣ replied: “How well the Shaykh has
spoken! but in my opinion generosity consists in doing justice and in
not demanding justice.” Junayd said to his disciples: “Rise! for Abú
Ḥafṣ has surpassed Adam and all his descendants (in generosity).” His
conversion is related as follows. He was enamoured of a girl, and on the
advice of his friends sought help from a certain Jew living in the city
(_sháristán_) of Níshápúr. The Jew told him that he must perform no
prayers for forty days, and not praise God or do any good deed or form
any good intention; he would then devise a means whereby Abú Ḥafṣ should
gain his desire. Abú Ḥafṣ complied with these instructions, and after
forty days the Jew made a talisman as he had promised, but it proved
ineffectual. He said: “You have undoubtedly done some good deed. Think!”
Abú Ḥafṣ replied that the only good thing of any sort that he had done
was to remove a stone which he found on the road lest some one might
stumble on it. The Jew said to him: “Do not offend that God who has not
let such a small act of yours be wasted though you have neglected His
commands for forty days.” Abú Ḥafṣ repented, and the Jew became a
Moslem.
Footnote 75:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 44, has “Salama”. Qushayrí calls him `Umar b. Maslama.
Footnote 76:
So LIJ. B. has “al-Ḥaddád”, which is the form generally used by his
biographers.
Abú Ḥafṣ continued to ply the trade of a blacksmith until he went to
Báward and took the vows of discipleship to Abú `Abdalláh Báwardí. One
day, after his return to Níshápúr, he was sitting in his shop listening
to a blind man who was reciting the Koran in the bazaar. He became so
absorbed in listening that he put his hand into the fire and, without
using the pincers, drew out a piece of molten iron from the furnace. On
seeing this the apprentice fainted. When Abú Ḥafṣ came to himself he
left his shop and no longer earned his livelihood. It is related that he
said: “I left work and returned to it; then work left me and I never
returned to it again,” because when anyone leaves a thing by one’s own
act and effort, the leaving of it is no better than the taking of it,
inasmuch as all acquired acts (_aksáb_) are contaminated, and derive
their value from the spiritual influence which flows from the Unseen
without effort on our part; which influence, wherever it descends, is
united with the choice of Man and loses its pure spirituality. Therefore
Man cannot properly take or leave anything; it is God who in His
providence gives and takes away, and Man only takes what God has given
or leaves what God has taken away. Though a disciple should strive a
thousand years to win the favour of God, it would be worth less than if
God received him into favour for a single moment, since everlasting
future happiness is involved in the favour of past eternity, and Man has
no means of escape except by the unalloyed bounty of God. Honoured,
then, is he from whose state the Causer has removed all secondary
causes.
27. ABÚ ṢÁLIḤ ḤAMDÚN B. AḤMAD B. `UMÁRA AL-QAṢṢÁR.
He belonged to the ancient Shaykhs, and was one of those who were
scrupulously devout. He attained the highest rank in jurisprudence and
divinity, in which sciences he was a follower of Thawrí.[77] In Ṣúfiism
he was a disciple of Abú Turáb Nakhshabí and `Alí Naṣrábádí. When he
became renowned as a theologian, the Imáms and notables of Níshápúr
urged him to mount the pulpit and preach to the people, but he refused,
saying: “My heart is still attached to the world, and therefore my words
will make no impression on the hearts of others. To speak unprofitable
words is to despise theology and deride the sacred law. Speech is
permissible to him alone whose silence is injurious to religion, and
whose speaking would remove the injury.” On being asked why the sayings
of the early Moslems were more beneficial than those of his
contemporaries to men’s hearts, he replied: “Because they discoursed for
the glory of Islam and the salvation of souls and the satisfaction of
the Merciful God, whereas we discourse for the glory of ourselves and
the quest of worldly gain and the favour of mankind.” Whoever speaks in
accordance with God’s will and by Divine impulsion, his words have a
force and vigour that makes an impression on the wicked, but if anyone
speaks in accordance with his own will, his words are weak and tame and
do not benefit his hearers.
Footnote 77:
The words _madhhab-i Thawrí dásht_ may refer either to Abú Thawr
Ibráhím b. Khálid, a pupil of al-Sháfi`í, who died in 246 _A.H._, or
to Sufyán al-Thawrí. See Ibn Khallikán, No. 143.
28. ABU ´L-SARÍ MANṢÚR B. `AMMÁR.
He belonged to the school of `Iráq, but was approved by the people of
Khurásán. His sermons were unequalled for beauty of language and
elegance of exposition. He was learned in all the branches of divinity,
in traditions, sciences, principles, and practices. Some aspirants to
Ṣúfiism exaggerate his merits beyond measure. It is related that he
said: “Glory be to Him who hath made the hearts of gnostics vessels of
praise (_dhikr_), and the hearts of ascetics vessels of trust
(_tawakkul_), and the hearts of those who trust (_mutawakkilín_) vessels
of acquiescence (_riḍá_), and the hearts of dervishes (_fuqará_) vessels
of contentment, and the hearts of worldlings vessels of covetousness!”
It is worth while to consider that whereas God has placed in every
member of the body and in every sense a homogeneous quality, e.g., in
the hands that of seizing, in the feet that of walking, in the eye
seeing, in the ear hearing, He has placed in each individual heart a
diverse quality and a different desire, so that one is the seat of
knowledge, another of error, another of contentment, another of
covetousness, and so on: hence the marvels of Divine action are in
nothing manifested more clearly than in human hearts. And it is related
that he said: “All mankind may be reduced to two types—the man who knows
himself, and whose business is self-mortification and discipline, and
the man who knows his Lord, and whose business is to serve and worship
and please Him.” Accordingly, the worship of the former is discipline
(_riyáḍat_), while the worship of the latter is sovereignty (_riyásat_):
the former practises devotion in order that he may attain a high degree,
but the latter practises devotion having already attained all. What a
vast difference between the two! One subsists in self-mortification
(_mujáhadat_), the other in contemplation (_musháhadat_). And it is
related that he said: “There are two classes of men: those who have need
of God—and they hold the highest rank from the standpoint of the sacred
law—and those who pay no regard to their need of God, because they know
that God has provided for their creation and livelihood and death and
life and happiness and misery: they need God alone, and having him are
independent of all else.” The former, through seeing their own need, are
veiled from seeing the Divine providence, whereas the latter, through
not seeing their own need, are unveiled and independent. The former
enjoy felicity, but the latter enjoy the Giver of felicity.
29. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH AḤMAD B. `ÁṢIM AL-INṬÁKÍ.
He lived to a great age and associated with the ancient Shaykhs, and was
acquainted with those who belonged to the third generation after the
Prophet (_atbá` al-tábi`ín_). He was a contemporary of Bishr and Sarí,
and a pupil of Ḥárith Muḥásibí. He had seen Fuḍayl and consorted with
him. It is related that he said: “The most beneficial poverty is that
which you regard as honourable, and with which you are well pleased,”
i.e., the honour of the vulgar consists in affirmation of secondary
causes, but the honour of the dervish consists in denying secondary
causes and in affirming the Causer, and in referring everything to Him,
and in being well pleased with His decrees. Poverty is the non-existence
of secondary causes, whereas wealth is the existence of secondary
causes. Poverty detached from a secondary cause is with God, and wealth
attached to a secondary cause is with itself. Therefore secondary causes
involve the state of being veiled (from God), while their absence
involves the state of unveiledness. This is a clear explanation of the
superiority of poverty to wealth.
30. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD `ABDALLÁH B. KHUBAYQ.
He was an ascetic and scrupulously devout. He has related trustworthy
traditions, and in jurisprudence, as well as in the practice and theory
of divinity, he followed the doctrine of Thawrí, with whose pupils he
had associated. It is recorded that he said: “Whoever desires to be
living in his life, let him not admit covetousness to dwell in his
heart,” because the covetous man is dead in the toils of his
covetousness, which is like a seal on his heart; and the sealed heart is
dead. Blessed is the heart that dies to all save God and lives through
God, inasmuch as God has made His praise (_dhikr_) the glory of men’s
hearts, and covetousness their disgrace; and to this effect is the
saying of `Abdalláh b. Khubayq: “God created men’s hearts to be the
homes of His praise, but they have become the homes of lust; and nothing
can clear them of lust except an agitating fear or a restless desire.”
Fear and desire (_shawq_) are the two pillars of faith. When faith is
settled in the heart, praise and contentment accompany it, not
covetousness and heedlessness. Lust and covetousness are the result of
shunning the society of God. The heart that shuns the society of God
knows nothing of faith, since faith is intimate with God and averse to
associate with aught else.
31. ABU ´L-QÁSIM AL-JUNAYD B. MUḤAMMAD B. AL-JUNAYD AL-BAGHDÁDÍ.
He was approved by externalists and spiritualists alike. He was perfect
in every branch of science, and spoke with authority on theology,
jurisprudence, and ethics. He was a follower of Thawrí. His sayings are
lofty and his inward state perfect, so that all Ṣúfís unanimously
acknowledge his leadership. His mother was the sister of Sarí Saqaṭí,
and Junayd was the disciple of Sarí. One day Sarí was asked whether the
rank of a disciple is ever higher than that of his spiritual director.
He replied: “Yes; there is manifest proof of this: the rank of Junayd is
above mine.” It was the humility and insight of Sarí that caused him to
say this. As is well known, Junayd refused to discourse to his disciples
so long as Sarí was alive, until one night he dreamed that the Apostle
said to him: “O Junayd, speak to the people, for God hath made thy words
the means of saving a multitude of mankind.” When he awoke the thought
occurred to him that his rank was superior to that of Sarí, since the
Apostle had commanded him to preach. At daybreak Sarí sent a disciple to
Junayd with the following message: “You would not discourse to your
disciples when they urged you to do so, and you rejected the
intercession of the Shaykhs of Baghdád and my personal entreaty. Now
that the Apostle has commanded you, obey his orders.” Junayd said: “That
fancy went out of my head. I perceived that Sarí was acquainted with my
outward and inward thoughts in all circumstances, and that his rank was
higher than mine, since he was acquainted with my secret thoughts,
whereas I was ignorant of his state. I went to him and begged his
pardon, and asked him how he knew that I had dreamed of the Apostle. He
answered: ‘I dreamed of God, who told me that He had sent the Apostle to
bid you preach.’” This anecdote contains a clear indication that
spiritual directors are in every case acquainted with the inward
experiences of their disciples.
It is related that he said: “The speech of the prophets gives
information concerning presence (_ḥuḍúr_), while the speech of the
saints (_ṣiddíqín_) alludes to contemplation (_musháhadat_).” True
information is derived from sight, and it is impossible to give true
information of anything that one has not actually witnessed, whereas
allusion (_ishárat_) involves reference to another thing. Hence the
perfection and ultimate goal of the saints is the beginning of the state
of the prophets. The distinction between prophet (_nabí_) and saint
(_walí_), and the superiority of the former to the latter, is plain,
notwithstanding that two heretical sects declare the saints to surpass
the prophets in excellence. It is related that he said: “I was eagerly
desirous of seeing Iblís. One day, when I was standing in the mosque, an
old man came through the door and turned his face towards me. Horror
seized my heart. When he came near I said to him, ‘Who art thou? for I
cannot bear to look on thee, or think of thee.’ He answered, ‘I am he
whom you desired to see.’ I exclaimed, ‘O accursed one! what hindered
thee from bowing down to Adam?’ He answered, ‘O Junayd, how can you
imagine that I should bow down to anyone except God?’ I was amazed at
his saying this, but a secret voice whispered: ‘Say to him, _Thou liest.
Hadst thou been an obedient servant thou wouldst not have transgressed
His command._’ Iblís heard the voice in my heart. He cried out and said,
‘By God, you have burnt me!’ and vanished.” This story shows that God
preserves His saints in all circumstances from the guile of Satan. One
of Junayd’s disciples bore him a grudge, and after leaving him returned
one day with the intention of testing him. Junayd was aware of this and
said, replying to his question: “Do you want a formal or a spiritual
answer?” The disciple said: “Both.” Junayd said: “The formal answer is
that if you had tested yourself you would not have needed to test me.
The spiritual answer is that I depose you from your saintship.” The
disciple’s face immediately turned black. He cried, “The delight of
certainty (_yaqín_) is gone from my heart,” and earnestly begged to be
forgiven, and abandoned his foolish self-conceit. Junayd said to him:
“Did not you know that God’s saints possess mysterious powers? You
cannot endure their blows.” He cast a breath at the disciple, who
forthwith resumed his former purpose and repented of criticizing the
Shaykhs.
32. ABU ´L-ḤASAN AḤMAD B. MUḤAMMAD AL-NÚRÍ.
He has a peculiar doctrine in Ṣúfiism and is the model of a number of
aspirants to Ṣúfiism, who follow him and are called Núrís. The whole
body of aspirants to Ṣúfiism is composed of twelve sects, two of which
are condemned (_mardúd_), while the remaining ten are approved
(_maqbúl_). The latter are the Muḥásibís, the Qaṣṣárís, the Ṭayfúrís,
the Junaydís, the Núrís, the Sahlís, the Ḥakímís, the Kharrázís, the
Khafífís, and the Sayyárís. All these assert the truth and belong to the
mass of orthodox Moslems. The two condemned sects are, firstly, the
Ḥulúlís,[78] who derive their name from the doctrine of incarnation
(_ḥulúl_) and incorporation (_imtizáj_), and with whom are connected the
Sálimí sect of anthropomorphists;[79] and secondly, the Ḥallájís, who
have abandoned the sacred law and have adopted heresy, and with whom are
connected the Ibáḥatís[80] and the Fárisís.[81] I shall include in this
book a chapter on the twelve sects and shall explain their different
doctrines.
Footnote 78:
B. has “the Ḥulmánís”, i.e. the followers of Abú Ḥulmán of Damascus.
See Shahristání, Haarbrücker’s translation, ii, 417.
Footnote 79:
The Sálimís are described (ibid.) as “a number of scholastic
theologians (_mutakallimún_) belonging to Baṣra”.
Footnote 80:
“Ibáḥatí” or “Ibáḥí” signifies “one who regards everything as
permissible”.
Footnote 81:
See the eleventh section of the fourteenth chapter.
Núrí took a praiseworthy course in rejecting flattery and indulgence and
in being assiduous in self-mortification. It is related that he said: “I
came to Junayd and found him seated in the professorial chair
(_muṣaddar_). I said to him: ‘O Abu ´l-Qásim, thou hast concealed the
truth from them and they have put thee in the place of honour; but I
have told them the truth and they have pelted me with stones,’” because
flattery is compliance with one’s desire and sincerity is opposition to
it, and men hate anyone who opposes their desires and love anyone who
complies with their desires. Núrí was the companion of Junayd and the
disciple of Sarí. He had associated with many Shaykhs, and had met Aḥmad
b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí. He is the author of subtle precepts and fine sayings
on various branches of the mystical science. It is related that he said:
“Union with God is separation from all else, and separation from all
else is union with Him,” i.e., anyone whose mind is united with God is
separated from all besides, and _vice versâ_: therefore union of the
mind with God is separation from the thought of created things, and to
be rightly turned away from phenomena is to be rightly turned towards
God. I have read in the Anecdotes that once Núrí stood in his chamber
for three days and nights, never moving from his place or ceasing to
wail. Junayd went to see him and said: “O Abu ´l-Ḥasan, if thou knowest
that crying aloud to God is of any use, tell me, in order that I too may
cry aloud; but if thou knowest that it avails naught, surrender thyself
to acquiescence in God’s will, in order that thy heart may rejoice.”
Núrí stopped wailing and said: “Thou teachest me well, O Abu ´l-Qásim!”
It is related that he said: “The two rarest things in our time are a
learned man who practises what he knows and a gnostic who speaks from
the reality of his state,” i.e., both learning and gnosis are rare,
since learning is not learning unless it is practised, and gnosis is not
gnosis unless it has reality. Núrí referred to his own age, but these
things are rare at all times, and they are rare to-day. Anyone who
should occupy himself in seeking for learned men and gnostics would
waste his time and would not find them. Let him be occupied with himself
in order that he may see learning everywhere, and let him turn from
himself to God in order that he may see gnosis everywhere. Let him seek
learning and gnosis in himself, and let him demand practice and reality
from himself. It is related that Núrí said: “Those who regard things as
determined by God turn to God in everything,” because they find rest in
regarding the Creator, not created objects, whereas they would always be
in tribulation if they considered things to be the causes of actions. To
do so is polytheism, for a cause is not self-subsistent, but depends on
the Causer. When they turn to Him they escape from trouble.
33. ABÚ `UTHMÁN SA`ÍD B. ISMÁ`ÍL AL-ḤÍRÍ.
He is one of the eminent Ṣúfís of past times. At first he associated
with Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh; then he consorted for a while with Sháh Shujá` of
Kirmán, and accompanied him to Níshápúr on a visit to Abú Ḥafṣ, with
whom he remained to the end of his life. It is related on trustworthy
authority that he said: “In my childhood I was continually seeking the
Truth, and the externalists inspired me with a feeling of abhorrence. I
perceived that the sacred law concealed a mystery under the superficial
forms which are followed by the vulgar. When I grew up I happened to
hear a discourse by Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh of Rayy, and I found there the
mystery that was the object of my search. I continued to associate with
Yaḥyá until, on hearing reports of Sháh Shujá` Kirmání from a number of
persons who had been in his company, I felt a longing to visit him.
Accordingly I quitted Rayy and set out for Kirmán. Sháh Shujá`, however,
would not admit me to his society. ‘You have been nursed,’ said he, ‘in
the doctrine of hope (_rajá_), on which Yaḥyá takes his stand. No one
who has imbibed this doctrine can tread the path of purgation, because a
mechanical belief in hope produces indolence.’ I besought him earnestly,
and lamented and stayed at his door for twenty days. At length he
admitted me, and I remained in his society until he took me with him to
visit Abú Ḥafṣ at Níshápúr. On this occasion Sháh Shujá` was wearing a
coat (_qabá_). When Abú Ḥafṣ saw him he rose from his seat and advanced
to meet him, saying, ‘I have found in the coat what I sought in the
cloak (_`abá_).’ During our residence in Níshápúr I conceived a strong
desire to associate with Abú Ḥafṣ, but was restrained from devoting
myself to attendance on him by my respect for Sháh Shujá`. Meanwhile I
was imploring God to make it possible for me to enjoy the society of Abú
Ḥafṣ without hurting the feelings of Sháh Shujá`, who was a jealous man;
and Abú Ḥafṣ was aware of my wishes. On the day of our departure I
dressed myself for the journey, although I was leaving my heart with Abú
Ḥafṣ. Abú Ḥafṣ said familiarly to Sháh Shujá`, ‘I am pleased with this
youth; let him stay here.’ Sháh Shujá` turned to me and said, ‘Do as the
Shaykh bids thee.’ So I remained with Abú Ḥafṣ and experienced many
wonderful things in his company.” God caused Abú `Uthmán to pass through
three “stations” by means of three spiritual directors, and these
“stations”, which he indicated as belonging to them, he also made his
own: the “station” of hope through associating with Yaḥyá, the “station”
of jealousy through associating with Sháh Shujá`, and the “station” of
affection (_shafaqat_) through associating with Abú Ḥafṣ. It is
allowable for a disciple to associate with five or six or more directors
and to have a different “station” revealed to him by each one of them,
but it is better that he should not confuse his own “station” with
theirs. He should point to their perfection in that “station” and say:
“I gained this by associating with them, but they were superior to it.”
This is more in accordance with good manners, for spiritual adepts have
nothing to do with “stations” and “states”.
To Abú `Uthmán was due the divulgation of Ṣúfiism in Níshápúr and
Khurásán. He consorted with Junayd, Ruwaym, Yúsuf b. al-Ḥusayn, and
Muḥammad b. Faḍl al-Balkhí, and no Shaykh ever derived as much spiritual
advantage from his directors as he did. The people of Níshápúr set up a
pulpit that he might discourse to them on Ṣúfiism. He is the author of
sublime treatises on various branches of this science. It is related
that he said: “It behoves one whom God hath honoured with gnosis not to
dishonour himself by disobedience to God.” This refers to actions
acquired by Man and to his continual effort to keep the commandments of
God, because, even though you recognize that it is worthy of God not to
dishonour by disobedience anyone whom He has honoured with gnosis, yet
gnosis is God’s gift and disobedience is Man’s act. It is impossible
that one who is honoured with God’s gift should be dishonoured by his
own act. God honoured Adam with knowledge: He did not dishonour him on
account of his sin.
34. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH AḤMAD B. YAḤYÁ AL-JALLÁ.
He associated with Junayd and Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí and other great Shaykhs.
It is recorded that he said: “The mind of the gnostic is fixed on his
Lord; he does not pay attention to anything else,” because the gnostic
knows nothing except gnosis, and since gnosis is the whole capital of
his heart, his thoughts are entirely bent on vision (of God), for
distraction of thought produces cares, and cares keep one back from God.
He tells the following story: “One day I saw a beautiful Christian boy.
I was amazed at his loveliness and stood still opposite him. Junayd
passed by me. I said to him, ‘O master, will God burn a face like this
in Hell-fire?’ He answered: ‘O my son, this is a trick of the flesh, not
a look by which one takes warning. If you look with due consideration,
the same marvel is existent in every atom of the universe. You will soon
be punished for this want of respect.’ When Junayd turned away from me I
immediately forgot the Koran, and it did not come back to my memory
until I had for years implored God to help me and had repented of my
sin. Now I dare not pay heed to any created object or waste my time by
looking at things.”
35. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD RUWAYM B. AḤMAD.
He was an intimate friend of Junayd. In jurisprudence he followed
Dáwud.[82] and he was deeply versed in the sciences relating to the
interpretation and reading of the Koran. He was famed for the loftiness
of his state and the exaltedness of his station, and for his journeys in
detachment from the world (_tajríd_), and for his severe austerities.
Towards the end of his life he hid himself among the rich and gained the
Caliph’s confidence, but such was the perfection of his spiritual rank
that he was not thereby veiled from God. Hence Junayd said: “We are
devotees occupied (with the world), and Ruwaym is a man occupied (with
the world) who is devoted (to God).” He wrote several works on Ṣúfiism,
one of which, entitled _Ghalaṭ al-Wájidín_,[83] deserves particular
mention. I am exceedingly fond of it. One day he was asked, “How are
you?” He replied: “How is he whose religion is his lust and whose
thought is (fixed on) his worldly affairs, who is neither a pious
God-fearing man nor a gnostic and one of God’s elect?” This refers to
the vices of the soul that is subject to passion and regards lust as its
religion. Sensual men consider anyone to be devout who complies with
their inclinations, even though he be a heretic, and anyone to be
irreligious who thwarts their desires, even though he be a pietist. This
is a widely spread disease at the present time. God save us from
associating with any such person! Ruwaym doubtless gave this answer in
reference to the inward state of the questioner, which he truly
diagnosed, or it may be that God had temporarily allowed him to fall
into that condition, and that he described himself as he then was in
reality.
Footnote 82:
Dáwud of Iṣfahán, the founder of the Ẓáhirite school (Brockelmann, i,
183).
Footnote 83:
i.e. “The Error of Ecstatic Persons”.
36. ABÚ YA`QÚB YÚSUF B. AL-ḤUSAYN AL-RÁZÍ.
He was one of the ancient Shaykhs and great Imáms of his age. He was a
disciple of Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian, and consorted with a large number
of Shaykhs and performed service to them all. It is related that he
said: “The meanest of mankind is the covetous dervish and he who loves
his beloved, and the noblest of them is the veracious (_al-ṣiddíq_).”
Covetousness renders the dervish ignominious in both worlds, because he
is already despicable in the eyes of worldlings, and only becomes more
despicable if he builds any hopes on them. Wealth with honour is far
more perfect than poverty with disgrace. Covetousness causes the dervish
to incur the imputation of sheer mendacity. Again, he who loves his
beloved is the meanest of mankind, since the lover acknowledges himself
to be very despicable in comparison with his beloved and abases himself
before her, and this also is the result of desire. So long as Zulaykhá
desired Yúsuf, she became every day more mean: when she cast desire
away, God gave her beauty and youth back to her. It is a law that when
the lover advances, the beloved retires. If the lover is satisfied with
love alone, then the beloved draws near. In truth, the lover has honour
only while he has no desire for union. Unless his love diverts him from
all thought of union or separation, his love is weak.
37. ABU ´L-ḤASAN SUMNÚN B. `ABDALLÁH AL-KHAWWÁṢ.
He was held in great esteem by all the Shaykhs. They called him Sumnún
the Lover (_al-Muḥibb_), but he called himself Sumnún the Liar
(_al-Kadhdháb_). He suffered much persecution at the hands of Ghulám
al-Khalíl,[84] who had made himself known to the Caliph and courtiers by
his pretended piety and Ṣúfiism. This hypocrite spoke evil of the
Shaykhs and dervishes, hoping to bring about their banishment from Court
and to establish his own power. Fortunate indeed were Sumnún and those
Shaykhs to have only one adversary of this sort. In the present day
there are a hundred Ghulám al-Khalíls for every true spiritualist, but
what matter? Carrion is fit food for vultures. When Sumnún gained
eminence and popularity in Baghdád, Ghulám al-Khalíl began to intrigue.
A woman had fallen in love with Sumnún and made proposals to him, which
he refused. She went to Junayd, begging him to advise Sumnún to marry
her. On being sent away by Junayd, she came to Ghulám al-Khalíl and
accused Sumnún of having attempted her virtue. He listened eagerly to
her slanders, and induced the Caliph to command that Sumnún should be
put to death. When the Caliph was about to give the word to the
executioner his tongue stuck in his throat. The same night he dreamed
that his empire would last no longer than Sumnún’s life. Next day he
asked his pardon and restored him to favour. Sumnún is the author of
lofty sayings and subtle indications concerning the real nature of love.
On his way from the Ḥijáz the people of Fayd requested him to discourse
to them about this subject. He mounted the pulpit, but while he was
speaking all his hearers departed. Sumnún turned to the lamps and said:
“I am speaking to you.” Immediately all the lamps collapsed and broke
into small bits. It is related that he said: “A thing can be explained
only by what is more subtle than itself: there is nothing subtler than
love: by what, then, shall love be explained?” The meaning of this is
that love cannot be explained because explanation is an attribute of the
explainer. Love is an attribute of the Beloved, therefore no explanation
of its real nature is possible.
Footnote 84:
Abú `Abdalláh Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ghálib b. Khálid al-Baṣrí
al-Báhilí, generally known as Ghulám Khalíl, died in 275 A.H. He is
described by Abu ´l-Maḥásin (_Nujúm_, ii, 79, 1 ff.) as a
traditionist, ascetic, and saint. According to the _Tadhkirat
al-Awliyá_ (ii, 48, 4 ff.), he represented to the Caliph that Junayd,
Núrí, Shiblí, and other eminent Ṣúfís were freethinkers and heretics,
and urged him to put them to death.
38. ABU ´L-FAWÁRIS SHÁH SHUJÁ` AL-KIRMÁNÍ.
He was of royal descent. He associated with Abú Turáb Nakhshabí and many
other Shaykhs. Something has been said of him in the notice of Abú
`Uthmán al-Ḥírí. He composed a celebrated treatise on Ṣúfiism as well as
a book entitled _Mir´át al-Ḥukamá_.[85] It is recorded that he said:
“The eminent have eminence until they see it, and the saints have
saintship until they see it,” i.e., whoever regards his eminence loses
its reality, and whoever regards his saintship loses its reality. His
biographers relate that for forty years he never slept; then he fell
asleep and dreamed of God. “O Lord,” he cried, “I was seeking Thee in
nightly vigils, but I have found Thee in sleep.” God answered: “O Sháh,
you have found Me by means of those nightly vigils: if you had not
sought Me there, you would not have found Me here.”
Footnote 85:
i.e. “The Mirror of the Sages”.
39. `AMR B. `UTHMÁN AL-MAKKÍ.
He was one of the principal Ṣúfís, and is the author of celebrated works
on the mystical sciences. He became a disciple of Junayd after he had
seen Abú Sa`íd Kharráz and had associated with Nibájí.[86] He was the
Imám of his age in theology. It is related that he said: “Ecstasy does
not admit of explanation, because it is a secret between God and the
true believers.” Let men seek to explain it as they will, their
explanation is not that secret, inasmuch as all human power and effort
is divorced from the Divine mysteries. It is said that when `Amr came to
Iṣfahán a young man associated with him against the wish of his father.
The young man fell into a sickness. One day the Shaykh with a number of
friends came to visit him. He begged the Shaykh to bid the singer
(_qawwál_) chant a few verses, whereupon `Amr desired the singer to
chant—
_Má lí mariḍtu wa-lam ya`udní `á´id
Minkum wa-yamraḍu `abdukum fa-a`údu._
“How is it that when I fell ill none of you visited me,
Though I visit your slave when he falls ill?”
On hearing this the invalid left his bed and sat down, and the violence
of his malady was diminished. He said: “Give me some more.” So the
singer chanted—
_Wa-ashaddu min maraḍí `alayya ṣudúdukum
Wa-ṣudúdu `abdikumú `alayya shadídu._
“Your neglect is more grievous to me than my sickness;
It would grieve me to neglect your slave.”
The young man’s sickness departed from him. His father permitted him to
associate with `Amr and repented of the suspicion which he had harboured
in his heart, and the youth became an eminent Ṣúfí.
Footnote 86:
Sa`íd (Abú `Abdalláh) b. Yazíd al-Nibájí. See _Nafaḥát_, No. 86.
40. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD SAHL B. `ABDALLÁH AL-TUSTARÍ.
His austerities were great and his devotions excellent. He has fine
sayings on sincerity and the defects of human actions. The formal
divines say that he combined the Law and the Truth (_jama`a bayn
al-sharí`at wa ´l-ḥaqíqat_). This statement is erroneous, for the two
things have never been divided. The Law is the Truth, and the Truth is
the Law. Their assertion is founded on the fact that the sayings of this
Shaykh are more intelligible and easy to apprehend than is sometimes the
case. Inasmuch as God has joined the Law to the Truth, it is impossible
that His saints should separate them. If they be separated, one must
inevitably be rejected and the other accepted. Rejection of the Law is
heresy, and rejection of the Truth is infidelity and polytheism. Any
(proper) separation between them is made, not to establish a difference
of meaning, but to affirm the Truth, as when it is said: “The words
_there is no god save Allah_ are Truth, and the words _Muḥammad is the
Apostle of Allah_ are Law.” No one can separate the one from the other
without impairing his faith, and it is vain to wish to do so. In short,
the Law is a branch of the Truth: knowledge of God is Truth, and
obedience to His command is Law. These formalists deny whatever does not
suit their fancy, and it is dangerous to deny one of the fundamental
principles of the Way to God. Praise be to Allah for the faith which He
has given us! And it is related that he said: “The sun does not rise or
set upon anyone on the face of the earth who is not ignorant of God,
unless he prefers God to his own soul and spirit and to his present and
future life,” i.e., if anyone cleaves to self-interest, that is a proof
that he is ignorant of God, because knowledge of God requires
abandonment of forethought (_tadbír_), and abandonment of forethought is
resignation (_taslím_), whereas perseverance in forethought arises from
ignorance of predestination.
41. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD `ABDALLÁH MUḤAMMAD B. AL-FAḌL AL-BALKHÍ.
He was approved by the people of `Iráq as well as by those of Khurásán.
He was a pupil of Aḥmad b. Khaḍrúya, and Abú `Uthmán of Ḥíra had a great
affection for him. Having been expelled from Balkh by fanatics on
account of his love of Ṣúfiism, he went to Samarcand, where he passed
his life. It is related that he said: “He that has most knowledge of God
is he that strives hardest to fulfil His commandments, and follows most
closely the custom of His Prophet.” The nearer one is to God the more
eager one is to do His bidding, and the farther one is from God the more
averse one is to follow His Apostle. It is related that he said: “I
wonder at those who cross deserts and wildernesses to reach His House
and Sanctuary, because the traces of His prophets are to be found there:
why do not they cross their own passions and lusts to reach their
hearts, where they will find the traces of their Lord?” That is to say,
the heart is the seat of knowledge of God and is more venerable than the
Ka`ba, to which men turn in devotion. Men are ever looking towards the
Ka`ba, but God is ever looking towards the heart. Wherever the heart is,
my Beloved is there; wherever His decree is, my desire is there;
wherever the traces of my prophets[87] are, the eyes of those whom I
love are directed there.
Footnote 87:
So in all the texts.
42. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH MUḤAMMAD B. `ALÍ AL-TIRMIDHÍ.
He is the author of many excellent books which, by their eloquence,
declare the miracles vouchsafed to him, e.g., the _Khatm
al-Wiláyat_,[88] the _Kitáb al-Nahj_,[89] the _Nawádir al-Uṣúl_,[90] and
many more, such as the _Kitáb al-Tawḥíd_[91] and the _Kitáb `Adháb
al-Qabr_[92]: it would be tedious to mention them all. I hold him in
great veneration and am entirely devoted to him. My Shaykh said:
“Muḥammad is a union pearl that has no like in the whole world.” He has
also written works on the formal sciences, and is a trustworthy
authority for the traditions of the Prophet which he related. He began a
commentary on the Koran, but did not live long enough to finish it. The
completed portion is widely circulated among theologians. He studied
jurisprudence with an intimate friend of Abú Ḥanífa. The inhabitants of
Tirmidh call him Muḥammad Ḥakím, and the Ḥakímís, a Ṣúfí sect in that
region, are his followers. Many remarkable stories are told of him, as
for instance that he associated with the Apostle Khiḍr. His disciple,
Abú Bakr Warráq, relates that Khiḍr used to visit him every Sunday, and
that they conversed with each other. It is recorded that he said:
“Anyone who is ignorant of the nature of servantship (_`ubúdiyyat_) is
yet more ignorant of the nature of lordship (_rubúbiyyat_),” i.e.,
whoever does not know the way to knowledge of himself does not know the
way to knowledge of God, and whoever does not recognize the
contamination of human qualities does not recognize the purity of the
Divine attributes, inasmuch as the outward is connected with the inward,
and he who claims to possess the former without the latter makes an
absurd assertion. Knowledge of the nature of lordship depends on having
right principles of servantship, and is not perfect without them. This
is a very profound and instructive saying. It will be fully explained in
the proper place.
Footnote 88:
“The Seal of Saintship.”
Footnote 89:
“The Book of the Highway.”
Footnote 90:
“Choice Principles.”
Footnote 91:
“The Book of Unification.”
Footnote 92:
“The Book of the Torment of the Tomb.”
43. ABÚ BAKR MUḤAMMAD B. `UMAR AL-WARRÁQ.
He was a great Shaykh and ascetic. He had seen Aḥmad b. Khaḍrúya and
associated with Muḥammad b. `Alí. He is the author of books on rules of
discipline and ethics. The Ṣúfí Shaykhs have called him “The Instructor
of the Saints” (_mu´addib al-awliyá_). He relates the following story:
“Muḥammad b. `Alí handed to me some of his writings with the request
that I should throw them into the Oxus. I had not the heart to do so,
but placed them in my house and came to him and told him that I had
carried out his order. He asked me what I had seen. I replied,
‘Nothing.‘ He said, ‘You have not obeyed me; return and throw them into
the river.’ I returned, doubting the promised sign, and cast them into
the river. The waters parted and a chest appeared, with its lid open. As
soon as the papers fell into it, the lid closed and the waters joined
again and the chest vanished. I went back to him and told him what had
occurred. He answered, ‘Now you have thrown them in.’ I begged him to
explain the mystery. He said: ‘I composed a work on theology and
mysticism which could hardly be comprehended by the intellect. My
brother Khiḍr desired it of me, and God bade the waters bring it to
him.’”
It is related that Abú Bakr Warráq said: “There are three classes of
men—divines (_`ulamá_) and princes (_umará_) and dervishes (_fuqará_).
When the divines are corrupt, piety and religion are vitiated; when the
princes are corrupt, men’s livelihood is spoiled; and when the dervishes
are corrupt, men’s morals are depraved.” Accordingly, the corruption of
the divines consists in covetousness, that of the princes in injustice,
and that of the dervishes in hypocrisy. Princes do not become corrupt
until they turn their backs on divines, and divines do not become
corrupt until they associate with princes, and dervishes do not become
corrupt until they seek ostentation, because the injustice of princes is
due to want of knowledge, and the covetousness of divines is due to want
of piety, and the hypocrisy of dervishes is due to want of trust in God.
44. ABÚ SA`ID AḤMAD B. `ÍSÁ AL-KHARRÁZ.
He was the first who explained the doctrine of annihilation (_faná_) and
subsistence (_baqá_). He is the author of brilliant compositions and
sublime sayings and allegories. He had met Dhu ´l-Nún of Egypt, and
associated with Bishr and Sarí. It is related that concerning the words
of the Apostle, “Hearts are naturally disposed to love him who acts
kindly towards them,” he said: “Oh! I wonder at him who sees none acting
kindly towards him except God, how he does not incline to God with his
whole being,” inasmuch as true beneficence belongs to the Lord of
phenomenal objects and is conferred only upon those who have need of it;
how can he who needs beneficence from others bestow it upon anyone? God
is the King and Lord of all and hath need of none. Recognizing this, the
friends of God behold in every gift and benefit the Giver and
Benefactor. Their hearts are wholly taken captive by love of Him and
turned away from everything else.
45. ABU ´L-ḤASAN `ALÍ B. MUḤAMMAD AL-IṢFAHÁNÍ.
According to others, his name is `Alí b. Sahl. He was a great Shaykh.
Junayd and he wrote exquisite letters to one another, and `Amr b.
`Uthmán Makkí went to Iṣfahán to visit him. He consorted with Abú Turáb
and Junayd. He followed a praiseworthy Path in Ṣúfiism and one that was
peculiarly his own. He was adorned with acquiescence in God’s will and
self-discipline, and was preserved from mischiefs and contaminations. He
spoke eloquently on the theory and practice of mysticism, and lucidly
explained its difficulties and symbolical allusions. It is related that
he said: “Presence (_ḥuḍúr_) is better than certainty (_yaqín_), because
presence is an abiding state (_waṭanát_), whereas certainty is a
transient one (_khaṭarát_),” i.e., presence makes its abode in the heart
and does not admit forgetfulness, while certainty is a feeling that
comes and goes: hence those who are “present” (_ḥáḍirán_) are in the
sanctuary, and those who have certainty (_múqinán_) are only at the
gate. The subject of “absence” and “presence” will be discussed in a
separate chapter of this book.
And he said also: “From the time of Adam to the Resurrection people cry,
‘The heart, the heart!’ and I wish that I might find some one to
describe what the heart is or how it is, but I find none. People in
general give the name of ‘heart’ (_dil_) to that piece of flesh which
belongs to madmen and ecstatics and children, who really are without
heart (_bédil_). What, then, is this heart, of which I hear only the
name?” That is to say, if I call intellect the heart, it is not the
heart; and if I call spirit the heart, it is not the heart; and if I
call knowledge the heart, it is not the heart. All the evidences of the
Truth subsist in the heart, yet only the name of it is to be found.
46. ABU ´L-ḤASAN MUḤAMMAD B. ISMÁ`ÍL KHAYR AL-NASSÁJ.
He was a great Shaykh, and in his time discoursed with eloquence on
ethics and preached excellent sermons. He died at an advanced age. Both
Shiblí and Ibráhím Khawwáṣ were converted in his place of meeting. He
sent Shiblí to Junayd, wishing to observe the respect due to the latter.
He was a pupil of Sarí, and was contemporary with Junayd and Abu
´l-Ḥasan Núrí. Junayd held him in high regard, and Abú Ḥamza of Baghdád
treated him with the utmost consideration. It is related that he was
called Khayr al-Nassáj from the following circumstance. He left Sámarrá,
his native town, with the intention of performing the pilgrimage. At the
gate of Kúfa, which lay on his route, he was seized by a weaver of silk,
who cried out: “You are my slave, and your name is Khayr.” Deeming this
to come from God, he did not contradict the weaver, and remained many
years in his employment. Whenever his master said “Khayr!” he answered,
“At thy service” (_labbayk_), until the man repented of what he had done
and said to Khayr: “I made a mistake; you are not my slave.” So he
departed and went to Mecca, where he attained to such a degree that
Junayd said: “Khayr is the best of us” (_Khayr khayruná_). He used to
prefer to be called Khayr, saying: “It is not right that I should alter
a name which has been bestowed on me by a Moslem.” They relate that when
the hour of his death approached, it was time for the evening prayer. He
opened his eyes and looked at the Angel of Death and said: “Stop! God
save thee! Thou art only a servant who has received His orders, and I am
the same. That which thou art commanded to do (viz. to take my life)
will not escape thee, but that which I am commanded to do (viz. to
perform the evening prayer) will escape me: therefore let me do as I am
bidden, and then do as thou art bidden.” He then called for water and
cleansed himself, and performed the evening prayer and gave up his life.
On the same night he was seen in a dream and was asked: “What has God
done to thee?” He answered: “Do not ask me of this, but I have gained
release from your world.”
It is related that he said in his place of meeting: “God hath expanded
the breasts of the pious with the light of certainty, and hath opened
the eyes of the possessors of certainty with the light of the verities
of faith.” Certainty is indispensable to the pious, whose hearts are
expanded with the light of certainty, and those who have certainty
cannot do without the verities of faith, inasmuch as their intellectual
vision consists in the light of faith. Accordingly, where faith is
certainty is there, and where certainty is piety is there, for they go
hand in hand with each other.
47. ABÚ ḤAMZA AL-KHURÁSÁNÍ.
He is one of the ancient Shaykhs of Khurásán. He associated with Abú
Turáb, and had seen Kharráz.[93] He was firmly grounded in trust in God
(_tawakkul_). It is a well-known story that one day he fell into a pit.
After three days had passed a party of travellers approached. Abú Ḥamza
said to himself: “I will call out to them.” Then he said: “No; it is not
good that I seek aid from anyone except God, and I shall be complaining
of God if I tell them that my God has cast me into a pit and implore
them to rescue me.” When they came up and saw an open pit in the middle
of the road, they said: “For the sake of obtaining Divine recompense
(_thawáb_) we must cover this pit lest anyone should fall into it.” Abú
Ḥamza said: “I became deeply agitated and abandoned hope of life. After
they blocked the mouth of the pit and departed, I prayed to God and
resigned myself to die, and hoped no more of mankind. When night fell I
heard a movement at the top of the pit. I looked attentively. The mouth
of the pit was open, and I saw a huge animal like a dragon, which let
down its tail. I knew that God had sent it and that I should be saved in
this way. I took hold of its tail and it dragged me out. A heavenly
voice cried to me, ‘This is an excellent escape of thine, O Abú Ḥamza!
We have saved thee from death by means of a death’” (i.e. a deadly
monster).
Footnote 93:
See No. 44.
He was asked, “Who is the stranger (_gharíb_)?” He replied, “He who
shuns society,” because the dervish has no home or society either in
this world or the next, and when he is dissociated from phenomenal
existence he shuns everything, and then he is a stranger; and this is a
very lofty degree.
48. ABU ´L-`ABBÁS AḤMAD B. MASRÚQ.
He was one of the great men of Khurásán, and the Saints of God are
unanimously agreed that he was one of the _Awtád_. He associated with
the _Quṭb_, who is the pivot of the universe. On being asked to say who
the _Quṭb_ was, he did not declare his name but hinted that Junayd was
that personage. He had done service to the Forty who possess the rank of
fixity (_ṣáḥib tamkín_) and received instruction from them. It is
related that he said: “If anyone takes joy in aught except God, his joy
produces sorrow, and if anyone is not intimate with the service of his
Lord, his intimacy produces loneliness (_waḥshat_),” i.e., all save Him
is perishable, and whoever rejoices in what is perishable, when that
perishes becomes stricken with sorrow; and except His service all else
is vain, and when the vileness of created objects is made manifest, his
intimacy (with them) is wholly turned to loneliness: hence, the sorrow
and loneliness of the entire universe consist in regarding that which is
other (than God).
49. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH MUḤAMMAD[94] B. ISMÁ`ÍL AL-MAGHRIBÍ.
In his time he was an approved teacher and a careful guardian of his
disciples. Both Ibráhím Khawwáṣ and Ibráhím Shaybání were pupils of his.
He has lofty sayings and shining evidences, and he was perfectly
grounded in detachment from this world. It is related that he said: “I
never saw anyone more just than the world: if you serve her she will
serve you, and if you leave her she will leave you,” i.e. as long as you
seek her she will seek you, but when you turn away from her and seek God
she will flee from you, and worldly thoughts will no more cling to your
heart.
Footnote 94:
LB. have “Aḥmad”.
50. ABÚ `ALÍ AL-ḤASAN B. `ALÍ AL-JÚZAJÁNÍ.
He wrote brilliant works on the science of ethics and the detection of
spiritual cankers. He was a pupil of Muḥammad b. `Alí al-Tirmidhí, and a
contemporary of Abú Bakr Warráq. Ibráhím Samarqandí was a pupil of his.
It is related that he said: “All mankind are galloping on the
race-courses of heedlessness, relying upon idle fancies, while they
suppose themselves to be versed in the Truth and to be speaking from
Divine revelation.” This saying alludes to natural self-conceit and to
the pride of the soul. Men, though they are ignorant, have a firm belief
in their ignorance, especially ignorant Ṣúfí’s, who are the vilest
creatures of God, just as wise Ṣúfís are the noblest. The latter possess
the Truth and are without conceit, whereas the former possess conceit
and are without the Truth. They graze in the fields of heedlessness and
imagine that it is the field of saintship. They rely on fancy and
suppose it to be certainty. They go about with form and think it is
reality. They speak from their own lust and think it is a Divine
revelation. This they do because conceit is not expelled from a man’s
head save by vision of the majesty or the beauty of God: for in the
manifestation of His beauty they see Him alone, and their conceit is
annihilated, while in the revelation of His majesty they do not see
themselves, and their conceit does not intrude.
51. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD AḤMAD B. AL-ḤUSAYN AL-JURAYRÍ.
He was an intimate friend of Junayd, and also associated with Sahl b.
`Abdalláh. He was learned in every branch of science and was the Imám of
his day in jurisprudence, besides being well acquainted with theology.
His rank in Ṣúfiism was such that Junayd said to him: “Teach my pupils
discipline and train them!” He succeeded Junayd and sat in his chair. It
is related that he said: “The permanence of faith and the subsistence of
religions and the health of bodies depend on three qualities:
satisfaction (_iktifá_) and piety (_ittiqá_) and abstinence (_iḥtimá_):
if one is satisfied with God, his conscience becomes good; and if one
guards himself from what God has forbidden, his character becomes
upright; and if one abstains from what does not agree with him, his
constitution is brought into good order. The fruit of satisfaction is
pure knowledge of God, and the result of piety is excellence of moral
character, and the end of abstinence is equilibrium of constitution.”
The Apostle said, “He that prays much by night, his face is fair by
day,” and he also said that the pious shall come at the Resurrection
“with resplendent faces on thrones of light”.
52. ABU ´L-`ABBÁS AḤMAD B. MUḤAMMAD B. SAHL AL-ÁMULÍ.
He was always held in great respect by his contemporaries. He was versed
in the sciences of Koranic exegesis and criticism, and expounded the
subtleties of the Koran with an eloquence and insight peculiar to
himself. He was an eminent pupil of Junayd, and had associated with
Ibráhím Máristání. Abú Sa`íd Kharráz regarded him with the utmost
veneration, and used to declare that no one deserved the name of Ṣúfí
except him. It is related that he said: “Acquiescence in natural habits
prevents a man from attaining to the exalted degrees of spirituality,”
because natural dispositions are the instruments and organs of the
sensual part (_nafs_), which is the centre of “veiling” (_ḥijáb_)
whereas the spiritual part (_ḥaqíqat_) is the centre of revelation.
Natural dispositions become attached to two things: firstly, to this
world and its accessories, and secondly, to the next world and its
circumstances: to the former in virtue of homogeneousness, and to the
latter through imagination and in virtue of heterogeneousness and
non-cognition. Therefore they are attached to the notion of the next
world, not to its true idea, for if they knew it in reality, they would
break off connexion with this world, and nature would then have lost all
her power and spiritual things would be revealed. There can be no
harmony between the next world and human nature until the latter is
annihilated, because “in the next world is that which the heart of man
never conceived”. The worth (_khaṭar_) of the next world lies in the
fact that the way to it is full of danger (_khaṭar_). A thing that only
comes into one’s thoughts (_khawáṭir_) has little worth; and inasmuch as
the imagination is incapable of knowing the reality of the next world,
how can human nature become familiar with the true idea (_`ayn_)
thereof? It is certain that our natural faculties can be acquainted only
with the notion (_pindásht_) of the next world.
53. ABU ´L-MUGHÍTH AL-ḤUSAYN B. MANṢÚR AL-ḤALLÁJ.
He was an enamoured and intoxicated votary of Ṣúfiism. He had a strong
ecstasy and a lofty spirit. The Ṣúfí Shaykhs are at variance concerning
him. Some reject him, while others accept him. Among the latter class
are `Amr b. `Uthmán al-Makkí, Abú Ya`qúb Nahrajúrí, Abú Ya`qúb Aqṭa`,
`Alí b. Sahl Iṣfahání, and others. He is accepted, moreover, by Ibn
`Aṭá, Muḥammad b. Khafíf, Abu ´l-Qásim Naṣrábádí, and all the moderns.
Others, again, suspend their judgment about him, e.g. Junayd and Shiblí
and Jurayrí and Ḥuṣrí. Some accuse him of magic and matters coming under
that head, but in our days the Grand Shaykh Abú Sa`íd b. Abi ´l-Khayr
and Shaykh Abu ´l-Qásim Gurgání and Shaykh Abu ´l-`Abbás Shaqání looked
upon him with favour, and in their eyes he was a great man. The Master
Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí remarks that if al-Ḥalláj was a genuine
spiritualist he is not to be banned on the ground of popular
condemnation, and if he was banned by Ṣúfiism and rejected by the Truth
he is not to be approved on the ground of popular approval. Therefore we
leave him to the judgment of God, and honour him according to the tokens
of the Truth which we have found him to possess. But of all these
Shaykhs only a few deny the perfection of his merit and the purity of
his spiritual state and the abundance of his ascetic practices. It would
be an act of dishonesty to omit his biography from this book. Some
persons pronounce his outward behaviour to be that of an infidel, and
disbelieve in him and charge him with trickery and magic, and suppose
that Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr Ḥalláj is that heretic of Baghdád who was the
master of Muḥammad b. Zakariyyá[95] and the companion of Abú Sa`íd the
Carmathian; but this Ḥusayn whose character is in dispute was a Persian
and a native of Bayḍá, and his rejection by the Shaykhs was due, not to
any attack on religion and doctrine, but to his conduct and behaviour.
At first he was a pupil of Sahl b. `Abdalláh, whom he left, without
asking permission, in order to attach himself to `Amr b. `Uthmán Makkí.
Then he left `Amr b. `Uthmán, again without asking permission, and
sought to associate with Junayd, but Junayd would not receive him. This
is the reason why he is banned by all the Shaykhs. Now, one who is
banned on account of his conduct is not banned on account of his
principles. Do you not see that Shiblí said: “Al-Ḥalláj and I are of one
belief, but my madness saved me, while his intelligence destroyed him”?
Had his religion been suspected, Shiblí would not have said: “Al-Ḥalláj
and I are of one belief.” And Muḥammad b. Khafíf said: “He is a divinely
learned man” (_`álim-i rabbání_). Al-Ḥalláj is the author of brilliant
compositions and allegories and polished sayings in theology and
jurisprudence. I have seen fifty works by him at Baghdád and in the
neighbouring districts, and some in Khúzistán and Fárs and Khurásán. All
his sayings are like the first visions of novices; some of them are
stronger, some weaker, some easier, some more unseemly than others. When
God bestows a vision on anyone, and he endeavours to describe what he
has seen with the power of ecstasy and the help of Divine grace, his
words are obscure, especially if he expresses himself with haste and
self-admiration: then they are more repugnant to the imaginations, and
incomprehensible to the minds, of those who hear them, and then people
say, “This is a sublime utterance,” either believing it or not, but
equally ignorant of its meaning whether they believe or deny. On the
other hand, when persons of true spirituality and insight have visions,
they make no effort to describe them, and do not occupy themselves with
self-admiration on that account, and are careless of praise and blame
alike, and are undisturbed by denial and belief.
Footnote 95:
The famous physician Abú Bakr Muḥammad b. Zakariyyá al-Rází, who died
about 320 A.H. See Brockelmann, i, 233.
It is absurd to charge al-Ḥalláj with being a magician. According to the
principles of Muḥammadan orthodoxy, magic is real, just as miracles are
real; but the manifestation of magic in the state of perfection is
infidelity, whereas the manifestation of miracles in the state of
perfection is knowledge of God (_ma`rifat_), because the former is the
result of God’s anger, while the latter is the corollary of His being
well pleased. I will explain this more fully in the chapter on the
affirmation of miracles. By consent of all Sunnites who are endowed with
perspicacity, no Moslem can be a magician and no infidel can be held in
honour, for contraries never meet. Ḥusayn, as long as he lived, wore the
garb of piety, consisting in prayer and praise of God and continual
fasts and fine sayings on the subject of Unification. If his actions
were magic, all this could not possibly have proceeded from him.
Consequently, they must have been miracles, and miracles are vouchsafed
only to a true saint. Some orthodox theologians reject him on the ground
that his sayings are pantheistic (_ba-ma`ni-yi imtizáj ú ittiḥád_), but
the offence lies solely in the expression, not in the meaning. A person
overcome with rapture has not the power of expressing himself correctly;
besides, the meaning of the expression may be difficult to apprehend, so
that people mistake the writer’s intention, and repudiate, not his real
meaning, but a notion which they have formed for themselves. I have seen
at Baghdád and in the adjoining districts a number of heretics who
pretend to be the followers of al-Ḥalláj and make his sayings an
argument for their heresy (_zandaqa_) and call themselves Ḥallájís. They
spoke of him in the same terms of exaggeration (_ghuluww_) as the
Ráfiḍís (Shí`ites) apply to `Alí. I will refute their doctrines in the
chapter concerning the different Ṣúfí sects. In conclusion, you must
know that the sayings of al-Ḥalláj should not be taken as a model,
inasmuch as he was an ecstatic (_maghlúb andar ḥál-i khud_), not firmly
settled (_mutamakkin_), and a man needs to be firmly settled before his
sayings can be considered authoritative. Therefore, although he is dear
to my heart, yet his “path” is not soundly established on any principle,
and his state is not fixed in any position, and his experiences are
largely mingled with error. When my own visions began I derived much
support from him, that is to say, in the way of evidences (_baráhín_).
At an earlier time I composed a book in explanation of his sayings and
demonstrated their sublimity by proofs and arguments. Furthermore, in
another work, entitled _Minháj_, I have spoken of his life from
beginning to end; and now I have given some account of him in this
place. How can a doctrine whose principles require to be corroborated
with so much caution be followed and imitated? Truth and idle fancy
never agree. He is continually seeking to fasten upon some erroneous
theory. It is related that he said: _Al-alsinat mustanṭiqát taḥta
nuṭqihá mustahlikát_,[96] i.e. “speaking tongues are the destruction of
silent hearts”. Such expressions are entirely mischievous. Expression of
the meaning of reality is futile. If the meaning exists it is not lost
by expression, and if it is non-existent it is not created by
expression. Expression only produces an unreal notion and leads the
student mortally astray by causing him to imagine that the expression is
the real meaning.
Footnote 96:
Literally, “The tongues desire to speak, (but) under their speech they
desire to perish.”
54. ABÚ ISḤÁQ IBRÁHÍM B. AḤMAD AL-KHAWWÁṢ.
He attained a high degree in the doctrine of trust in God (_tawakkul_).
He met many Shaykhs, and many signs and miracles were vouchsafed to him.
He is the author of excellent works on the ethics of Ṣúfiism. It is
related that he said: “All knowledge is comprised in two sentences: ‘do
not trouble yourself with anything that is done for you, and do not
neglect anything that you are bound to do for yourself,’” i.e., do not
trouble yourself with destiny, for what is destined from eternity will
not be changed by your efforts, and do not neglect His commandment, for
you will be punished if you neglect it. He was asked what wonders he had
seen. “Many wonders,” he replied, “but the most wonderful was that the
Apostle Khiḍr begged me to let him associate with me, and I refused. Not
that I desired any better companion, but I feared that I should depend
on him rather than on God, and that my trust in God would be impaired by
consorting with him, and that in consequence of performing a work of
supererogation I should fail to perform a duty incumbent on me.” This is
the degree of perfection.
55. ABÚ ḤAMZA AL-BAGHDÁDÍ AL-BAZZÁZ.
He was one of the principal Ṣúfí scholastic theologians
(_mutakallimán_). He was a pupil of Ḥárith Muḥásibí, and associated with
Sarí and was contemporary with Núrí and Khayr Nassáj. He used to preach
in the Ruṣáfa mosque at Baghdád. He was versed in Koranic exegesis and
criticism, and related Apostolic Traditions on trustworthy authority. It
was he who was with Núrí when the latter was persecuted and when God
delivered the Ṣúfís from death. I will tell this story in the place
where Núrí’s doctrine is explained. It is recorded that Abú Ḥamza said:
“If thy ‘self’ (_nafs_) is safe from thee, thou hast done all that is
due to it; and if mankind are safe from thee, thou hast paid all that is
due to them,” i.e., there are two obligations, one which thou owest to
thy “self” and one which thou owest to others. If thou refrain thy
“self” from sin and seek for it the path of future salvation, thou hast
fulfilled thy obligation towards it; and if thou make others secure from
thy wickedness and do not wish to injure them, thou hast fulfilled thy
obligation towards them. Endeavour that no evil may befall thy “self” or
others from thee: then occupy thyself with fulfilling thy obligation to
God.
56. ABÚ BAKR MUḤAMMAD B. MÚSÁ AL-WÁSIṬÍ.
He was a profound theosophist, praiseworthy in the eyes of all the
Shaykhs. He was one of the early disciples of Junayd. His abstruse
manner of expression caused his sayings to be regarded with suspicion by
formalists (_ẕáḥiriyán_). He found peace in no city until he came to
Merv. The inhabitants of Merv welcomed him on account of his amiable
disposition—for he was a virtuous man—and listened to his sayings; and
he passed his life there. It is related that he said: “Those who
remember their praise of God (_dhikr_) are more heedless than those who
forget their praise,” because if anyone forgets the praise, it is no
matter; but it does matter if he remembers the praise and forgets God.
Praise is not the same thing as the object of praise. Neglect of the
object of praise combined with thought of the praise approximates to
heedlessness more closely than neglect of the praise without thought. He
who forgets, in his forgetfulness and absence, does not think that he is
present (with God), but he who remembers, in his remembrance and absence
from the object of praise, thinks that he is present (with God).
Accordingly, to think that one is present when one is not present comes
nearer to heedlessness than to be absent without thinking that one is
present, for conceit (_pindásht_) is the ruin of those who seek the
Truth. The more conceit, the less reality, and _vice versâ_. Conceit
really springs from the suspiciousness (_tuhmat_) of the intellect,
which is produced by the insatiable desire (_nahmat_) of the lower soul;
and holy aspiration (_himmat_) has nothing in common with either of
these qualities. The fundamental principle of remembrance of God
(_dhikr_) is either in absence (_ghaybat_) or in presence (_ḥuḍúr_).
When anyone is absent from himself and present with God, that state is
not presence, but contemplation (_musháhadat_); and when anyone is
absent from God and present with himself, that state is not remembrance
of God (_dhikr_), but absence; and absence is the result of heedlessness
(_ghaflat_). The truth is best known to God.
57. ABÚ BAKR B. DULAF B. JAḤDAR AL-SHIBLÍ.
He was a great and celebrated Shaykh. He had a blameless spiritual life
and enjoyed perfect communion with God. He was subtle in the use of
symbolism, wherefore one of the moderns says: “The wonders of the world
are three: the symbolical utterances (_ishárát_) of Shiblí, and the
mystical sayings (_nukat_) of Murta`ish, and the anecdotes (_ḥikáyát_)
of Ja`far.“[97] At first he was chief chamberlain to the Caliph, but he
was converted in the assembly-room (_majlis_) of Khayr al-Nassáj and
became a disciple of Junayd. He made the acquaintance of a large number
of Shaykhs. It is related that he explained the verse ”_Tell the
believers to refrain their eyes_” (Kor. xxiv, 30) as follows: “O
Muḥammad, tell the believers to refrain their bodily eyes from what is
unlawful, and to refrain their spiritual eyes from everything except
God,” i.e. not to look at lust and to have no thought except the vision
of God. It is a mark of heedlessness to follow one’s lusts and to regard
unlawful things, and the greatest calamity that befalls the heedless is
that they are ignorant of their own faults; for anyone who is ignorant
here shall also be ignorant hereafter: “_Those who are blind in this
world shall be blind in the next world_” (Kor. xvii, 74). In truth,
until God clears the desire of lust out of a man’s heart the bodily eye
is not safe from its hidden dangers, and until God establishes the
desire of Himself in a man’s heart the spiritual eye is not safe from
looking at other than Him.
Footnote 97:
See No. #58:.
It is related that one day when Shiblí came into the bazaar, the people
said, “This is a madman.” He replied: “You think I am mad, and I think
you are sensible: may God increase my madness and your sense!” i.e.,
inasmuch as my madness is the result of intense love of God, while your
sense is the result of great heedlessness, may God increase my madness
in order that I may become nearer and nearer to Him, and may He increase
your sense in order that you may become farther and farther from Him.
This he said from jealousy (_ghayrat_) that anyone should be so beside
one’s self as not to separate love of God from madness and not to
distinguish between them in this world or the next.
58. ABÚ MUḤAMMAD JA`FAR B. NUṢAYR AL-KHULDÍ.
He is the well-known biographer of the Saints. One of the most eminent
and oldest of Junayd’s pupils, he was profoundly versed in the various
branches of Ṣúfiism and paid the utmost respect to the Shaykhs. He has
many sublime sayings. In order to avoid spiritual conceit, he attributed
to different persons the anecdotes which he composed in illustration of
each topic. It is related that he said: “Trust in God is equanimity
whether you find anything or no,” i.e., you are not made glad by having
daily bread or sorrowful by not having it, because it is the property of
the Lord, who has a better right than you either to preserve or to
destroy: do not interfere, but let the Lord dispose of His own. Ja`far
relates that he went to Junayd and found him suffering from a fever. “O
Master,” he cried, “tell God in order that He may restore thee to
health.” Junayd said: “Last night I was about to tell Him, but a voice
whispered in my heart, ‘Thy body belongs to Me: I keep it well or ill,
as I please. Who art thou, that thou shouldst interfere with My
property.’”
59. ABÚ `ALÍ MUḤAMMAD B. AL-QÁSIM AL-RÚDBÁRÍ.
He was a great Ṣúfí and of royal descent. Many signs and virtues were
vouchsafed to him. He discoursed lucidly on the arcana of Ṣúfiism. It is
related that he said: “He who desires (_muríd_) desires for himself only
what God desires for him, and he who is desired (_murád_) does not
desire anything in this world or the next except God.” Accordingly, he
who is satisfied with the will of God must abandon his own will in order
that he may desire, whereas the lover has no will of his own that he
should have any object of desire. He who desires God desires only what
God desires, and he whom God desires desires only God. Hence
satisfaction (_riḍá_) is one of the “stations” (_maqámát_) of the
beginning, and love (_maḥabbat_) is one of the “states” (_aḥwál_) of the
end. The “stations” are connected with the realization of servantship
(_`ubúdiyyat_), while ecstasy (_mashrab_) leads to the corroboration of
Lordship (_rubúbiyyat_). This being so, the desirer (_muríd_) subsists
in himself, and the desired (_murád_) subsists in God.
60. ABU ´L-`ABBÁS QÁSIM B. AL-MAHDÍ[98] AL-SAYYÁRÍ.
He associated with Abú Bakr Wásiṭí and derived instruction from many
Shaykhs. He was the most accomplished (_aẕraf_) of the Ṣúfís in
companionship (_ṣuḥbat_) and the most sparing (_azhad_) of them in
friendship (_ulfat_). He is the author of lofty sayings and praiseworthy
compositions. It is related that he said: “Unification (_al-tawḥíd_) is
this: that nothing should occur to your mind except God.” He belonged to
a learned and influential family of Merv. Having inherited a large
fortune from his father, he gave the whole of it in return for two of
the Apostle’s hairs. Through the blessing of those hairs God bestowed on
him a sincere repentance. He fell into the company of Abú Bakr Wásiṭí,
and attained such a high degree that he became the leader of a Ṣúfí
sect. When he was on the point of death, he gave directions that those
hairs should be placed in his mouth. His tomb is still to be seen at
Merv, and people come thither to seek what they desire; and their
prayers are granted.
Footnote 98:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 167, has “Qásim b. al-Qásim al-Mahdí”.
61. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH MUḤAMMAD B. KHAFÍF.
He was the Imám of his age in diverse sciences. He was renowned for his
mortifications and for his convincing elucidation of mystical truths.
His spiritual attainments are clearly shown by his compositions. He was
acquainted with Ibn `Aṭá and Shiblí and Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr and Jurayrí,
and associated at Mecca with Abú Ya`qúb Nahrajúrí. He made excellent
journeys in detachment from the world (_tajríd_). He was of royal
descent, but God bestowed on him repentance, so that he turned his back
on the glories of this world. He is held in high esteem by
spiritualists. It is related that he said: “Unification consists in
turning away from nature,” because the natures of mankind are all veiled
from the bounties and blind to the beneficence of God. Hence no one can
turn to God until he has turned away from nature, and the “natural” man
(_ṣáḥib ṭab`_) is unable to apprehend the reality of Unification, which
is revealed to you only when you see the corruption of your own nature.
62. ABÚ `UTHMÁN SA`ÍD B. SALLÁM AL-MAGHRIBÍ.
He was an eminent spiritualist of the class who have attained “fixity”
(_ahl-i tamkín_), and was profoundly versed in various departments of
knowledge. He practised austerities, and is the author of many notable
sayings and excellent proofs concerning the observation of spiritual
blemishes (_ru´yat-i áfát_). It is related that he said: “Whenever
anyone prefers association with the rich to sitting with the poor God
afflicts him with spiritual death.” The terms “association” (_ṣuḥbat_)
and “sitting with” (_mujálasat_) are employed, because a man turns away
from the poor only when he has sat with them, not when he has associated
with them; for there is no turning away in association. When he leaves
off sitting with the poor in order to associate with the rich, his heart
becomes dead to supplication (_niyáz_) and his body is caught in the
toils of covetousness (_áz_). Since the result of turning away from
_mujálasat_ is spiritual death, how should there be any turning away
from _ṣuḥbat_? The two terms are clearly distinguished from each other
in this saying.
63.ABU ´L-QÁSIM IBRÁHÍM B. MUḤAMMAD B. MAḤMÚD AL-NAṢRÁBÁDÍ.
He was like a king in Níshápúr, save that the glory of kings is in this
world, while his was in the next world. Original sayings and exalted
signs were vouchsafed to him. Himself a pupil of Shiblí, he was the
master of the later Shaykhs of Khurásán. He was the most learned and
devout man of his age. It is recorded that he said: “Thou art between
two relationships: one to Adam, the other to God. If thou claim
relationship to Adam, thou wilt enter the arenas of lust and the places
of corruption and error; for by this claim thou seekest to realize thy
humanity (_bashariyyat_). God hath said: ‘_Verily, he was unjust and
foolish_’ (Kor. xxxiii, 72). If, however, thou claim relationship to
God, thou wilt enter the stations of revelation and evidence and
protection (from sin) and saintship; for by this claim thou seekest to
realize thy servantship (_`ubúdiyyat_). God hath said: ‘_The servants of
the Merciful are those who walk on the earth meekly_’ (Kor. xxv, 64).“
Relationship to Adam ends at the Resurrection, whereas the relationship
of being a servant of God subsists always and is unalterable. When a man
refers himself to himself or to Adam, the utmost that he can reach is to
say: ”_Verily, I have injured myself_“ (Kor. xxviii, 15); but when he
refers himself to God, the son of Adam is in the same case as those of
whom God hath said: ”_O My servants, there is no fear for you this day_”
(Kor. xliii, 68).
64. ABU ´L-ḤASAN `ALÍ B. IBRÁHÍM AL-ḤUṢRÍ.
He is one of the great Imáms of the Ṣúfís and was unrivalled in his
time. He has lofty sayings and admirable explanations in all spiritual
matters. It is related that he said: “Leave me alone in my affliction!
Are not ye children of Adam, whom God formed with His own hand and
breathed a spirit into him and caused the angels to bow down to him?
Then He commanded him to do something, and he disobeyed. If the first of
the wine-jar is dregs, what will its last be?” That is to say: “When a
man is left to himself he is all disobedience, but when Divine favour
comes to his help he is all love. Now regard the beauty of Divine favour
and compare with it the ugliness of thy behaviour, and pass thy whole
life in this.”
I have mentioned some of the ancient Ṣúfís whose example is
authoritative. If I had noticed them all and had set forth their lives
in detail and had included the anecdotes respecting them, my purpose
would not have been accomplished, and this book would have run to great
length. Now I will add some account of the modern Ṣúfís.
CHAPTER XII.
CONCERNING THE PRINCIPAL ṢÚFÍS OF RECENT TIMES.
You must know that in our days there are some persons who cannot endure
the burden of discipline (_riyáḍat_) and seek authority (_riyásat_)
without discipline, and think that all Ṣúfís are like themselves; and
when they hear the sayings of those who have passed away and see their
eminence and read of their devotional practices they examine themselves,
and finding that they are far inferior to the Shaykhs of old they no
longer attempt to emulate them, but say: “We are not as they, and there
is none like them in our time.” Their assertion is absurd, for God never
leaves the earth without a proof (_ḥujjat_) or the Moslem community
without a saint, as the Apostle said: “One sect of my people shall
continue in goodness and truth until the hour of the Resurrection.” And
he said also: “There shall always be in my people forty who have the
nature of Abraham.”
Some of those whom I shall mention in this chapter are already deceased,
and some are still living.
1. ABU ´L-`ABBÁS AḤMAD B. MUḤAMMAD AL-QAṢṢÁB.
He associated with the leading Shaykhs of Transoxania. He was famed for
his lofty spiritual endowments, his true sagacity, his abundant
evidences, ascetic practices, and miracles. Abú `Abdalláh Khayyáṭí, the
Imám of Ṭabaristán, says of him: “It is one of God’s bounties that He
has made a person who was never taught able to answer our questions
about any difficulty touching the principles of religion and the
subtleties of Unification.” Although Abu ´l-Abbás Qaṣṣáb was illiterate
(_ummí_), he discoursed in sublime fashion concerning the science of
Ṣúfiism and theology. I have heard many stories of him, but my rule in
this book is brevity. One day a camel, with a heavy burden, was going
through the market-place at Ámul, which is always muddy. The camel fell
and broke its leg. While the lad in charge of it was lamenting and
lifting his hands to implore the help of God, and the people were about
to take the load off its back, the Shaykh passed by, and asked what was
the matter. On being informed, he seized the camel’s bridle and turned
his face to the sky and said: “O Lord! make the leg of this camel whole.
If Thou wilt not do so, why hast Thou let my heart be melted by the
tears of a lad?” The camel immediately got up and went on its way.
It is stated that he said: “All mankind, whether they will or no, must
reconcile themselves to God, or else they will suffer pain,” because,
when you are reconciled to Him in affliction, you see only the Author of
affliction, and the affliction itself does not come; and if you are not
reconciled to Him, affliction comes and your heart is filled with
anguish. God having predestined our satisfaction and dissatisfaction,
does not alter His predestination: therefore our satisfaction with His
decrees is a part of our pleasure. Whenever anyone reconciles himself to
Him, that man’s heart is rejoiced; and whenever anyone turns away from
Him, that man is distressed by the coming of destiny.
2. ABÚ `ALÍ ḤASAN B. MUḤAMMAD AL-DAQQÁQ.
He was the leading authority in his department (of science) and had no
rival among his contemporaries. He was lucid in exposition and eloquent
in speech as regards the revelation of the way to God. He had seen many
Shaykhs and associated with them. He was a pupil of Naṣrábádi[99] and
used to be a preacher (_tadhkír kardí_). It is related that he said:
“Whoever becomes intimate with anyone except God is weak in his
(spiritual) state, and whoever speaks of anyone except God is false in
his speech,” because intimacy with anyone except God springs from not
knowing God sufficiently, and intimacy with Him is friendlessness in
regard to others, and the friendless man does not speak of others.
Footnote 99:
See Chapter XI, No. 63.
I heard an old man relate that one day he went to the place where
al-Daqqáq held his meetings, with the intention of asking him about the
state of those who trust in God (_mutawakkilán_). Al-Daqqáq was wearing
a fine turban manufactured in Ṭabaristán, which the old man coveted. He
said to al-Daqqáq: “What is trust in God?” The Shaykh replied: “To
refrain from coveting people’s turbans.” With these words he flung his
turban in front of the questioner.
3. ABU ´L-ḤASAN `ALÍ B. AḤMAD AL-KHURQÁNÍ.
He was a great Shaykh and was praised by all the Saints in his time.
Shaykh Abú Sa`íd visited him, and they conversed with each other on
every topic. When he was about to take leave he said to al-Khurqání: “I
choose you to be my successor.” I have heard from Ḥasan Mu´addib, who
was the servant of Abú Sa`íd, that when Abú Sa`íd came into the presence
of al-Khurqání, he did not speak another word, but listened and only
spoke by way of answering what was said by the latter. Ḥasan asked him
why he had been so silent. He replied: “One interpreter is enough for
one theme.” And I heard the Master, Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí, say: “When I
came to Khurqán, my eloquence departed and I no longer had any power to
express myself, on account of the veneration with which that spiritual
director inspired me; and I thought that I had been deposed from my own
saintship.”
It is related that he said: “There are two ways, one wrong and one
right. The wrong way is Man’s way to God, and the right way is God’s way
to Man. Whoever says he has attained to God has not attained; but when
anyone says that he has been made to attain to God, know that he has
really attained.” It is not a question of attaining or not attaining,
and of salvation or non-salvation, but one of being _caused_ to attain
or not to attain, and of being _given_ salvation or being not given
salvation.
4. ABÚ `ABDALLÁH MUḤAMMAD B. `ALÍ, GENERALLY KNOWN AS AL-DÁSTÁNÍ.
He resided at Bisṭám. He was learned in various branches of science, and
is the author of polished discourses and fine symbolical indications. He
found an excellent successor in Shaykh Sahlagí, who was the Imám of
those parts. I have heard from Sahlagí some of his spiritual utterances
(_anfás_), which are very sublime and admirable. He says, for example:
“Unification, coming from thee, is existent (_mawjúd_), but thou in
unification art non-existent (_mafqúd_),” i.e. unification, when it
proceeds from thee, is faultless (_durust_), but thou art faulty in
unification, because thou dost not fulfil its requirements. The lowest
degree in unification is the negation of thy personal control over
anything that thou hast, and the affirmation of thy absolute submission
to God in all thy affairs. Shaykh Sahlagí relates as follows: “Once the
locusts came to Bisṭám in such numbers that every tree and field was
black with them. The people cried aloud for help. The Shaykh asked me:
‘What is all this pother?’ I told him that the locusts had come and that
the people were distressed in consequence. He rose and went up to the
roof and looked towards heaven. The locusts immediately began to fly
away. By the hour of the afternoon prayer not one was left, and nobody
lost even a blade of grass.”
5. ABÚ SA`ÍD FAḌLALLÁH B. MUḤAMMAD AL-MAYHANÍ.
He was the sultan of his age and the ornament of the Mystic Path. All
his contemporaries were subject to him, some through their sound
perception, and some through their excellent belief, and some through
the strong influence of their spiritual feelings. He was versed in the
different branches of science. He had a wonderful religious experience
and an extraordinary power of reading men’s secret thoughts. Besides
this he had many remarkable powers and evidences, of which the effects
are manifest at the present day. In early life he left Mihna (Mayhana)
and came to Sarakhs in order to study. He attached himself to Abú `Alí
Záhir, from whom he learned in one day as much as is contained in three
lectures, and he used to spend in devotion the three days that he had
saved in this manner. The saint of Sarakhs at that time was Abu ´l-Faḍl
Ḥasan. One day, when Abú Sa`íd was walking by the river of Sarakhs, Abu
´l-Faḍl met him and said: “Your way is not that which you are taking:
take your own way.” The Shaykh did not attach himself to him, but
returned to his native town and engaged in asceticism and austerities
until God opened to him the door of guidance and raised him to the
highest rank. I heard the following story from Shaykh Abú Muslim Fárisí:
“I had always,” he said, “been on unfriendly terms with the Shaykh. Once
I set out to pay him a visit. My patched frock was so dirty that it had
become like leather. When I entered his presence, I found him sitting on
a couch, dressed in a robe of Egyptian linen. I said to myself: ‘This
man claims to be a dervish (_faqír_) with all these worldly encumbrances
(_`alá´iq_), while I claim to be a dervish with all this detachment from
the world (_tajríd_). How can I agree with this man?’ He read my
thoughts, and raising his head cried: ‘O Abú Muslim, in what _díwán_
have you found that the name of dervish is applied to anyone whose heart
subsists in the contemplation of God?’ i.e. those who contemplate God
are rich in God, whereas dervishes (_fuqará_) are occupied with
self-mortification. I repented of my conceit and asked God to pardon me
for such an unseemly thought.”
And it is related that he said: “Ṣúfiism is the subsistence of the heart
with God without any mediation.” This alludes to contemplation
(_musháhadat_), which is violence of love, and absorption of human
attributes in realizing the vision of God, and their annihilation by the
everlastingness of God. I will discuss the nature of contemplation in
the chapter which treats of the Pilgrimage.
On one occasion Abú Sa`íd set out from Níshápúr towards Ṭús. While he
was passing through a mountainous ravine his feet felt cold in his
boots. A dervish who was then with him says: “I thought of tearing my
waist-cloth (_fúṭa_) into two halves and wrapping them round his feet;
but I could not bring myself to do it, as my _fúṭa_ was a very fine one.
When we arrived at Ṭús I attended his meeting and asked him to tell me
the difference between suggestions of the Devil (_waswás_) and Divine
inspiration (_ilhám_). He answered: ‘It was a Divine inspiration that
urged you to tear your _fúṭa_ into two pieces for the sake of warming my
feet; and it was a diabolic suggestion that hindered you from doing
so.’” He performed a whole series of miracles of this kind which are
wrought by spiritual adepts.
6. ABU ´L-FAḌL MUḤAMMAD B. AL-ḤASAN AL-KHUTTALÍ.
He is the teacher whom I follow in Ṣúfiism. He was versed in the science
of Koranic exegesis and in traditions (_riwáyát_). In Ṣúfiism he held
the doctrine of Junayd. He was a pupil of Ḥuṣrí[100] and a companion of
Sírawání, and was contemporary with Abú `Amr Qazwíní and Abu ´l-Ḥasan b.
Sáliba. He spent sixty years in sincere retirement from the world, for
the most part on Mount Lukám. He displayed many signs and proofs (of
saintship), but he did not wear the garb or adopt the external fashions
of the Ṣúfís, and he used to treat formalists with severity. I never saw
any man who inspired me with greater awe than he did. It is related that
he said: “The world is but a single day, in which we are fasting,” i.e.,
we get nothing from it, and are not occupied with it, because we have
perceived its corruption and its “veils” and have turned our backs upon
it. Once I was pouring water on his hands in order that he might purify
himself. The thought occurred to me: “Inasmuch as everything is
predestined, why should free men make themselves the slaves of spiritual
directors in the hope of having miracles vouchsafed to them?” The Shaykh
said: “O my son, I know what you are thinking. Be assured that there is
a cause for every decree of Providence. When God wishes to bestow a
crown and a kingdom on a guardsman’s son (_`awán-bacha_), He gives him
repentance and employs him in the service of one of His friends, in
order that this service may be the means of his obtaining the gift of
miracles.” Many such fine sayings he uttered to me every day. He died at
Bayt al-Jinn, a village situated at the head of a mountain pass between
Bániyás[101] and the river of Damascus. While he lay on his death-bed,
his head resting on my bosom (and at that time I was feeling hurt, as
men often do, by the behaviour of a friend of mine), he said to me: “O
my son, I will tell thee one article of belief which, if thou holdest it
firmly, will deliver thee from all troubles. Whatever good or evil God
creates, do not in any place or circumstance quarrel with His action or
be aggrieved in thy heart.” He gave no further injunction, but yielded
up his soul.
Footnote 100:
See Chapter XI, No. 64.
Footnote 101:
L. Bániyán, IJ. Mániyán.
7. ABU ´L-QÁSIM `ABD AL-KARÍM B. HAWÁZIN AL-QUSHAYRÍ.
In his time he was a wonder. His rank is high and his position is great,
and his spiritual life and manifold virtues are well known to the people
of the present age. He is the author of many fine sayings and exquisite
works, all of them profoundly theosophical, in every branch of science.
God rendered his feelings and his tongue secure from anthropomorphism
(_ḥashw_). I have heard that he said: “The Ṣúfí is like the disease
called _birsám_, which begins with delirium and ends in silence; for
when you have attained ‘fixity’ you are dumb.“ Ṣúfiism (_ṣafwat_) has
two sides: ecstasy (_wajd_) and visions (_numúd_). Visions belong to
novices, and the expression of such visions is delirium (_hadhayán_).
Ecstasy belongs to adepts, and the expression of ecstasy, while the
ecstasy continues, is impossible. So long as they are only seekers they
utter lofty aspirations, which seem delirium even to those who aspire
(_ahl-i himmat_), but when they have attained they cease, and no more
express anything either by word or sign. Similarly, since Moses was a
beginner (_mubtadí_) all his desire was for vision of God; he expressed
his desire and said, ”_O Lord, show me that I may behold Thee_” (Kor.
vii, 139). This expression of an unattained desire seemed like delirium.
Our Apostle, however, was an adept (_muntahí_) and firmly established
(_mutamakkin_). When his person arrived at the station of desire his
desire was annihilated, and he said, “I cannot praise Thee duly.”
8. ABU ´L-`ABBÁS AḤMAD B. MUḤAMMAD AL-ASHQÁNÍ.
He was an Imám in every branch of the fundamental and derivative
sciences, and consummate in all respects. He had met a great number of
eminent Ṣúfís. His doctrine was based on “annihilation” (_faná_), and
his recondite manner of expression was peculiarly his own; but I have
seen some fools who imitated it and adopted his ecstatic phrases
(_shaṭḥhá_). It is not laudable to imitate even a spiritual meaning:
mark, then, how wrong it must be to imitate a mere expression! I was
very intimate with him, and he had a sincere affection for me. He was my
teacher in some sciences. During my whole life I have never seen anyone,
of any sect, who held the religious law in greater veneration than he.
He was detached from all created things, and only an Imám of profound
insight could derive instruction from him, on account of the subtlety of
his theological expositions. He always had a natural disgust of this
world and the next, and was constantly exclaiming: _Ashtahí `adam^{an}
lá wujúd lahu_, “I long for a non-existence that has no existence.” And
he used to say in Persian: “Every man has an impossible desire, and I
too have an impossible desire, which I surely know will never be
realized, namely, that God should bring me to a non-existence that will
never return to existence.” He wished this because “stations” and
miracles are all centres of veiling (i.e. they veil man from God). Man
has fallen in love with that which veils him. Non-existence in desire of
vision is better than taking delight in veils. Inasmuch as Almighty God
is a Being that is not subject to not-being, what loss would His kingdom
suffer if I become a nonentity that shall never be endowed with
existence? This is a sound principle in a real annihilation.
9. ABU ´L-QÁSIM B. `ALÍ B. `ABDALLÁH AL-GURGÁNÍ
(may God prolong his life for the benefit of us and of all Moslems!).
In his time he was unique and incomparable. His beginning (_ibtidá_) was
very excellent and strong, and his journeys were performed with
punctilious observance (of the sacred law). At that time the hearts of
all initiates (_ahl-i dargáh_) were turned towards him, and all seekers
(_ṭálibán_) had a firm belief in him. He possessed a marvellous power of
revealing the inward experiences of novices (_kashf-i wáqi`a-i
murídán_), and he was learned in various branches of knowledge. All his
disciples are ornaments of the society in which they move. Please God,
he will have an excellent successor, whose authority the whole body of
Ṣúfís will recognize, namely, Abú `Alí al-Faḍl b. Muḥammad al-Fármadhí
(may God lengthen his days!),[102] who has not omitted to fulfil his
duty towards his master, and has turned his back on all (worldly)
things, and through the blessings of that (renunciation) has been made
by God the spiritual mouthpiece (_zabán-i ḥál_) of that venerable
Shaykh.
Footnote 102:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 428.
One day I was seated in the Shaykh’s presence and was recounting to him
my experiences and visions, in order that he might test them, for he had
unrivalled skill in this. He was listening kindly to what I said. The
vanity and enthusiasm of youth made me eager to relate those matters,
and the thought occurred to me that perhaps the Shaykh, in his
novitiate, did not enjoy such experiences, or he would not show so much
humility towards me and be so anxious to inquire concerning my spiritual
state. The Shaykh perceived what I was thinking. “My dear friend,” he
said, “you must know that my humility is not on account of you or your
experiences, but is shown towards Him who brings experiences to pass.
They are not peculiar to yourself, but common to all seekers of God.” On
hearing him say this I was utterly taken aback. He saw my confusion and
said: “O my son, Man has no further relation to this Path except that,
when he is attached to it, he imagines that he has found it, and when he
is deposed from it he clothes his imagination in words. Hence both his
negation and his affirmation, both his non-existence and existence, are
imagination. Man never escapes from the prison of imagination. It
behoves him to stand like a slave at the door and put away from himself
every relation (_nisbat_) except that of manhood and obedience.”
Afterwards I had much spiritual conversation with him, but if I were to
enter upon the task of setting forth his extraordinary powers my purpose
would be defeated.
10. ABÚ AḤMAD AL-MUẔAFFAR B. AḤMAD B. ḤAMDÁN.
While he was seated on the cushion of authority (_riyásat_), God opened
to him the door of this mystery (_Ṣúfiism_) and bestowed on him the
crown of miracles. He spoke eloquently and discoursed with sublimity on
annihilation and subsistence (_faná ú baqá_). The Grand Shaykh, Abú
Sa`íd, said: “I was led to the court (of God) by the way of servantship
(_bandagí_), but Khwája Muẕaffar was conducted thither by the way of
lordship and dominion (_khwájagí_),” i.e. “I attained contemplation
(_musháhadat_) by means of self-mortification (_mujáhadat_), whereas he
came from contemplation to self-mortification”. I have heard that he
said: “That which great mystics have discovered by traversing deserts
and wildernesses I have gained in the seat of power and pre-eminence
(_bálish ú ṣadr_).” Some foolish and conceited persons have attributed
this saying of his to arrogance, but it is never arrogant to declare
one’s true state, especially when the speaker is a spiritualist. At the
present time Muẕaffar has an excellent and honoured successor in Khwája
Aḥmad. One day, when I was in his company, a certain pretender of
Níshápúr happened to use the expression: “He becomes annihilated and
then becomes subsistent.” Khwája Muẕaffar said: “How can subsistence
(_baqá_) be predicated of annihilation (_faná_)? Annihilation means
‘not-being’, while subsistence refers to ‘being’: each term negates the
other. We know what annihilation is, but when it is not, if it becomes
‘being’, its identity (_`ayn_) is lost. Essences are not capable of
annihilation. Attributes, however, can be annihilated, and so can
secondary causes. Therefore, when attributes and secondary causes are
annihilated, the Object invested with attributes and the Author of
secondary causes continues to subsist: His essence does not admit of
annihilation.” I do not recollect the precise words in which Muẕaffar
expressed his meaning, but this was the purport of them. Now I will
explain more clearly what he intended, in order that it may be more
generally understood. A man’s will (_ikhtiyár_) is an attribute of
himself, and he is veiled by his will from the will of God. Therefore a
man’s attributes veil him from God. Necessarily, the Divine will is
eternal and the human will phenomenal, and what is eternal cannot be
annihilated. When the Divine will in regard to a man becomes subsistent
(_baqá yábad_), his will is annihilated and his personal initiative
disappears. But God knows best.
One day I came into his presence, when the weather was extremely hot,
wearing a traveller’s dress and with my hair in disorder. He said to me:
“Tell me what you wish at this moment.” I replied that I wished to hear
some music (_samá`_). He immediately sent for a singer (_qawwál_) and a
number of musicians. Being young and enthusiastic and filled with the
ardour of a novice, I became deeply agitated as the strains of the music
fell on my ear. After a while, when my transports subsided, he asked me
how I liked it. I told him that I had enjoyed it very much. He answered:
“A time will come when this music will be no more to you than the
croaking of a raven. The influence of music only lasts so long as there
is no contemplation, and as soon as contemplation is attained music has
no power. Take care not to accustom yourself to this, lest it grow part
of your nature and keep you back from higher things.”
CHAPTER XIII.
A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE MODERN ṢÚFÍS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
I have not space enough to give biographies of them all, and if I omit
some the object of this book will not be accomplished. Now, therefore, I
will mention only the names of individual Ṣúfís and leading
spiritualists who have lived in my time or are still alive, excluding
the formalists (_ahl-i rusúm_).
1. SYRIA AND `IRÁQ.
Shaykh Zakí b. al-`Alá was an eminent Shaykh. I found him to be like a
flash of love. He was endowed with wonderful signs and evidences.
Shaykh Abú Ja`far Muḥammad b. al-Miṣbáḥ al-Ṣaydalání was one of the
principal aspirants to Ṣúfiism. He discoursed eloquently on theosophy
and had a great fondness for Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj), some of whose
works I have read to him.
Shaykh Abu ´l-Qásim Suddí[103] was a director who mortified himself and
led an excellent spiritual life. He cared tenderly for dervishes and had
a goodly belief in them.
Footnote 103:
IJ. Sudsí, B. Sundusí.
2. FÁRS.
The Grand Shaykh, Abu ´l-Ḥasan b. Sáliba,[104] spoke with the utmost
elegance on Ṣúfiism and with extreme lucidity on Unification (_tawḥíd_).
His sayings are well known.
The Shaykh and Director (_murshid_) Abú Isḥáq b. Shahriyár was one of
the most venerable Ṣúfís and had complete authority.
Shaykh Abu ´l-Ḥasan `Alí b. Bakrán was a great _mutaṣawwif_, and Shaykh
Abú Muslim was highly esteemed in his time.
Shaykh Abu ´l-Fatḥ b. Sáliba is an excellent and hopeful successor to
his father.
Shaykh Abú Ṭálib was a man enraptured by the words of the Truth.
I have seen all these except the Grand Shaykh, Abú Isḥáq.
Footnote 104:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 347, where he is called Abu ´l-Ḥusayn Sáliba.
3.QUHISTÁN, ÁDHARBÁYAJÁN, ṬABARISTÁN, AND KISH.[105]
Shaykh Faraj,[106] known as Akhí Zanjání, was a man of excellent
disposition and admirable doctrine.
Shaykh Badr al-Dín is one of the great men of this sect, and his good
deeds are many.
Pádsháh-i Tá´ib was profoundly versed in mysticism.
Shaykh Abú `Abdalláh Junaydí was a revered director.
Shaykh Abú Ṭáhir Makshúf was one of the eminent of that time.
Khwája Ḥusayn Simnán is an enraptured and hopeful man.
Shaykh Sahlagí was one of the principal Ṣúfí paupers (_ṣa`álík_).
Aḥmad, son of Shaykh Khurqání, was an excellent successor to his father.
Adíb Kumandí was one of the chief men of the time.
Footnote 105:
B. Kumish.
Footnote 106:
The texts have فرح[**Arabic] or فرخ[**Arabic], but see _Nafaḥát_, No.
171.
4. KIRMÁN.
Khwája `Alí b. al-Ḥusayn al-Sírgání was the wandering devotee (_sayyáḥ_)
of his age and made excellent journeys. His son, Ḥakím, is held in
honour.
Shaykh Muḥammad b. Salama was among the eminent of the time. Before him
there have been hidden saints of God, and hopeful youths and striplings
are still to be found.
5. KHURÁSÁN (where now is the shadow of God’s favour).
The Shaykh and Mujtahid Abu ´l-`Abbás was the heart of spiritualism
(_sirr-i ma`ání_) and had a goodly life.
Khwája Abú Ja`far Muḥammad b. `Alí al-Ḥawárí is one of the eminent
theosophists of this sect.
Khwája Abú Ja`far Turshízí was highly esteemed.
Khwája Maḥmúd of Níshápúr was regarded as an authority by his
contemporaries. He was eloquent in discourse.
Shaykh Muḥammad Ma`shúq had an excellent spiritual state and was aglow
with love.
Khwája Rashíd Muẕaffar, the son of Abú Sa`íd, will, it may be hoped,
become an example to all Ṣúfís and a point to which their hearts will
turn.
Khwája Shaykh Aḥmad Ḥammádí of Sarakhs was the champion of the time. He
was in my company for a while, and I witnessed many wondrous experiences
that he had.
Shaykh Aḥmad Najjár Samarqandí, who resided at Merv, was the sultan of
his age.
Shaykh Abu ´l-Ḥasan `Alí b. Abí `Alí al-Aswad was an excellent successor
to his father, and was unique in the sublimity of his aspiration and the
sagacity of his intelligence.
It would be difficult to mention all the Shaykhs of Khurásán. I have met
three hundred in that province alone who had such mystical endowments
that a single man of them would have been enough for the whole world.
This is due to the fact that the sun of love and the fortune of the Ṣúfí
Path is in the ascendant in Khurásán.
6. TRANSOXIANA.
The Khwája and Imám, honoured by high and low, Abú Ja`far Muḥammad b.
al-Ḥusayn[107] al-Ḥaramí, is an ecstatic (_mustami`_) and enraptured
man, who has a great affection towards the seekers of God.
Khwája Abú Muḥammad Bángharí[108] had an excellent spiritual life, and
there was no weakness in his devotional practices.
Aḥmad Íláqí was the Shaykh of his time. He renounced forms and habits.
Khwája `Árif was unparalleled in his day.
`Alí b. Isḥáq was venerated and had an eloquent tongue.
I have seen all these Shaykhs and ascertained the “station” of each of
them. They were all profound theosophists.
Footnote 107:
IJ. Al-Ḥasan.
Footnote 108:
This _nisba_ is variously written “Bángharí” and “Báyghazí”.
7.GHAZNA.
Abu ´l-Faḍl b. al-Asadí was a venerable director, with brilliant
evidences and manifest miracles. He was like a flash of the fire of
love. His spiritual life was based on concealment (_talbís_).
Ismá`íl al-Sháshí was a highly esteemed director. He followed the path
of “blame” (_malámat_).
Shaykh Sálár-i Ṭabarí was one of the Ṣúfí divines and had an excellent
state.
Shaykh Abú `Abdalláh Muḥammad b. al-Ḥakím, known as Muríd, was a
God-intoxicated man, and was not rivalled by any contemporary in his own
line. His state was hidden from the vulgar, but his signs and evidences
were conspicuous, and his state was better in companionship (_ṣuḥbat_)
than in casual meeting (_dídár_).
Shaykh Sa`íd b. Abí Sa`íd al-`Ayyár was a recorder (_ḥáfiẕ_) of
Apostolic Traditions. He had seen many Shaykhs and was a man of powerful
spirituality and great knowledge, but he took the way of concealment and
did not exhibit his true character.
Khwája Abu ´l-`Alá `Abd al-Raḥím b. Aḥmad al-Sughdí is honoured by all
Ṣúfís, and my heart is well-disposed towards him. His spiritual state is
excellent, and he is acquainted with various branches of science.
Shaykh Awḥad Qaswarat b. Muḥammad al-Jardízí has a boundless affection
for Ṣúfís and holds every one of them in reverence. He has seen many
Shaykhs.
In consequence of the firm convictions of the people and divines of
Ghazna, I have good hope that hereafter persons will appear in whom we
shall believe, and that those wretches (_parágandagán_) who have found
their way into this city and have made the externals of Ṣúfiism
abominable will be cleared out, so that Ghazna will once more become the
abode of saints and venerable men.
CHAPTER XIV.
CONCERNING THE DOCTRINES HELD BY THE DIFFERENT SECTS OF ṢÚFÍS.
I have already stated, in the notice of Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí, that the
Ṣúfís are divided into twelve sects, of which two are reprobated and ten
are approved. Every one of these ten sects has an excellent system and
doctrine as regards both purgation (_mujáhadat_) and contemplation
(_musháhadat_). Although they differ from each other in their devotional
practices and ascetic disciplines, they agree in the fundamentals and
derivatives of the religious law and Unification. Abú Yazíd said: “The
disagreement of divines is a mercy except as regards the detachment
(_tajríd_)[109] of Unification”; and there is a famous tradition to the
same effect. The real essence of Ṣúfiism lies amidst the traditions
(_akhbár_) of the Shaykhs, and is divided only metaphorically and
formally. Therefore I will briefly divide their sayings in explanation
of Ṣúfiism and unfold the main principle on which the doctrine of each
one of them is based, in order that the student may readily understand
this matter.
Footnote 109:
i.e. the detachment of all phenomenal attributes from the Unity of
God.
1.THE MUḤÁSIBÍS.
They are the followers of Abú `Abdalláh Ḥárith b. Asad al-Muḥásibí, who
by consent of all his contemporaries was a man of approved spiritual
influence and mortified passions (_maqbúl al-nafas ú maqtúl al-nafs_),
versed in theology, jurisprudence, and mysticism. He discoursed on
detachment from the world and Unification, while his outward and inward
dealings (with God) were beyond reproach. The peculiarity of his
doctrine is this, that he does not reckon satisfaction (_riḍá_) among
the “stations” (_maqámát_), but includes it in the “states” (_aḥwál_).
He was the first to hold this view, which was adopted by the people of
Khurásán. The people of `Iráq, on the contrary, asserted that
satisfaction is one of the “stations”, and that it is the extreme of
trust in God (_tawakkul_). The controversy between them has gone on to
the present day.[110]
_Discourse on the true nature of Satisfaction and the explanation of
this doctrine._
In the first place I will establish the true nature of satisfaction and
set forth its various kinds; then, secondly, I will explain the real
meaning of “station” (_maqám_) and “state” (_ḥál_) and the difference
between them.
Satisfaction is of two kinds: (_a_) the satisfaction of God with Man,
and (_b_) the satisfaction of Man with God. Divine satisfaction really
consists in God’s willing that Man should be recompensed (for his good
works) and in His bestowing grace (_karámat_) upon him. Human
satisfaction really consists in Man’s performing the command of God and
submitting to His decree. Accordingly, the satisfaction of God precedes
that of Man, for until Man is divinely aided he does not submit to God’s
decree and does not perform His command, because Man’s satisfaction is
connected with God’s satisfaction and subsists thereby. In short, human
satisfaction is equanimity (_istiwá-yi dil_) towards Fate, whether it
withholds or bestows, and spiritual steadfastness (_istiqámat_) in
regarding events, whether they be the manifestation of Divine Beauty
(_jamál_) or of Divine Majesty (_jalál_), so that it is all one to a man
whether he is consumed in the fire of wrath or illuminated by the light
of mercy, because both wrath and mercy are evidences of God, and
whatever proceeds from God is good in His eyes. The Commander of the
Faithful, Husayn b. `Alí, was asked about the saying of Abú Dharr
Ghifárí: “I love poverty better than riches, and sickness better than
health.” Ḥusayn replied: “God have mercy on Abú Dharr! but I say that
whoever surveys the excellent choice made by God for him does not desire
anything except what God has chosen for him.” When a man sees God’s
choice and abandons his own choice, he is delivered from all sorrow.
This, however, does not hold good in absence from God (_ghaybat_); it
requires presence with God (_ḥuḍúr_), because “satisfaction expels
sorrows and cures heedlessness”, and purges the heart of thoughts
relating to other than God and frees it from the bonds of tribulation;
for it is characteristic of satisfaction to deliver (_rahánídan_).
Footnote 110:
According to Qushayrí (105, 21 ff.) the `Iráqís held the doctrine
which is here ascribed to the Khurásánís, and _vice versâ_.
From the standpoint of ethics, satisfaction is the acquiescence of one
who knows that giving and withholding are in God’s knowledge, and firmly
believes that God sees him in all circumstances. There are four classes
of quietists: (1) those who are satisfied with God’s gift (_`aṭá_),
which is gnosis (_ma`rifat_); (2) those who are satisfied with happiness
(_nu`má_), which is this world; (3) those who are satisfied with
affliction (_balá_), which consists of diverse probations; and (4) those
who are satisfied with being chosen (_iṣṭifá_), which is love
(_maḥabbat_). He who looks away from the Giver to the gift accepts it
with his soul, and when he has so accepted it trouble and grief vanish
from his heart. He who looks away from the gift to the Giver loses the
gift and treads the path of satisfaction by his own effort. Now effort
is painful and grievous, and gnosis is only realized when its true
nature is divinely revealed; and inasmuch as gnosis, when sought by
effort, is a shackle and a veil, such gnosis is non-cognition
(_nakirat_). Again, he who is satisfied with this world, without God, is
involved in destruction and perdition, because the whole world is not
worth so much that a friend of God should set his heart on it or that
any care for it should enter his mind. Happiness is happiness only when
it leads to the Giver of happiness; otherwise, it is an affliction.
Again, he who is satisfied with the affliction that God sends is
satisfied because in the affliction he sees the Author thereof and can
endure its pain by contemplating Him who sent it; nay, he does not
account it painful, such is his joy in contemplating his Beloved.
Finally, those who are satisfied with being chosen by God are His
lovers, whose existence is an illusion alike in His anger and His
satisfaction; whose hearts dwell in the presence of Purity and in the
garden of Intimacy; who have no thought of created things and have
escaped from the bonds of “stations” and “states” and have devoted
themselves to the love of God. Their satisfaction involves no loss, for
satisfaction with God is a manifest kingdom.
SECTION.
It is related in the Traditions that Moses said: “O God, show me an
action with which, if I did it, Thou wouldst be satisfied.” God
answered: “Thou canst not do that, O Moses!” Then Moses fell prostrate,
worshipping God and supplicating Him, and God made a revelation to him,
saying: “O son of `Imrán, My satisfaction with thee consists in thy
being satisfied with My decree,” i.e. when a man is satisfied with God’s
decrees it is a sign that God is satisfied with him.
Bishr Ḥáfí asked Fuḍayl b. `Iyáḍ whether renunciation (_zuhd_) or
satisfaction was better. Fuḍayl replied: “Satisfaction, because he who
is satisfied does not desire any higher stage,” i.e. there is above
renunciation a stage which the renouncer desires, but there is no stage
above satisfaction that the satisfied man should wish for it. Hence the
shrine is superior to the gate. This story shows the correctness of
Muḥásibí’s doctrine, that satisfaction belongs to the class of “states”
and Divine gifts, not to the stages that are acquired (by effort). It is
possible, however, that the satisfied man should have a desire. The
Apostle used to say in his prayers: “O God, I ask of Thee satisfaction
after the going forth of Thy ordinance (_al-riḍá ba`d al-qaḍá_),” i.e.
“keep me in such a condition that when the ordinance comes to me from
Thee, Destiny may find me satisfied with its coming”. Here it is
affirmed that satisfaction properly is posterior to the advent of
Destiny, because, if it preceded, it would only be a resolution to be
satisfied, which is not the same thing as actual satisfaction. Abu
´l-`Abbás b. `Aṭá says: “Satisfaction is this, that the heart should
consider the eternal choice of God on behalf of His creature,” i.e.
whatever befalls him, he should recognize it as the eternal will of God
and His past decree, and should not be distressed, but should accept it
cheerfully. Ḥárith Muḥásibí, the author of the doctrine, says:
“Satisfaction is the quiescence (_sukún_) of the heart under the events
which flow from the Divine decrees.” This is sound doctrine, because the
quiescence and tranquillity of the heart are not qualities acquired by
Man, but are Divine gifts. And as an argument for the view that
satisfaction is a “state”, not a “station”, they cite the story of `Utba
al-Ghulám, who one night did not sleep, but kept saying: “If Thou
chastise me I love Thee, and if Thou have mercy on me I love Thee,” i.e.
“the pain of Thy chastisement and the pleasure of Thy bounty affect the
body alone, whereas the agitation of love resides in the heart, which is
not injured thereby”. This corroborates the view of Muḥásibí.
Satisfaction is the result of love, inasmuch as the lover is satisfied
with what is done by the Beloved. Abú `Uthmán Ḥírí says: “During the
last forty years God has never put me in any state that I disliked, or
transferred me to another state that I resented.” This indicates
continual satisfaction and perfect love. The story of the dervish who
fell into the Tigris is well known. Seeing that he could not swim, a man
on the bank cried out to him: “Shall I tell some one to bring you
ashore?” The dervish said, “No.” “Then do you wish to be drowned?” “No.”
“What, then, do you wish?” The dervish replied: “That which God wishes.
What have I to do with wishing?”
The Ṣúfí Shaykhs have uttered many sayings on satisfaction, which differ
in phraseology but agree in the two principles that have been mentioned.
_The distinction between a “State”_ (ḥál) _and a “Station”_ (maqám).
You must know that both these terms are in common use among Ṣúfís, and
it is necessary that the student should be acquainted with them. I must
discuss this matter here, although it does not belong to the present
chapter.
“Station” (_maqám_) denotes anyone’s “standing” in the Way of God, and
his fulfilment of the obligations appertaining to that “station” and his
keeping it until he comprehends its perfection so far as lies in a man’s
power. It is not permissible that he should quit his “station” without
fulfilling the obligations thereof. Thus, the first “station” is
repentance (_tawbat_), then comes conversion (_inábat_), then
renunciation (_zuhd_), then trust in God (_tawakkul_), and so on: it is
not permissible that anyone should pretend to conversion without
repentance, or to renunciation without conversion, or to trust in God
without renunciation.
“State” (_ḥál_), on the other hand, is something that descends from God
into a man’s heart, without his being able to repel it when it comes, or
to attract it when it goes, by his own effort. Accordingly, while the
term “station” denotes the way of the seeker, and his progress in the
field of exertion, and his rank before God in proportion to his merit,
the term “state” denotes the favour and grace which God bestows upon the
heart of His servant, and which are not connected with any mortification
on the latter’s part. “Station” belongs to the category of acts, “state”
to the category of gifts. Hence the man that has a “station” stands by
his own self-mortification, whereas the man that has a “state” is dead
to “self” and stands by a “state” which God creates in him.
Here the Shaykhs are at variance. Some hold that a “state” may be
permanent, while others reject this view. Ḥárith Muḥásibí maintained
that a “state” may be permanent. He argued that love and longing and
“contraction” (_qabḍ_) and “expansion” (_basṭ_) are “states”: if they
cannot be permanent, then the lover would not be a lover, and until a
man’s “state” becomes his attribute (_ṣifat_) the name of that “state”
is not properly applied to him. It is for this reason that he holds
satisfaction to be one of the “states”, and the same view is indicated
by the saying of Abú `Uthmán: “During the last forty years God has never
put me in a ‘state’ that I disliked.” Other Shaykhs deny that a “state”
can be permanent. Junayd says: “‘States’ are like flashes of lightning:
their permanence is merely a suggestion of the lower soul (_nafs_).”
Some have said, to the same effect: “‘States’ are like their name,” i.e.
they vanish almost as soon as they descend (_taḥillu_) on the heart.
Whatever is permanent becomes an attribute, and attributes subsist in an
object which must be more perfect than the attributes themselves; and
this reduces the doctrine that “states” are permanent to an absurdity. I
have set forth the distinction between “state” and “station” in order
that you may know what is signified by these terms wherever they occur
in the phraseology of the Ṣúfís or in the present work.
In conclusion, you must know that satisfaction is the end of the
“stations” and the beginning of the “states”: it is a place of which one
side rests on acquisition and effort, and the other side on love and
rapture: there is no “station” above it: at this point mortifications
(_mujáhadát_) cease. Hence its beginning is in the class of things
acquired by effort, its end in the class of things divinely bestowed.
Therefore it may be called either a “station” or a “state”.
This is the doctrine of Muḥásibí as regards the theory of Ṣúfiism. In
practice, however, he made no difference, except that he used to warn
his pupils against expressions and acts which, though sound in
principle, might be thought evil. For example, he had a “king-bird”
(_sháhmurghí_), which used to utter a loud note. One day Abú Ḥamza of
Baghdád, who was Ḥárith’s pupil and an ecstatic man, came to see him.
The bird piped, and Abú Ḥamza gave a shriek. Ḥárith rose up and seized a
knife, crying, “Thou art an infidel,” and would have killed him if the
disciples had not separated them. Then he said to Abú Ḥamza: “Become a
Moslem, O miscreant!” The disciples exclaimed: “O Shaykh, we all know
him to be one of the elect saints and Unitarians: why does the Shaykh
regard him with suspicion?” Ḥárith replied: “I do not suspect him: his
opinions are excellent, and I know that he is a profound Unitarian, but
why should he do something which resembles the actions of those who
believe in incarnation (_ḥulúliyán_) and has the appearance of being
derived from their doctrine? If a senseless bird pipes after its
fashion, capriciously, why should he behave as though its note were the
voice of God? God is indivisible, and the Eternal does not become
incarnate, or united with phenomena or commingled with them.” When Abú
Ḥamza perceived the Shaykh’s insight, he said: “O Shaykh, although I am
right in theory, nevertheless, since my action resembled the actions of
heretics, I repent and withdraw.”
May God keep my conduct above suspicion! But this is impossible when one
associates with worldly formalists whose enmity is aroused by anyone who
does not submit to their hypocrisy and sin.
2. THE QAṢṢÁRÍS.
They are the followers of Abú Ṣáliḥ Ḥamdún b. Aḥmad b. `Umára al-Qaṣṣár,
a celebrated divine and eminent Ṣúfí. His doctrine was the manifestation
and divulgation of “blame” (_malámat_). He used to say: “God’s knowledge
of thee is better than men’s knowledge,” i.e. thy dealings with God in
private should be better than thy dealings with men in public, for thy
preoccupation with men is the greatest veil between thee and God. I have
given some account of al-Qaṣṣár in the chapter on “Blame”. He relates
the following story: “One day, while I was walking in the river-bed in
the Ḥíra quarter of Níshápúr, I met Núḥ, a brigand famous for his
generosity, who was the captain of all the brigands of Níshápúr. I said
to him, ‘O Núḥ, what is generosity?’ He replied, ‘My generosity or
yours?’ I said, ‘Describe both.’ He replied: ‘I put off the coat
(_qabá_) and wear a patched frock and practise the conduct appropriate
to that garment, in order that I may become a Ṣúfí and refrain from sin
because of the shame that I feel before God; but you put off the patched
frock in order that you may not be deceived by men, and that men may not
be deceived by thee: accordingly, my generosity is formal observance of
the religious law, while your generosity is spiritual observance of the
Truth.’” This is a very sound principle.
3. THE ṬAYFÚRÍS.
They are the followers of Abú Yazíd Ṭayfúr b. Ísá b. Surúshán
al-Bisṭámí, a great and eminent Ṣúfí. His doctrine is rapture
(_ghalabat_) and intoxication (_sukr_). Rapturous longing for God and
intoxication of love cannot be acquired by human beings, and it is idle
to claim, and absurd to imitate, anything that lies beyond the range of
acquisition. Intoxication is not an attribute of the sober, and Man has
no power of drawing it to himself. The intoxicated man is enraptured and
pays no heed to created things, that he should manifest any quality
involving conscious effort (_taklif_). The Ṣúfí Shaykhs are agreed that
no one is a proper model for others unless he is steadfast (_mustaqím_)
and has escaped from the circle of “states”; but there are some who
allow that the way of rapture and intoxication may be trodden with
effort, because the Apostle said: “Weep, or else make as though ye
wept!” Now, to imitate others for the sake of ostentation is sheer
polytheism, but it is different when the object of the imitator is that
God may perchance raise him to the rank of those whom he has imitated,
in accordance with the saying of the Apostle: “Whoever makes himself
like unto a people is one of them.” And one of the Shaykhs said:
“Contemplations (_musháhadát_) are the result of mortifications
(_mujáhadát_).” My own view is that, although mortifications are always
excellent, intoxication and rapture cannot be acquired at all; hence
they cannot be induced by mortifications, which in themselves never
become a cause of intoxication. I will now set forth the different
opinions of the Shaykhs concerning the true nature of intoxication
(_sukr_) and sobriety (_ṣaḥw_), in order that difficulties may be
removed.
_Discourse on Intoxication and Sobriety._
You must know that “intoxication” and “rapture” are terms used by
spiritualists to denote the rapture of love for God, while the term
“sobriety” expresses the attainment of that which is desired. Some place
the former above the latter, and some hold the latter to be superior.
Abú Yazíd and his followers prefer intoxication to sobriety. They say
that sobriety involves the fixity and equilibrium of human attributes,
which are the greatest veil between God and Man, whereas intoxication
involves the destruction of human attributes, like foresight and choice,
and the annihilation of a man’s self-control in God, so that only those
faculties survive in him that do not belong to the human _genus_; and
they are the most complete and perfect. Thus David was in the state of
sobriety; an act proceeded from him which God attributed to him and
said, “_David killed Goliath_” (Kor. ii, 252): but our Apostle was in
the state of intoxication; an act proceeded from him which God
attributed to Himself and said, “_Thou didst not throw, when thou
threwest, but God threw_” (Kor. viii, 17). How great is the difference
between these two men! The attribution of a man’s act to God is better
than the attribution of God’s act to a man, for in the latter case the
man stands by himself, while in the former case he stands through God.
Junayd and his followers prefer sobriety to intoxication. They say that
intoxication is evil, because it involves the disturbance of one’s
normal state and loss of sanity and self-control; and inasmuch as the
principle of all things is sought either by way of annihilation or
subsistence, or of effacement or affirmation, the principle of
verification cannot be attained unless the seeker is sane. Blindness
will never release anyone from the bondage and corruption of phenomena.
The fact that people remain in phenomena and forget God is due to their
not seeing things as they really are; for if they saw, they would
escape. Seeing is of two kinds: he who looks at anything sees it either
with the eye of subsistence (_baqá_) or with the eye of annihilation
(_faná_). If with the eye of subsistence, he perceives that the whole
universe is imperfect in comparison with his own subsistence, for he
does not regard phenomena as self-subsistent; and if he looks with the
eye of annihilation, he perceives that all created things are
non-existent beside the subsistence of God. In either case he turns away
from created things. On this account the Apostle said in his prayer: “O
God, show us things as they are,” because whoever thus sees them finds
rest. Now, such vision cannot be properly attained except in the state
of sobriety, and the intoxicated have no knowledge thereof. For example,
Moses was intoxicated; he could not endure the manifestation of one
epiphany, but fell in a swoon (Kor. vii, 139): but our Apostle was
sober; he beheld the same glory continuously, with ever-increasing
consciousness, all the way from Mecca, until he stood at the space of
two bow-lengths from the Divine presence (Kor. liii, 9).
My Shaykh, who followed the doctrine of Junayd, used to say that
intoxication is the playground of children, but sobriety is the
death-field of men. I say, in agreement with my Shaykh, that the
perfection of the state of the intoxicated man is sobriety. The lowest
stage in sobriety consists in regarding the powerlessness of humanity:
therefore, a sobriety that appears to be evil is better than an
intoxication that is really evil. It is related that Abú `Uthmán
Maghribí, in the earlier part of his life, passed twenty years in
retirement, living in deserts where he never heard the sound of a human
voice, until his frame was wasted and his eyes became as small as the
eye of a sack-needle. After twenty years he was commanded to associate
with mankind. He resolved to begin with the people of God who dwelt
beside His Temple, since by doing so he would gain a greater blessing.
The Shaykhs of Mecca were aware of his coming and went forth to meet
him. Finding him so changed that he hardly seemed to be a human
creature, they said to him: “O Abú `Uthmán, tell us why you went and
what you saw and what you gained and wherefore you have come back.” He
replied: “I went because of intoxication, and I saw the evil of
intoxication, and I gained despair, and I have come back on account of
weakness.” All the Shaykhs said: “O Abú `Uthmán, it is not lawful for
anyone after you to explain the meaning of sobriety and intoxication,
for you have done justice to the whole matter and have shown forth the
evil of intoxication.”
Intoxication, then, is to fancy one’s self annihilated while the
attributes really subsist; and this is a veil. Sobriety, on the other
hand, is the vision of subsistence while the attributes are annihilated;
and this is actual revelation. It is absurd for anyone to suppose that
intoxication is nearer to annihilation than sobriety is, for
intoxication is a quality that exceeds sobriety, and so long as a man’s
attributes tend to increase he is without knowledge; but when he begins
to diminish them, seekers (of God) have some hope of him.
It is related that Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh wrote to Abú Yazíd: “What do you say
of one who drinks a single drop of the ocean of love and becomes
intoxicated?” Báyazíd wrote in reply: “What do you say of one who, if
all the oceans in the world were filled with the wine of love, would
drink them all and still cry for more to slake his thirst?” People
imagine that Yahyá was speaking of intoxication, and Báyazíd of
sobriety, but the opposite is the case. The man of sobriety is he who is
unable to drink even one drop, and the man of intoxication is he who
drinks all and still desires more. Wine being the instrument of
intoxication, but the enemy of sobriety, intoxication demands what is
homogeneous with itself, whereas sobriety takes no pleasure in drinking.
There are two kinds of intoxication: (1) with the wine of affection
(_mawaddat_) and (2) with the cup of love (_maḥabbat_). The former is
“caused” (_ma`lúl_), since it arises from regarding the benefit
(_ni`mat_); but the latter has no cause, since it arises from regarding
the benefactor (_mun`im_). He who regards the benefit sees through
himself and therefore sees himself, but he who regards the benefactor
sees through Him and therefore does not see himself, so that, although
he is intoxicated, his intoxication is sobriety.
Sobriety also is of two kinds: sobriety in heedlessness (_ghaflat_) and
sobriety in love (_maḥabbat_). The former is the greatest of veils, but
the latter is the clearest of revelations. The sobriety that is
connected with heedlessness is really intoxication, while that which is
linked with love, although it be intoxication, is really sobriety. When
the principle (_aṣl_) is firmly established, sobriety and intoxication
resemble one another, but when the principle is wanting, both are
baseless. In short, where true mystics tread, sobriety and intoxication
are the effect of difference (_ikhtiláf_), and when the Sultan of Truth
displays his beauty, both sobriety and intoxication appear to be
intruders (_ṭufaylí_), because the boundaries of both are joined, and
the end of the one is the beginning of the other, and beginning and end
are terms that imply separation, which has only a relative existence. In
union all separations are negated, as the poet says—
“_When the morning-star of wine rises,
The drunken and the sober are as one._”
At Sarakhs there were two spiritual directors, namely, Luqmán and Abu
´l-Faḍl Ḥasan. One day Luqmán came to Abu ´l-Faḍl and found him with a
piece (of manuscript) in his hand. He said: “O Abu ´l-Faḍl, what are you
seeking in this paper?” Abu ´l-Faḍl replied: “The same thing as you are
seeking without a paper.” Luqmán said: “Then why this difference?” Abu
´l-Faḍl answered: “You see a difference when you ask me what I am
seeking. Become sober from intoxication and get rid of sobriety, in
order that the difference may be removed from you and that you may know
what you and I are in search of.”
The Ṭayfúrís and Junaydís are at variance to the extent which has been
indicated. As regards ethics, the doctrine of Báyazíd consists in
shunning companionship and choosing retirement from the world, and he
enjoined all his disciples to do the same. This is a praiseworthy and
laudable Path.
4. THE JUNAYDÍS.
They are the followers of Abu ´l-Qásim al-Junayd b. Muḥammad, who in his
time was called the Peacock of the Divines (_Ṭá´ús al-`Ulamá_). He is
the chief of this sect and the Imám of their Imáms. His doctrine is
based on sobriety and is opposed to that of the Ṭayfúrís, as has been
explained. It is the best known and most celebrated of all doctrines,
and all the Shaykhs have adopted it, notwithstanding that there is much
difference in their sayings on the ethics of Ṣúfiism. Want of space
forbids me to discuss it further in this book: those who wish to become
better acquainted with it must seek information elsewhere.
I have read in the Anecdotes that when Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj) in
his rapture broke off all relations with `Amr b. `Uthmán (al-Makkí) and
came to Junayd, Junayd asked him for what purpose he had come to him.
Ḥusayn said: “For the purpose of associating with the Shaykh.” Junayd
replied: “I do not associate with madmen. Association demands sanity; if
that is wanting, the result is such behaviour as yours in regard to Sahl
b. `Abdalláh Tustarí and `Amr.” Ḥusayn said: “O Shaykh, sobriety and
intoxication are two attributes of Man, and Man is veiled from his Lord
until his attributes are annihilated.” “O son of Manṣúr,” said Junayd,
“you are in error concerning sobriety and intoxication. The former
denotes soundness of one’s spiritual state in relation to God, while the
latter denotes excess of longing and extremity of love, and neither of
them can be acquired by human effort. O son of Manṣúr, in your words I
see much foolishness and nonsense.”
5. THE NÚRÍS.
They are the followers of Abu ´l-Ḥasan Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Núrí, one of
the most eminent and illustrious Ṣúfí divines. The principle of his
doctrine is to regard Ṣúfiism (_taṣawwuf_) as superior to poverty
(_faqr_). In matters of conduct he agrees with Junayd. It is a
peculiarity of his “path” that in companionship (_ṣuḥbat_) he prefers
his companion’s claim to his own, and holds companionship without
preference (_íthár_) to be unlawful. He also holds that companionship is
obligatory on dervishes, and that retirement (_`uzlat_) is not
praiseworthy, and that everyone is bound to prefer his companion to
himself. It is related that he said: “Beware of retirement! for it is in
connexion with Satan; and cleave to companionship, for therein is the
satisfaction of the Merciful God.”
Now I will explain the true nature of preference, and when I come to the
chapter on companionship and retirement I will set forth the mysteries
of the subject in order to make it more generally instructive.
_Discourse on Preference_ (íthár).
God said: “_And they prefer them to themselves, although they are
indigent_” (Kor. lix, 9). This verse was revealed concerning the poor
men among the Companions in particular. The true nature of preference
consists in maintaining the rights of the person with whom one
associates, and in subordinating one’s own interest to the interest of
one’s friend, and in taking trouble upon one’s self for the sake of
promoting his happiness, because preference is the rendering of help to
others, and the putting into practice of that which God commanded to His
Apostle: “_Use indulgence and command what is just and turn away from
the ignorant_” (Kor. vii, 198). This will be explained more fully in the
chapter on the rules of companionship.
Now, preference is of two kinds: firstly, in companionship, as has been
mentioned; and secondly, in love. In preferring the claim of one’s
companion there is a sort of trouble and effort, but in preferring the
claim of one’s beloved there is nothing but pleasure and delight. It is
well known that when Ghulám al-Khalíl persecuted the Ṣúfís, Núrí and
Raqqám and Abú Ḥamza were arrested and conveyed to the Caliph’s palace.
Ghulám al-Khalíl urged the Caliph to put them to death, saying that they
were heretics (_zanádiqa_), and the Caliph immediately gave orders for
their execution. When the executioner approached Raqqám, Núrí rose and
offered himself in Raqqám’s place with the utmost cheerfulness and
submission. All the spectators were astounded. The executioner said: “O
young man, the sword is not a thing that people desire to meet so
eagerly as you have welcomed it; and your turn has not yet arrived.”
Núrí answered: “Yes; my doctrine is founded on preference. Life is the
most precious thing in the world: I wish to sacrifice for my brethren’s
sake the few moments that remain. In my opinion, one moment of this
world is better than a thousand years of the next world, because this is
the place of service (_khidmat_) and that is the place of proximity
(_qurbat_), and proximity is gained by service.” The tenderness of Núrí
and the fineness of his saying astonished the Caliph (who was informed
by a courier of what had passed) to such a degree, that he suspended the
execution of the three Ṣúfís and charged the chief Cadi, Abu ´l-`Abbás
b. `Alí, to inquire into the matter. The Cadi, having taken them to his
house and questioned them concerning the ordinances of the Law and the
Truth, found them perfect, and felt remorse for his indifference to
their fate. Then Núrí said: “O Cadi, though you have asked all these
questions, you have not yet asked anything to the point, for God has
servants who eat through Him, and drink through Him, and sit through
Him, and live through Him, and abide in contemplation of Him: if they
were cut off from contemplating Him they would cry out in anguish.” The
Cadi was amazed at the subtlety of his speech and the soundness of his
state. He wrote to the Caliph: “If the Ṣúfís are heretics, who in the
world is a Unitarian?” The Caliph called them to his presence and said:
“Ask a boon.” They replied: “The only boon we ask of thee is that thou
shouldst forget us, and neither make us thy favourites nor banish us
from thy court, for thy favour and displeasure are alike to us.” The
Caliph wept and dismissed them with honour.
It is related that Náfi`[111] said: “Ibn `Umar[112] desired to eat a
fish. I sought through the town, but did not find one until several days
had passed. Having procured it, I gave orders that it should be placed
on a cake of bread and presented it to him. I noticed an expression of
joy on his face as he received it, but suddenly a beggar came to the
door of his house and he ordered the fish to be given to him. The
servant said: ‘O master, you have been desiring a fish for several days;
let us give the beggar something else.’ Ibn `Umar replied: ‘This fish is
unlawful to me, for I have put it out of my mind on account of a
Tradition which I heard from the Apostle: _Whenever anyone feels a
desire and repels it and prefers another to himself, he shall be
forgiven_.’“
Footnote 111:
A well-known traditionist, who died about 120 A.H.
Footnote 112:
`Abdalláh, son of the Caliph `Umar.
I have read in the Anecdotes that ten dervishes lost their way in the
desert and were overtaken by thirst. They had only one cup of water, and
everyone preferred the claim of the others, so that none of them would
drink and they all died except one, who then drank it and found strength
to escape. Some person said to him: “Had you not drunk, it would have
been better.” He replied: “The Law obliged me to drink; if I had not, I
should have killed myself and been punished on that account.” The other
said: “Then did your friends kill themselves?” “No,” said the dervish;
“they refused to drink in order that their companions might drink, but
when I alone survived I was legally obliged to drink.”[113]
Footnote 113:
Here follow two stories illustrating the same topic: the first relates
how `Alí slept in the Prophet’s bed on the night of the latter’s
emigration from Mecca, when the infidels were seeking to slay him; the
second, how on the battle-field of Uḥud the wounded Moslems, though
parched with thirst, preferred to die rather than drink the water
which their comrades asked for.
Among the Israelites there was a devotee who had served God for four
hundred years. One day he said: “O Lord, if Thou hadst not created these
mountains, wandering for religion’s sake (_siyáḥat_) would have been
easier for Thy servants.” The Divine command came to the Apostle of that
time to say to the devotee: “What business have you to interfere in My
kingdom? Now, since you have interfered, I blot your name from the
register of the blest and inscribe it in the register of the damned.” On
hearing this, the devotee trembled with joy and bowed to the ground in
thanksgiving. The Apostle said: “O fool, it is not necessary to bow down
in thanksgiving for damnation.” “My thanksgiving,” the devotee replied:
“is not for damnation, but because my name is at least inscribed in one
of His registers. But, O Apostle, I have a boon to ask. Say unto God,
‘Since Thou wilt send me to Hell, make me so large that I may take the
place of all sinful Unitarians, and let them go to Paradise.’” God
commanded the Apostle to tell the devotee that the probation which he
had undergone was not for the purpose of humiliating him, but to reveal
him to the people, and that on the Day of Resurrection both he and those
for whom he had interceded would be in Paradise.
I asked Aḥmad Ḥammádí of Sarakhs what was the beginning of his
conversion. He replied: “Once I set out from Sarakhs and took my camels
into the desert and stayed there for a considerable time. I was always
wishing to be hungry and was giving my portion of food to others, and
the words of God—‘_They_ _prefer them to themselves, although they
are_ _indigent_’ (Kor. lix, 9)—were ever fresh in my mind; and I
had a firm belief in the Ṣúfís. One day a hungry lion came from the
desert and killed one of my camels and retired to some rising ground and
roared. All the wild beasts in the neighbourhood, hearing him roar,
gathered round him. He tore the camel to pieces and went back to the
higher ground without having eaten anything. The other beasts—foxes,
jackals, wolves, etc.—began to eat, and the lion waited until they had
gone away. Then he approached in order to eat a morsel, but seeing a
lame fox in the distance he withdrew once more until the new-comer had
eaten his fill. After that, he came and ate a morsel. As he departed he
spoke to me, who had been watching from afar, and said: ‘O Aḥmad, to
prefer others to one’s self in the matter of food is an act only worthy
of dogs: a _man_ sacrifices his life and his soul.’ When I saw this
evidence I renounced all worldly occupations, and that was the beginning
of my conversion.”
Ja`far Khuldí says: “One day, when Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí was praying to God
in solitude I went to overhear him, for he was very eloquent. He was
saying, ‘O Lord, in Thy eternal knowledge and power and will Thou dost
punish the people of Hell, whom Thou hast created; and if it be Thy
inexorable will to make Hell full of mankind, Thou art able to fill that
Hell and all its limbos with me alone and to send them to Paradise.’ I
was amazed by his speech, but I dreamed that some one came to me and
said: ‘God bids thee tell Abu ´l-Ḥasan that he has been forgiven on
account of his compassion for God’s creatures and his reverence for
God.’”
He was called Núrí because when he spoke in a dark room the whole room
was illuminated by the light (_núr_) of his spirituality. And by the
light of the Truth he used to read the inmost thoughts of his disciples,
so that Junayd said: “Abu ´l-Ḥasan is the spy on men’s hearts (_jásús
al-qulúb_).“
This is his peculiar doctrine. It is a sound principle, and one of great
importance in the eyes of those who have insight. Nothing is harder to a
man than spiritual sacrifice (_badhl-i rúḥ_) and to refrain from the
object of his love, and God hath made this sacrifice the key of all
good, as He said: ”_Ye shall never attain to righteousness until ye give
in alms of that which ye love_” (Kor. iii, 86). When a man’s spirit is
sacrificed, of what value are his wealth and his health and his frock
and his food? This is the foundation of Ṣúfiism. Some one came to Ruwaym
and asked him for direction. Ruwaym said: “O my son, the whole affair
consists in spiritual sacrifice. If you are able for this, it is well;
if not, do not occupy yourself with the futilities (_turrahát_) of the
Ṣúfís,” i.e. all except this is futile; and God said: “_Do not call dead
those who are slain in the way of God. Nay, they are living_” (Kor. ii,
149). Eternal life is gained by spiritual sacrifice and by renunciation
of self-interest in fulfilling God’s commandment and by obedience to His
friends. But from the standpoint of gnosis (_ma`rifat_) preference and
free choice are separation (_tafriqat_), and real preference consists in
union with God, for the true basis of self-interest is self-abandonment.
So long as the seeker’s progress is connected with acquisition (_kasb_)
it is pernicious, but when the attracting influence (_jadhb_) of the
Truth manifests its dominion all his actions are confounded, and he
loses all power of expression; nor can any name be applied to him or any
description be given of him or anything be imputed to him. On this
subject Shiblí says in verse—
“_I am lost to myself and unconscious,
And my attributes are annihilated.
To-day I am lost to all things:
Naught remains but a forced expression._”
6. THE SAHLÍS.
They are the followers of Sahl b. `Abdalláh of Tustar, a great and
venerable Ṣúfí, who has been already mentioned. His doctrine inculcates
endeavour and self-mortification and ascetic training, and he used to
bring his disciples to perfection in self-mortification (_mujáhadat_).
It is related in a well-known anecdote that he said to one of his
disciples: “Strive to say continuously for one day, ‘O Allah! O Allah! O
Allah!’ and do the same next day and the day after that,” until he
became habituated to saying those words. Then he bade him repeat them at
night also, until they became so familiar that he uttered them even
during his sleep. Then he said: “Do not repeat them any more, but let
all your faculties be engrossed in remembering God.” The disciple did
this, until he became absorbed in the thought of God. One day, when he
was in his house, a piece of wood fell on his head and broke it. The
drops of blood which trickled to the ground bore the legend “Allah!
Allah! Allah!”
The “path” of the Sahlís is to educate disciples by acts of
self-mortification, and austerities; that of the Ḥamdúnís[114] is to
serve and reverence dervishes; and that of the Junaydís is to keep watch
over one’s spiritual state (_muráqaba-i báṭin_).
Footnote 114:
The followers of Ḥamdún al-Qaṣṣár, who are generally called Qaṣṣárís.
The object of all austerities and acts of self-mortification is
resistance to the lower soul (_nafs_), and until a man knows his lower
soul his austerities are of no use to him. Now, therefore, I will
explain the knowledge and true nature of the lower soul, and in the next
place I will lay down the doctrine concerning self-mortification and its
principles.
_Discourse touching the true nature of the Lower Soul_ (nafs) _and the
meaning of Passion_ (hawá).
You must know that _nafs_, etymologically, is the essence and reality of
anything, but in popular language it is used to denote many
contradictory meanings, e.g. “spirit”, “virility” (_muruwwat_), “body”,
and “blood”. The mystics of this sect, however, are agreed that it is
the source and principle of evil, but while some assert that it is a
substance (_`ayn_) located in the body, as the spirit (_rúḥ_) is, others
hold it to be an attribute of the body, as life is. But they all agree
that through it base qualities are manifested and that it is the
immediate cause of blameworthy actions. Such actions are of two kinds,
namely, sins (_ma`áṣí_) and base qualities (_akhláq-i daní_), like
pride, envy, avarice, anger, hatred, etc., which are not commendable in
law and reason. These qualities can be removed by discipline
(_riyáḍat_): e.g., sins are removed by repentance. Sins belong to the
class of external attributes, whereas the qualities above mentioned
belong to the class of internal attributes. Similarly, discipline is an
external act, and repentance is an internal attribute. A base quality
that appears _within_ is purged by excellent outward attributes, and one
that appears _without_ is purged by laudable inward attributes. Both the
lower soul and the spirit are subtle things (_laṭá´if_) existing in the
body, just as devils and angels and Paradise and Hell exist in the
universe; but the one is the seat of good, while the other is the seat
of evil. Hence, resistance to the lower soul is the chief of all acts of
devotion and the crown of all acts of self-mortification, and only
thereby can Man find the way to God, because submission to the lower
soul involves his destruction and resistance to it involves his
salvation.[115]
Footnote 115:
Here the author cites Kor. lxxix, 40, 41; ii, 81 (part of the verse);
xii, 53; and the Traditions: “When God wishes well unto His servant He
causes him to see the faults of his soul,” and “God said to David, ‘O
David, hate thy soul, for My love depends on thy hatred of it.’”
Now, every attribute needs an object whereby it subsists, and knowledge
of that attribute, namely, the soul, is not attained save by knowledge
of the whole body, which knowledge in turn demands an explanation of the
qualities of human nature (_insániyyat_) and the mystery thereof, and is
incumbent upon all seekers of the Truth, because whoever is ignorant of
himself is yet more ignorant of other things; and inasmuch as a man is
bound to know God, he must first know himself, in order that by rightly
perceiving his own temporality he may recognize the eternity of God, and
may learn the everlastingness of God through his own perishableness. The
Apostle said: “He who knows himself already knows his Lord,” i.e., if he
knows himself as perishable he knows God as everlasting, or if he knows
himself as humble he knows God as Almighty, or if he knows himself as a
servant he knows God as the Lord. Therefore one who does not know
himself is debarred from knowledge of all things.
As regards the knowledge of human nature and the various opinions held
on that topic, some Moslems assert that Man is nothing but spirit
(_rúḥ_), of which this body is the cuirass and temple and residence, in
order to preserve it from being injured by the natural humours
(_ṭabáyi`_), and of which the attributes are sensation and intelligence.
This view is false, because a body from which the soul (_ján_) has
departed is still called “a human being” (_insán_); if the soul is
joined with it it is “a live human being”, and if the soul is gone it is
“a dead human being”. Moreover, a soul is located in the bodies of
animals, yet they are not called “human beings”. If the spirit (_rúḥ_)
were the cause of human nature, it would follow that the principle of
human nature must exist in every creature possessed of a soul
(_ján-dárí_); which is a proof of the falsity of their assertion.
Others, again, have stated that the term “human nature” is applicable to
the spirit and the body together, and that it no longer applies when one
is separated from the other; e.g., when two colours, black and white,
are combined on a horse, it is called “piebald” (_ablaq_), whereas the
same colours, apart from each other, are called “black” and “white”.
This too is false, in accordance with God’s word: “_Did there not come
over Man a space of time during which he was not a thing worthy of
mention?_” (Kor. lxxvi, 1): in this verse Man’s clay, without soul—for
the soul had not yet been joined to his body—is called “Man”. Others
aver that “Man” is an atom, centred in the heart, which is the principle
of all human attributes. This also is absurd, for if anyone is killed
and his heart is taken out of his body he does not lose the name of
“human being”; moreover, it is agreed that the heart was not in the
human body before the soul. Some pretenders to Ṣúfiism have fallen into
error on this subject. They declare that “Man” is not that which eats
and drinks and suffers decay, but a Divine mystery, of which this body
is the vesture, situated in the interfusion of the natural humours
(_imtizáj-i ṭab`_) and in the union (_ittiḥád_) of body and spirit. To
this I reply, that by universal consent the name of “human being”
belongs to sane men and mad, and to infidels and immoral and ignorant
persons, in whom there is no such “mystery” and who suffer decay and eat
and drink; and that there is not anything called “Man” in the body,
either while it exists or after it has ceased to exist. God Almighty has
given the name of “Man” to the sum of the substances which He compounded
in us, excluding those things which are not to be found in some human
beings, e.g. in the verses “_And We have created Man of the choicest
clay_,” etc. (Kor. xxiii, 12-14). Therefore, according to the word of
God, who is the most veracious of all who speak the Truth, this
particular form, with all its ingredients and with all the changes which
it undergoes, is “Man”. In like manner, certain Sunnís have said that
Man is a living creature whose form has these characteristics, and that
death does not deprive him of this name, and that he is endowed with a
definite physiognomy (_ṣúrat-i ma`húd_) and a distinct organ (_álat-i
mawsúm_) both externally and internally. By “a definite physiognomy”
they mean that he has either good or ill health, and by “a distinct
organ” that he is either mad or sane. It is generally allowed that the
more sound (_ṣaḥíḥ_) a thing is, the more perfect it is in constitution.
You must know, then, that in the opinion of mystics the most perfect
composition of Man includes three elements, viz. spirit, soul, and body;
and that each of these has an attribute which subsists therein, the
attribute of spirit being intelligence, of soul, passion, and of body,
sensation. Man is a type of the whole universe. The universe is the name
of the two worlds, and in Man there is a vestige of both, for he is
composed of phlegm, blood, bile, and melancholy, which four humours
correspond to the four elements of this world, viz. water, earth, air,
and fire, while his soul (_ján_), his lower soul (_nafs_), and his body
correspond to Paradise, Hell, and the place of Resurrection. Paradise is
the effect of God’s satisfaction, and Hell is the result of His anger.
Similarly, the spirit of the true believer reflects the peace of
knowledge, and his lower soul the error which veils him from God. As, at
the Resurrection, the believer must be released from Hell before he can
reach Paradise and attain to real vision and pure love, so in this world
he must escape from his lower soul before he can attain to real
discipleship (_irádat_), of which the spirit is the principle, and to
real proximity (to God) and gnosis. Hence, whoever knows Him in this
world and turns away from all besides and follows the highway of the
sacred law, at the Resurrection he will not see Hell and the Bridge
(_Ṣiráṭ_). In short, the believer’s spirit calls him to Paradise, of
which it is a type in this world, and his lower soul calls him to Hell,
of which it is a type in this world. Therefore it behoves those who seek
God never to relax their resistance to the lower soul, in order that
thereby they may reinforce the spirit and the intelligence, which are
the home of the Divine mystery.
SECTION.
As regards what has been said by the Shaykhs concerning the lower soul,
Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian says: “Vision of the lower soul and its
promptings is the worst of veils,” because obedience to it is
disobedience to God, which is the origin of all veils. Abú Yazíd Bisṭámí
says: “The lower soul is an attribute which never rests save in
falsehood,” i.e. it never seeks the Truth. Muḥammad b. `Alí al-Tirmidhí
says: “You wish to know God while your lower soul subsists in you; but
your lower soul does not know itself, how should it know another?”
Junayd says: “To fulfil the desires of your lower soul is the foundation
of infidelity,” because the lower soul is not connected with, and is
always striving to turn away from, the pure truth of Islam; and he who
turns away denies, and he who denies is an alien (_bégána_). Abú
Sulaymán Dárání says: “The lower soul is treacherous and hindering (one
who seeks to please God); and resistance to it is the best of actions.”
Now I come to my main purpose, which is to set forth the doctrine of
Sahl concerning the mortification and discipline of the lower soul, and
to explain its true nature.
_Discourse on the Mortification of the Lower Soul._
God has said: “_Those who strive to the utmost_ (jáhadú) _for Our sake,
We will guide them into Our ways_” (Kor. xxix, 69). And the Prophet
said: “The (_mujáhid_) is he who struggles with all his might against
himself (_jáhada nafsahu_) for God’s sake.” And he also said: “We have
returned from the lesser war (_al-jihád al-aṣghar_) to the greater war
(_al-jihád al-akbar_)”. On being asked, “What is the greater war?” he
replied, “It is the struggle against one’s self” (_mujáhadat al-nafs_).
Thus the Apostle adjudged the mortification of the lower soul to be
superior to the Holy War against unbelievers, because the former is more
painful. You must know, then, that the way of mortification is plain and
manifest, for it is approved by men of all religions and sects, and is
observed and practised by the Ṣúfís in particular; and the term
“mortification” (_mujáhadat_) is current among Ṣúfís of every class, and
the Shaykhs have uttered many sayings on this topic. Sahl b. `Abdalláh
Tustarí carries the principle to an extreme point. It is related that he
used to break his fast only once in fifteen days, and he ate but little
food in the course of his long life. While all mystics have affirmed the
need of mortification, and have declared it to be an indirect means
(_asbáb_) of attaining contemplation (_musháhadat_), Sahl asserted that
mortification is the direct cause (_`illat_) of the latter, and he
attributed to search (_ṭalab_) a powerful effect on attainment (_yáft_),
so that he even regarded the present life, spent in search, as superior
to the future life of fruition. “If,” he said, “you serve God in this
world, you will attain proximity to Him in the next world: without that
service there would not be this proximity: it follows that
self-mortification, practised with the aid of God, is the direct cause
of union with God.” Others, on the contrary, hold that there is no
direct cause of union with God, and whoever attains to God does so by
Divine grace (_faḍl_), which is independent of human actions. Therefore,
they argue, the object of mortification is to correct the vices of the
lower soul, not to attain real proximity, and inasmuch as mortification
is referred to Man, while contemplation is referred to God, it is
impossible that one should be caused by the other. Sahl, however, cites
in favour of his view the words of God: “_Those who strive to the utmost
for Our sake, We will guide them into Our ways_” (Kor. xxix, 69), i.e.
whoever mortifies himself will attain to contemplation. Furthermore, he
contends that inasmuch as the books revealed to the Prophets, and the
Sacred Law, and all the religious ordinances imposed on mankind involve
mortification, they must all be false and vain if mortification were not
the cause of contemplation. Again, both in this world and the next,
everything is connected with principles and causes. If it is maintained
that principles have no causes, there is an end of all law and order:
neither can religious obligations be justified nor will food be the
cause of repletion and clothes the cause of warmth. Accordingly, to
regard actions as being caused is Unification (_tawḥíd_), and to rebut
this is Nullification (_ta`ṭíl_). He who asserts it is proving the
existence of contemplation, and he who denies it is denying the
existence of contemplation. Does not training (_riyáḍat_) alter the
animal qualities of a wild horse and substitute human qualities in their
stead, so that he will pick up a whip from the ground and give it to his
master, or will roll a ball with his foot? In the same way, a boy
without sense and of foreign race is taught by training to speak Arabic,
and take a new language in exchange for his mother tongue; and a savage
beast is trained to go away when leave is given to it, and to come back
when it is called, preferring captivity to freedom.[116] Therefore, Sahl
and his followers argue, mortification is just as necessary for the
attainment of union with God as diction and composition are necessary
for the elucidation of ideas; and as one is led to knowledge of the
Creator by assurance that the universe was created in time, so one is
led to union with God by knowledge and mortification of the lower soul.
Footnote 116:
Here follows an account of the mortification which the Prophet imposed
on himself.
I will now state the arguments of the opposing party. They maintain that
the verse of the Koran (xxix, 69) cited by Sahl is a _hysteron
proteron_, and that the meaning of it is, “Those whom We guide into Our
ways strive to the utmost for Our sake.” And the Apostle said: “Not one
of you shall be saved by his works.” “O Apostle,” they cried, “not even
thou?” “Not even I,” he said, “unless God encompass me with His mercy.”
Now, mortification is a man’s act, and his act cannot possibly become
the cause of his salvation, which depends on the Divine Will, as God
hath said: “_Whomsoever God wishes to lead aright, He will open his
breast to receive_ _Islam, but whomsoever He wishes to lead astray, He
will make his breast strait and narrow_” (Kor. vi, 125). By affirming
His will, He denies the (effect of the) religious ordinances which have
been laid upon mankind. If mortification were the cause of union Iblís
would not have been damned, or if neglect of mortification were the
cause of damnation Adam would never have been blessed. The result hangs
on predestined grace (_`ináyat_), not on abundance of mortification. It
is not the case that he who most exerts himself is the most secure, but
that he who has most grace is nearest to God. A monk worshipping in his
cell may be far from God, and a sinner in the tavern may be near to Him.
The noblest thing in the world is the faith of a child who is not
subject to the religious law (_mukallaf_) and in this respect belongs to
the same category as madmen: if, then, mortification is not the cause of
the noblest of all gifts, no cause is necessary for anything that is
inferior.
I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, say that the difference between the two
parties in this controversy lies in expression (_`ibárat_). One says,
“He who seeks shall find,” and the other says, “He who finds shall
seek.” Seeking is the cause of finding, but it is no less true that
finding is the cause of seeking. The one party practises mortification
for the purpose of attaining contemplation, and the other party
practises contemplation for the purpose of attaining mortification. The
fact is that mortification stands in the same relation to contemplation
as Divine blessing (_tawfíq_), which is a gift from God, to obedience
(_ṭá`at_): as it is absurd to seek obedience without Divine blessing, so
it is absurd to seek Divine blessing without obedience, and as there can
be no mortification without contemplation, so there can be no
contemplation without mortification. Man is guided to mortification by a
flash of the Divine Beauty, and inasmuch as that flash is the cause of
the existence of mortification, Divine guidance (_hidáyat_) precedes
mortification.
Now, as regards the argument of Sahl and his followers that failure to
affirm mortification involves the denial of all the religious ordinances
which have come down in the books revealed to the Prophets, this
statement requires correction. Religious obligations (_taklíf_) depend
on Divine guidance (_hidáyat_), and acts of mortification only serve to
affirm the proofs of God, not to effect real union with Him. God has
said: “_And though We had sent down the angels unto them and the dead
had spoken unto them and We had gathered before them all things
together, they would not have believed unless God had so willed_” (Kor.
vi, 111), for the cause of belief is Our will, not evidences or
mortification. Accordingly, the revelations of the Prophets and the
ordinances of religion are a means (_asbáb_) of attaining to union, but
are not the cause (_`illat_) of union. So far as religious obligations
are concerned, Abú Bakr was in the same position as Abú Jahl, but Abú
Bakr, having justice and grace, attained, whereas Abú Jahl, having
justice without grace, failed. Therefore the cause of attainment is
attainment itself, not the act of seeking attainment, for if the seeker
were one with the object sought the seeker would be one, and in that
case he would not be a seeker, because he who has attained is at rest,
which the seeker cannot be.
Again, in reference to their argument that the qualities of a horse are
altered by mortification, you must know that mortification is only a
means of bringing out qualities that are already latent in the horse but
do not appear until he has been trained. Mortification will never turn a
donkey into a horse or a horse into a donkey, because this involves a
change of identity; and since mortification has not the power of
transforming identity it cannot possibly be affirmed in the presence of
God.
Over that spiritual director, namely, Sahl, there used to pass a
mortification of which he was independent and which, while he was in the
reality thereof, he was unable to express in words. He was not like some
who have made it their religion to talk about mortification without
practising it. How absurd that what ought to consist wholly in action
should become nothing but words! In short, the Ṣúfís are unanimous in
recognizing the existence of mortification and discipline, but hold that
it is wrong to pay regard to them. Those who deny mortification do not
mean to deny its reality, but only to deny that any regard should be
paid to it or that anyone should be pleased with his own actions in the
place of holiness, inasmuch as mortification is the act of Man, while
contemplation is a state in which one is kept by God, and a man’s
actions do not begin to have value until God keeps him thus. The
mortification of those whom God loves is the work of God in them without
choice on their part: it overwhelms and melts them away; but the
mortification of ignorant men is the work of themselves in themselves by
their own choice: it perturbs and distresses them, and distress is due
to evil. Therefore, do not speak of thine own actions while thou canst
avoid it, and never in any circumstances follow thy lower soul, for it
is thy phenomenal being that veils thee from God. If thou wert veiled by
one act alone, thou mightest be unveiled by another, but since thy whole
being is a veil thou wilt not become worthy of subsistence (_baqá_)
until thou art wholly annihilated. It is related in a well—known
anecdote that Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj) came to Kúfa and lodged in
the house of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn al-`Alawí. Ibráhím Khawwáṣ also came
to Kúfa, and, having heard of al-Ḥalláj, went to see him. Al-Ḥalláj
said: “O Ibráhím, during these forty years of your connexion with
Ṣúfiism, what have you gained from it?” Ibráhím answered: “I have made
the doctrine of trust in God (_tawakkul_) peculiarly my own.” Al-Ḥalláj
said: “You have wasted your life in cultivating your spiritual nature:
what has become of annihilation in Unification (_al-faná fi
´l-tawḥíd_)?” i.e. “trust in God is a term denoting your conduct towards
God and your spiritual excellence in regard to relying on Him: if a man
spends his whole life in remedying his spiritual nature, he will need
another life for remedying his material nature, and his life will be
lost before he has found a trace or vestige of God”. And a story is told
of Shaykh Abú `Alí Siyáh of Merv, that he said: “I saw my lower soul in
a form resembling my own, and some one had seized it by its hair and
gave it into my hands. I bound it to a tree and was about to destroy it,
when it cried out, ‘O Abú `Alí, do not trouble yourself. I am God’s army
(_lashkar-i khudáyam_): you cannot reduce me to naught.’” And it is
related concerning Muḥammad b. `Ulyán of Nasá, an eminent companion of
Junayd, that he said: “In my novitiate, when I had become aware of the
corruptions of the lower soul and acquainted with its places of ambush,
I always felt a violent hatred of it in my heart. One day something like
a young fox came forth from my throat, and God caused me to know that it
was my lower soul. I cast it under my feet, and at every kick that I
gave it, it grew bigger. I said: ‘Other things are destroyed by pain and
blows: why dost thou increase?’ It replied: ‘Because I was created
perverse: that which is pain to other things is pleasure to me, and
their pleasure is my pain.’” Shaykh Abu ´l-`Abbás Shaqání, who was the
Imám of his time, said: “One day I came into my house and found a yellow
dog lying there, asleep. Thinking it had come in from the street, I was
about to turn it out. It crept under my skirt and vanished.” Shaykh Abu
´l-Qásim Gurgání, who to-day is the Quṭb—may God prolong his
life!—relates, speaking of his novitiate, that he saw his lower soul in
the form of a snake. A dervish said: “I saw my lower soul in the shape
of a mouse. ‘Who art thou?’ I asked. It answered: ‘I am the destruction
of the heedless, for I urge them to evil, and the salvation of those who
love God, for if I were not with them in my corruption they would be
puffed up with pride in their purity.’”
All these stories prove that the lower soul is a real substance
(_`ayní_), not a mere attribute, and that it has attributes which we
clearly perceive. The Apostle said: “Thy worst enemy is thy lower soul,
which is between thy two sides.” When you have obtained knowledge of it
you recognize that it can be mastered by discipline, but that its
essence and substance do not perish. If it is rightly known and under
control, the seeker need not care though it continues to exist in him.
Hence the purpose of mortifying the lower soul is to destroy its
attributes, not to annihilate its reality. Now I will discuss the true
nature of passion and the renunciation of lusts.
_Discourse on the true nature of Passion_ (hawá).
You must know that, according to the opinion of some, passion is a term
applied to the attributes of the lower soul, but, according to others, a
term denoting the natural volition (_irádat-i ṭab`_) whereby the lower
soul is controlled and directed, just as the spirit is controlled by the
intelligence. Every spirit that is devoid of the faculty of intelligence
is imperfect, and similarly every lower soul that is devoid of the
faculty of passion is imperfect. Man is continually being called by
intelligence and passion into contrary ways. If he obeys the call of
intelligence he attains to faith, but if he obeys the call of passion he
arrives at error and infidelity. Therefore passion is a veil and a false
guide, and man is commanded to resist it. Passion is of two kinds: (1)
desire of pleasure and lust, and (2) desire of worldly honour and
authority. He who follows pleasure and lust haunts taverns, and mankind
are safe from his mischief, but he who desires honour and authority
lives in cells (_ṣawámi`_) and monasteries, and not only has lost the
right way himself but also leads others into error. One whose every act
depends on passion, and who finds satisfaction in following it, is far
from God although he be with you in a mosque, but one who has renounced
and abandoned it is near to God although he be in a church. Ibráhím
Khawwáṣ relates this anecdote: “Once I heard that in Rúm there was a
monk who had been seventy years in a monastery. I said to myself:
‘Wonderful! Forty years is the term of monastic vows: what is the state
of this man that he has remained there for seventy years?’ I went to see
him. When I approached, he opened a window and said to me: ‘O Ibráhím, I
know why you have come. I have not stayed here for seventy years because
of monastic vows, but I have a dog foul with passion, and I have taken
my abode in this monastery for the purpose of guarding the dog
(_sagbání_), and preventing it from doing harm to others.’ On hearing
him say this I exclaimed: ‘O Lord, Thou art able to bestow righteousness
on a man even though he be involved in sheer error.’ He said to me: ‘O
Ibráhím, how long will you seek men? Go and seek yourself, and when you
have found yourself keep watch over yourself, for this passion clothes
itself every day in three hundred and sixty diverse garments of godhead
and leads men astray.’“
In short, the devil cannot enter a man’s heart until he desires to
commit a sin: but when a certain quantity of passion appears, the devil
takes it and decks it out and displays it to the man’s heart; and this
is called diabolic suggestion (_waswás_). It begins from passion, and in
reference to this fact God said to Iblís when he threatened to seduce
all mankind: ”_Verily, thou hast no power over My servants_” (Kor. xv,
42), for the devil in reality is a man’s lower soul and passion. Hence
the Apostle said: “There is no one whom his devil (i.e. his passion) has
not subdued except `Umar, for he has subdued his devil.” Passion is
mingled as an ingredient in the clay of Adam; whoever renounces it
becomes a prince and whoever follows it becomes a captive. Junayd was
asked: “What is union with God?” He replied: “To renounce passion,” for
of all the acts of devotion by which God’s favour is sought none has
greater value than resistance to passion, because it is easier for a man
to destroy a mountain with his nails than to resist passion. I have read
in the Anecdotes that Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian said: “I saw a man flying
through the air, and asked him how he had attained to this degree. He
answered: ‘I set my feet on passion (_hawá_) in order that I might
ascend into the air (_hawá_).’” It is related that Muḥammad b. Faḍl
al-Balkhí said: “I marvel at one who goes with his passion into God’s
House and visits Him: why does not he trample on his passion that he may
attain to Him?”
The most manifest attribute of the lower soul is lust (_shahwat_). Lust
is a thing that is dispersed in different parts of the human body, and
is served by the senses. Man is bound to guard all his members from it,
and he shall be questioned concerning the acts of each. The lust of the
eye is sight, that of the ear is hearing, that of the nose is smell,
that of the tongue is speech, that of the palate is taste, that of the
body (_jasad_) is touch, and that of the mind is thought (_andíshídan_).
It behoves the seeker of God to spend his whole life, day and night, in
ridding himself of these incitements to passion which show themselves
through the senses, and to pray God to make him such that this desire
will be removed from his inward nature, since whoever is afflicted with
lust is veiled from all spiritual things. If anyone should repel it by
his own exertions, his task would be long and painful. The right way is
resignation (_taslím_). It is related that Abú `Alí Siyáh of Merv said:
“I had gone to the bath and in accordance with the custom of the Prophet
I was using a razor (_pubis tondendæ causâ_). I said to myself: ‘O Abú
`Alí, amputate this member which is the source of all lusts and keeps
thee afflicted with so much evil.’ A voice in my heart whispered: ‘O Abú
`Alí, wilt thou interfere in My kingdom? Are not all thy limbs equally
at My disposal? If thou do this, I swear by My glory that I will put a
hundredfold lust and passion in every hair in that place.’”
Although a man has no power over what is vicious in his constitution, he
can get an attribute changed by Divine aid and by resigning himself to
God’s will and by divesting himself of his own power and strength. In
reality, when he resigns himself, God protects him; and through God’s
protection he comes nearer to annihilating the evil than he does through
self-mortification, since flies are more easily driven away with an
umbrella (_mikanna_) than with a fly-whisk (_midhabba_). Unless Divine
protection is predestined to a man, he cannot abstain from anything by
his own exertion, and unless God exerts Himself towards a man, that
man’s exertion is of no use. All acts of exertion fall under two heads:
their object is either to avert the predestination of God or to acquire
something in spite of predestination; and both these objects are
impossible. It is related that when Shiblí was ill, the physician
advised him to be abstinent. “From what shall I abstain?” said he, “from
that which God bestows upon me, or from that which He does not bestow?
It is impossible to abstain from the former, and the latter is not in my
hands.” I will discuss this question carefully on another occasion.
7. THE ḤAKÍMÍS.
They are the followers of Abú `Abdalláh Muḥammad b. `Alí al-Ḥakím
al-Tirmidhí, who was one of the religious leaders of his time and the
author of many works on every branch of exoteric and esoteric science.
His doctrine was based on saintship (_wiláyat_), and he used to explain
the true nature of saintship and the degrees of the saints and the
observance of the proper arrangement of their ranks.
As the first step towards understanding his doctrine, you must know that
God has saints (_awliyá_), whom He has chosen out of mankind, and whose
thoughts He has withdrawn from worldly ties and delivered from sensual
temptations; and He has stationed each of them in a particular degree,
and has opened unto them the door of these mysteries. Much might be said
on this topic, but I must briefly set forth several points of capital
importance.
_Discourse on the Affirmation of Saintship_ (wiláyat).
You must know that the principle and foundation of Ṣúfiism and knowledge
of God rests on saintship, the reality of which is unanimously affirmed
by all the Shaykhs, though every one has expressed himself in different
language. The peculiarity of Muḥammad b. `Alí (al-Ḥakím) lies in the
fact that he applied this term to the theory of Ṣúfiism.
_Waláyat_ means, etymologically, “power to dispose” (_taṣarruf_), and
_wiláyat_ means “possession of command” (_imárat_). _Waláyat_ also means
“lordship” (_rubúbiyyat_); hence God hath said: “_In this case the
lordship_ (al-waláyat) _belongs to God who is the_ _Truth_” (Kor. xviii,
42), because the unbelievers seek His protection and turn unto Him and
renounce their idols. And _wiláyat_ also means “love” (_maḥabbat_).
_Walí_ may be the form _fa`íl_ with the meaning of _maf`úl_, as God hath
said: “_And He takes charge of_ (yatawallá) _the righteous_” (Kor. vii,
195), for God does not leave His servant to his own actions and
attributes, but keeps him under His protection. And _walí_ may be the
form _fa`íl_, equivalent to _fá`il_, with an intensive force, because a
man takes care (_tawallí kunad_) to obey God and constantly to fulfil
the obligations that he owes to Him. Thus _walí_ in the active meaning
is “one who desires” (_muríd_), while in the passive meaning it denotes
“one who is the object of God’s desire” (_murád_). All these meanings,
whether they signify the relation of God to Man or that of Man to God,
are allowable, for God may be the protector of His friends, inasmuch as
He promised His protection to the Companions of the Apostle, and
declared that the unbelievers had no protector (_mawlá_).[117] And,
moreover, He may distinguish them in an exclusive way by His friendship,
as He hath said, “_He loves them and they love Him_” (Kor. v, 59), so
that they turn away from the favour of mankind: He is their friend
(_walí_) and they are His friends (_awliyá_). And He may confer on one a
“friendship” (_wiláyat_) that enables him to persevere in obedience to
Him, and keeps him free from sin, and on another a “friendship” that
empowers him to loose and bind, and makes his prayers answered and his
aspirations effectual, as the Apostle said: “There is many a one with
dirty hair, dust-stained, clad in two old garments, whom men never heed;
but if he were to swear by God, God would verify his oath.” It is well
known that in the Caliphate of `Umar b. al-Khaṭṭáb, the Nile, in
accordance with its usual habit, ceased to flow; for in the time of
Paganism they used annually to adorn a maiden and throw her into the
river to make it flow again. `Umar therefore wrote on a piece of paper:
“O river, if thou hast stopped of thy own will, thou doest wrong, and if
by command of God, `Umar bids thee flow.“ When this paper was thrown in,
the Nile resumed its course.
Footnote 117:
Kor. xlvii, 12.
My purpose in discussing saintship and affirming its reality is to show
you that the name of saint (_walí_) is properly applied to those in whom
the above-mentioned qualities are actually present (_ḥál_) and not
merely reputed (_qál_). Certain Shaykhs formerly composed books on this
subject, but they became rare and soon disappeared. Now I will commend
to you the explanation given by that venerable spiritual director who is
the author of the doctrine—for my own belief in it is greater—in order
that much instruction may be gained, not only by yourself, but also by
every seeker of Ṣúfiism who may have the good fortune to read this book.
SECTION.
You must know that the word _walí_ is current among the vulgar, and is
to be found in the Koran and the Apostolic Traditions: e.g., God hath
said, ”_Verily, on the friends_ (awliyá) _of God no fear shall come, and
they shall not grieve_“ (Kor. x, 63); and again, ”_God is the friend_
(walí) _of those who believe_” (Kor. ii, 258). And the Apostle said:
“Among the servants of God there are some whom the prophets and martyrs
deem happy.” He was asked: “Who are they? Describe them to us that
perchance we may love them.” He replied: “Those who love one another,
through God’s mercy, without wealth and without seeking a livelihood:
their faces are luminous, and they sit on thrones of light; they are not
afraid when men are afraid, nor do they grieve when men grieve.” Then he
recited: “_Verily, on the friends of God no fear shall come, and they
shall not grieve_” (Kor. x, 63). Furthermore, the Apostle said that God
said: “He who hurts a saint (_walí_) has allowed himself to make war on
Me.”
These passages show that God has saints (_awliyá_) whom He has specially
distinguished by His friendship and whom He has chosen to be the
governors of His kingdom and has marked out to manifest His actions and
has peculiarly favoured with diverse kinds of miracles (_karámát_) and
has purged of natural corruptions and has delivered from subjection to
their lower soul and passion, so that all their thoughts are of Him and
their intimacy is with Him alone. Such have been in past ages, and are
now, and shall be hereafter until the Day of Resurrection, because God
has exalted this (Moslem) community above all others and has promised to
preserve the religion of Muḥammad. Inasmuch as the traditional and
intellectual proofs of this religion are to be found among the divines
(_`ulamá_), it follows that the visible proof is to be found among the
Saints and elect of God. Here we have two parties opposed to us, namely,
the Mu`tazilites and the rank and file of the Anthropomorphists
(_Ḥashwiyya_). The Mu`tazilites deny that one Moslem is specially
privileged more than another; but if a saint is not specially
privileged, neither is a prophet specially privileged; and this is
infidelity. The vulgar Anthropomorphists allow that special privileges
may be conferred, but assert that such privileged persons no longer
exist, although they did exist in the past. It is all the same, however,
whether they deny the past or the future, since one side of denial is no
better than another.
God, then, has caused the prophetic evidence (_burhán-i nabawí_) to
remain down to the present day, and has made the Saints the means
whereby it is manifested, in order that the signs of the Truth and the
proof of Muḥammad’s veracity may continue to be clearly seen. He has
made the Saints the governors of the universe; they have become entirely
devoted to His business, and have ceased to follow their sensual
affections. Through the blessing of their advent the rain falls from
heaven, and through the purity of their lives the plants spring up from
the earth, and through their spiritual influence the Moslems gain
victories over the unbelievers. Among them there are four thousand who
are concealed and do not know one another and are not aware of the
excellence of their state, but in all circumstances are hidden from
themselves and from mankind. Traditions have come down to this effect,
and the sayings of the Saints proclaim the truth thereof, and I
myself—God be praised!—have had ocular experience (_khabar-i `iyán_) of
this matter. But of those who have power to loose and to bind and are
the officers of the Divine court there are three hundred, called
_Akhyár_, and forty, called _Abdál_, and seven, called _Abrár_, and
four, called _Awtád_, and three, called _Nuqabá_, and one, called _Quṭb_
or _Ghawth_. All these know one another and cannot act save by mutual
consent.
Here the vulgar may object to my assertion that they know one another to
be saints, on the ground that, if such is the case, they must be secure
as to their fate in the next world. I reply that it is absurd to suppose
that knowledge of saintship involves security. A believer may have
knowledge of his faith and yet not be secure: why should not the same
hold good of a saint who has knowledge of his saintship? Nevertheless,
it is possible that God should miraculously cause the saint to know his
security in regard to the future life, while maintaining him in a state
of spiritual soundness and preserving him from disobedience. The Shaykhs
differ on this question for the reason which I have explained. Those
belonging to the four thousand who are concealed do not admit that the
saint can know himself to be such, whereas those of the other class take
the contrary view. Each opinion is supported by many lawyers and
scholastics. Abú Isḥáq Isfará´iní[118] and some of the ancients hold
that a saint is ignorant of his saintship, while Abú Bakr b. Fúrak[119]
and others of the past generation hold that he is conscious of it. I ask
the former party, what loss or evil does a saint suffer by knowing
himself? If they allege that he is conceited when he knows himself to be
a saint, I answer that Divine protection is a necessary condition of
saintship, and one who is protected from evil cannot fall into
self-conceit. It is a very common notion (_sukhan-i sakht `ámiyána_)
that a saint, to whom extraordinary miracles (_karámát_) are continually
vouchsafed, does not know himself to be a saint or these miracles to be
miracles. Both parties have adherents among the common people, but
opinion is of no account.
Footnote 118:
See Ibn Khallikán, No. 4.
Footnote 119:
See Ibn Khallikán, No. 621; Brockelmann, i, 166.
The Mu`tazilites, however, deny special privileges and miracles, which
constitute the essence of saintship. They affirm that all Moslems are
friends (_awliyá_) of God when they are obedient to Him, and that anyone
who fulfils the ordinances of the Faith and denies the attributes and
vision of God and allows believers to be eternally damned in Hell and
acknowledges only such obligations as are imposed by Reason, without
regard to Revelation, is a “friend” (_walí_). All Moslems agree that
such a person is a “friend”, but a friend of the Devil. The Mu`tazilites
also maintain that, if saintship involved miracles, all believers must
have miracles vouchsafed to them, because they all share in faith
(_ímán_), and if they share in what is fundamental they must likewise
share in what is derivative. They say, further, that miracles may be
vouchsafed both to believers and to infidels, e.g. when anyone is hungry
or fatigued on a journey some person may appear in order to give him
food or mount him on an animal for riding. If it were possible, they
add, for anyone to traverse a great distance in one night, the Apostle
must have been that man; yet, when he set out for Mecca, God said, “_And
they_ (the animals) _carry your burdens to a land which ye would not
have reached save with sore trouble to yourselves_” (Kor. xvi, 7). I
reply: “Your arguments are worthless, for God said, ‘_Glory to Him who
transported His servant by night from the sacred mosque to the farther
mosque_’” (Kor. xvii, 1). Miracles are special, not general; but it
would have been a general instance if all the Companions had been
miraculously conveyed to Mecca, and this would have destroyed all the
principles of faith in the unseen. Faith is a general term, applicable
to the righteous and the wicked alike, whereas saintship is special. The
journey of the Companions to Mecca falls under the former category, but
inasmuch as the case of the Apostle was a special one, God conveyed him
in one night from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to a space of two
bow-lengths from the Divine presence; and he returned ere the night was
far spent. Again, to deny special privileges is manifestly unreasonable.
As in a palace there are chamberlains, janitors, grooms, and viziers,
who, although they are equally the king’s servants, are not equal in
rank, so all believers are equal in respect of their faith, but some are
obedient, some wise, some pious, and some ignorant.
SECTION.
The Shaykhs, every one, have given hints as to the true meaning of
saintship. Now I will bring together as many of these selected
definitions as possible.
Abú `Alí Júzajání says: “The saint is annihilated in his own state and
subsistent in the contemplation of the Truth: he cannot tell anything
concerning himself, nor can he rest with anyone except God,” because a
man has knowledge only of his own state, and when all his states are
annihilated he cannot tell anything about himself; and he cannot rest
with anyone else, to whom he might tell his state, because to
communicate one’s hidden state to another is to reveal the secret of the
Beloved, which cannot be revealed except to the Beloved himself.
Moreover, in contemplation it is impossible to regard aught except God:
how, then, can he be at rest with mankind? Junayd said: “The saint hath
no fear, because fear is the expectation either of some future calamity
or of the eventual loss of some object of desire, whereas the saint is
the son of his time (_ibn waqtihi_): he has no future that he should
fear anything; and as he hath no fear so he hath no hope, since hope is
the expectation either of gaining an object of desire or of being
relieved from a misfortune, and this belongs to the future; nor does he
grieve, because grief arises from the rigour of time, and how should he
feel grief who is in the radiance of satisfaction (_riḍá_) and the
garden of concord (_muwáfaqat_)?” The vulgar imagine this saying to
imply that, inasmuch as the saint feels neither fear nor hope nor grief,
he has security (_amn_) in their place; but he has not security, for
security arises from not seeing that which is hidden, and from turning
one’s back on “time”; and this (absence of security) is characteristic
of those who pay no regard to their humanity (_bashariyyat_) and are not
content with attributes. Fear and hope and security and grief all refer
to the interests of the lower soul, and when that is annihilated
satisfaction (_riḍá_) becomes an attribute of Man, and when satisfaction
has been attained his states become steadfast (_mustaqím_) in vision of
the Author of states (_muḥawwil_), and his back is turned on all states.
Then saintship is revealed to his heart and its meaning is made clear to
his inmost thoughts. Abú `Uthmán Maghribí says: “The saint is sometimes
celebrated (_mashhúr_), but he is not seduced (_maftún_),” and another
says: “The saint is sometimes hidden (_mastúr_), but he is not
celebrated.” Seduction consists in falsehood: inasmuch as the saint must
be veracious, and miracles cannot possibly be performed by a liar, it
follows that the saint is incapable of being seduced. These two sayings
refer to the controversy whether the saint knows himself to be such: if
he knows, he is celebrated, and if he does not know, he is seduced; but
the explanation of this is tedious. It is related that Ibráhím b. Adham
asked a certain man whether he desired to be one of God’s saints, and on
his replying “Yes”, said: “Do not covet anything in this world or the
next, and devote thyself entirely to God, and turn to God with all thy
heart.” To covet this world is to turn away from God for the sake of
that which is transitory, and to covet the next world is to turn away
from God for the sake of that which is everlasting: that which is
transitory perishes and its renunciation becomes naught, but that which
is everlasting cannot perish, hence its renunciation also is
imperishable. Abú Yazíd was asked: “Who is a saint?” He answered: “That
one who is patient under the command and prohibition of God,” because
the more a man loves God the more does his heart revere what He commands
and the farther is his body from what He forbids. It is related that Abú
Yazíd said: “Once I was told that a saint of God was in such and such a
town. I set out to visit him. When I arrived at his mosque he came forth
from his chamber and spat on the floor of the mosque. I turned back
without saluting him, and said to myself: ‘A saint must keep the
religious law in order that God may keep him in his spiritual state. Had
this man been a saint his respect for the mosque would have prevented
him from spitting on its floor, or God would have preserved him from
marring the grace vouchsafed to him.’ The same night I dreamed that the
Apostle said to me, ‘O Abú Yazíd, the blessing of that which thou hast
done is come to thee.’ Next day I attained to this degree which ye
behold.” And I have heard that a man who came to visit Shaykh Abú Sa`íd
entered the mosque with his left foot foremost. The Shaykh gave orders
that he should be dismissed, saying: “He who does not know how to enter
the house of the Friend is not suitable for us.” Some heretics who have
adopted this perilous doctrine assert that service of God (_khidmat_) is
necessary only while one is becoming a saint, but that after one has
become a saint service is abolished. This is clearly wrong. There is no
“station” on the way to the Truth where any obligation of service is
abolished. I will explain this matter fully in its proper place.
_Discourse on the Affirmation of Miracles_ (karámát).
You must know that miracles may be vouchsafed to a saint so long as he
does not infringe the obligations of the religious law. Both parties of
the orthodox Moslems agree on this point, nor is it intellectually
impossible, because such miracles are a species of that which is
predestined by God, and their manifestation does not contradict any
principle of the religious law, nor, on the other hand, is it repugnant
to the mind to conceive them as a genus. A miracle is a token of a
saint’s veracity, and it cannot be manifested to an impostor except as a
sign that his pretensions are false. It is an extraordinary act (_fi`lí
náqiḍ-i `ádat_), performed while he is still subject to the obligations
of religion; and whoever is able, through knowledge given him by God, to
distinguish by the method of deduction what is true from what is false,
he too is a saint. Some Sunnís maintain that miracles are established,
but not to the degree of an evidentiary miracle (_mu`jizat_[120]): they
do not admit, for example, that prayers may be answered and fulfilled,
and so forth, contrary to custom. I ask in reply: “What do you consider
wrong in the performance by a true saint, while he is subject to
religious obligations, of an act which violates custom?” If they say
that it is not a species of that which is predestined by God, this
statement is erroneous; and if they say that it is a species of that
which is predestined, but that its performance by a true saint involves
the annulment of prophecy and the denial of special privileges to the
prophets, this assertion also is inadmissible, since the saint is
specially distinguished by miracles (_karámát_) and the prophet by
evidentiary miracles (_mu`jizát_); and inasmuch as the saint is a saint
and the prophet is a prophet, there is no likeness between them to
justify such precaution. The pre-eminence of the prophets depends on
their exalted rank and on their being preserved from the defilement of
sin, not on miracles or evidentiary miracles or acts which violate
custom. All the prophets are equal so far as they all have the power of
working such miracles (_i`jáz_), but some are superior to others in
degree. Since, then, notwithstanding this equality in regard to their
actions, some prophets are superior to others, why should not miracles
(_karámát_) which violate custom be vouchsafed also to the saints,
although the prophets are superior to them? And since, in the case of
the prophets, an act which violates custom does not cause one of them to
be more exalted or more specially privileged than another, so, in the
case of the saints, a similar act does not cause a saint to be more
specially privileged than a prophet, i.e. the saints do not become like
in kind (_hamsán_) to the prophets. This proof will clear away, for
reasonable men, any difficulties that this matter may have presented to
them. “But suppose,” it may be said, “that a saint whose miracles
violate custom should claim to be a prophet.” I reply that this is
impossible, because saintship involves veracity, and he who tells a
falsehood is no saint. Moreover, a saint who pretends to prophesy casts
an imputation on (the genuineness of) evidentiary miracles, which is
infidelity. Miracles (_karámát_) are vouchsafed only to a pious
believer, and falsehood is impiety. That being so, the miracles of the
saint confirm the evidence of the prophet. There is no difficulty in
reconciling the two classes of miracles. The apostle establishes his
prophecy by establishing the reality of evidentiary miracles, while the
saint, by the miracles which he performs, establishes both the prophecy
of the apostle and his own saintship. Therefore the veracious saint says
the same thing as the veracious prophet. The miracles of the former are
identical with the evidentiary miracles of the latter. A believer,
seeing the miracles of a saint, has more faith in the veracity of the
prophet, not more doubt, because there is no contradiction between the
claims made by them. Similarly, in law, when a number of heirs are
agreed in their claim, if one of them establishes his claim the claim of
the others is established; but not so if their claims are contradictory.
Hence, when a prophet adduces evidentiary miracles as evidence that his
prophecy is genuine, and when his claim is confirmed by a saint, it is
impossible that any difficulty should arise.
Footnote 120:
The name _mu`jizat_ is given to a miracle performed by a prophet,
while one performed by a saint is called _karámat_.
_Discourse on the difference between Evidentiary Miracles_ (mu`jizát)
_and Miracles_ (karámát).
Inasmuch as it has been shown that neither class of miracles can be
wrought by an impostor, we must now distinguish more clearly between
them. _Mu`jizát_ involve publicity and _karámát_ secrecy, because the
result of the former is to affect others, while the latter are peculiar
to the person by whom they are performed. Again, the doer of _mu`jizát_
is quite sure that he has wrought an extraordinary miracle, whereas the
doer of _karámát_ cannot be sure whether he has really wrought a miracle
or whether he is insensibly deceived (_istidráj_). He who performs
_mu`jizát_ has authority over the law, and in arranging it he denies or
affirms, according as God commands him, that he is insensibly
deceived.[121] On the other hand, he who performs _karámát_ has no
choice but to resign himself (to God’s will) and to accept the
ordinances that are laid upon him, because the _karámát_ of a saint are
never in any way incompatible with the law laid down by a prophet. It
may be said: “If evidentiary miracles are the proof of a prophet’s
veracity, and if nevertheless you assert that miracles of the same kind
may be performed by one who is not a prophet, then they become ordinary
events (_mu`tád_): therefore your proof of the reality of _mu`jizát_
annuls your argument establishing the reality of _karámát_.” I reply:
“This is not the case. The _karámat_ of a saint is identical with, and
displays the same evidence as, the _mu`jizat_ of a prophet: the quality
of _i`jáz_ (inimitability) exhibited in the one instance does not impair
the same quality in the other instance.” When the infidels put Khubayb
on the gallows at Mecca, the Apostle, who was then seated in the mosque
at Medína, saw him and told the Companions what was being done to him.
God also lifted the veil from the eyes of Khubayb, so that he saw the
Apostle and cried, “Peace be with thee!” and God caused the Apostle to
hear his salutation, and caused Khubayb to hear the Apostle’s answer.
Now, the fact that the Apostle at Medína saw Khubayb at Mecca was an
evidentiary miracle, and the fact that Khubayb at Mecca saw the Apostle
at Medína was likewise an extraordinary act. Accordingly there is no
difference between absence in time and absence in space; for Khubayb’s
miracle (_karámat_) was wrought when he was absent from the Apostle in
space, and the miracles of later days were wrought by those who were
absent from the Apostle in time. This is a clear distinction and a
manifest proof that _karámát_ cannot possibly be in contradiction with
_i`jáz_ (miracles performed by a prophet). _Karámát_ are not established
unless they bear testimony to the truth of one who has performed a
_mu`jizat_, and they are not vouchsafed except to a pious believer who
bears such testimony. _Karámát_ of Moslems are an extraordinary miracle
(_mu`jizat_) of the Apostle, for as his law is permanent so must his
proof (_ḥujjat_) also be permanent. The saints are witnesses to the
truth of the Apostle’s mission, and it is impossible that a miracle
(_karámat_) should be wrought by an unbeliever (_bégána_).
Footnote 121:
B. omits the words “that he is insensibly deceived”.
On this topic a story is related of Ibráhím Khawwáṣ, which is very
apposite here. Ibráhím said: “I went down into the desert in my usual
state of detachment from worldly things (_tajríd_). After I had gone
some distance a man appeared and begged me to let him be my companion. I
looked at him and was conscious of a feeling of repugnance. He said to
me: ‘O Ibráhím, do not be vexed. I am a Christian, and one of the
Ṣábians among them. I have come from the confines of Rúm in the hope of
being thy companion.’ When I knew that he was an unbeliever, I regained
my equanimity, and felt it more easy to take him as my companion and to
fulfil my obligations towards him. I said: ‘O monk, I fear that thou
wilt suffer from want of meat and drink, for I have nothing with me.’ ‘O
Ibráhím,’ said he, ‘is thy fame in the world so great, and art thou
still concerned about meat and drink?’ I marvelled at his boldness and
accepted him as my companion in order to test his claim. After
journeying seven days and nights we were overtaken by thirst. He stopped
and cried: ‘O Ibráhím, they trumpet thy praise throughout the world. Now
let me see what privileges of intimacy (_gustákhíhá_) thou hast in this
court (i.e. to what extent thou art a favourite with God), for I can
endure no more.’ I laid my head on the earth and cried: ‘O Lord, do not
shame me before this unbeliever, who thinks well of me!’ When I raised
my head I saw a dish on which were placed two loaves of bread and two
cups of water. We ate and drank and went on our way. After seven days
had passed I resolved to test him ere he should again put me to the
proof. ‘O monk,’ I said, ‘now it is thy turn. Let me see the fruits of
thy mortification.’ He laid his head on the earth and muttered
something. Immediately a dish appeared containing four loaves and four
cups of water. I was amazed and grieved, and I despaired of my state.
‘This has appeared,’ I said, ‘for the sake of an unbeliever: how can I
eat or drink thereof?’ He bade me taste, but I refused, saying, ‘Thou
art not worthy of this, and it is not in harmony with thy spiritual
condition. If I regard it as a miracle (_karámat_), miracles are not
vouchsafed to unbelievers; and if I regard it as a contribution
(_ma`únat_) from thee, I must suspect thee of being an impostor.’ He
said: ‘Taste, O Ibráhím! I give thee joy of two things: firstly, of my
conversion to Islam (here he uttered the profession of faith), and
secondly, of the great honour in which thou art held by God.’ ‘How so?’
I asked. He answered: ‘I have no miraculous powers, but my shame on
account of thee made me lay my head on the earth and beg God to give me
two loaves and two cups of water if the religion of Muḥammad is true,
and two more loaves and cups if Ibráhím Khawwáṣ is one of God’s
saints.’” Then Ibráhím ate and drank, and the man who had been a monk
rose to eminence in Islam.
Now, this violation of custom, although attached to the _karámat_ of a
saint, is identical with the evidentiary miracles which are wrought by
prophets, but it is rare that in a prophet’s absence an evidence should
be vouchsafed to another person, or that in the presence of a saint some
portion of his miraculous powers should be transferred to another
person. In fact, the end of saintship is only the beginning of prophecy.
That monk was one of the hidden (saints), like Pharaoh’s magicians.
Ibráhím confirmed the Prophet’s power to violate custom, and his
companion also was endeavouring both to confirm prophecy and to glorify
saintship; a purpose which God in His eternal providence fulfilled. This
is a clear difference between _karámat_ and _i`jáz_. The manifestation
of miracles to the saints is a second miracle, for they ought to be kept
secret, not intentionally divulged. My Shaykh used to say that if a
saint reveals his saintship and claims to be a saint, the soundness of
his spiritual state is not impaired thereby, but if he takes pains to
obtain publicity he is led astray by self-conceit.
_Discourse on the performance of miracles belonging to the evidentiary
class by those who pretend to godship._
The Shaykhs of this sect and all orthodox Moslems are agreed that an
extraordinary act resembling a prophetic miracle (_mu`jizat_) may be
performed by an unbeliever, in order that by means of his performance he
may be shown beyond doubt to be an impostor. Thus, for example, Pharaoh
lived four hundred years without once falling ill; and when he climbed
up to any high ground the water followed him, and stopped when he
stopped, and moved when he moved. Nevertheless, intelligent men did not
hesitate to deny his pretensions to godship, inasmuch as every
intelligent person acknowledges that God is not incarnate (_mujassam_)
and composite (_murakkab_). You will judge by analogy the wondrous acts
related of Shaddád, who was the lord of Iram, and Nimrod. Similarly, we
are told on trustworthy authority that in the last days Dajjál will come
and will claim godship, and that two mountains will go with him, one on
his right hand and the other on his left; and that the mountain on his
right hand will be the place of felicity, and the mountain on his left
hand will be the place of torment; and that he will call the people to
himself and will punish those who refuse to join him. But though he
should perform a hundredfold amount of such extraordinary acts, no
intelligent person would doubt the falsity of his claim, for it is well
known that God does not sit on an ass and is not blind. Such things fall
under the principle of Divine deception (_istidráj_). So, again, one who
falsely pretends to be an apostle may perform an extraordinary act,
which proves him an impostor, just as a similar act performed by a true
apostle proves him genuine. But no such act can be performed if there be
any possibility of doubt or any difficulty in distinguishing the true
claimant from the impostor, for in that case the principle of allegiance
(_bay`at_) would be nullified. It is possible, moreover, that something
of the same kind as a miracle (_karámat_) may be performed by a
pretender to saintship who, although his conduct is bad, is blameless in
his religion, inasmuch as by that miraculous act he confirms the truth
of the Apostle and manifests the grace of God vouchsafed to him and does
not attribute the act in question to his own power. One who speaks the
truth, without evidence, in the fundamental matter of faith (_ímán_),
will always speak the truth, with evidence and firm belief, in the
matter of saintship, because his belief is of the same quality as the
belief of the saint; and though his actions do not square with his
belief, his claim of saintship is not demonstrably contradicted by his
evil conduct, any more than his claim of faith could be. In fact,
miracles (_karámát_) and saintship are Divine gifts, not things acquired
by Man, so that human actions (_kasb_) cannot become the cause of Divine
guidance.
I have already said that the saints are not preserved from sin
(_ma`ṣúm_), for sinlessness belongs to the prophets, but they are
protected (_maḥfúẕ_) from any evil that involves the denial of their
saintship; and the denial of saintship, after it has come into being,
depends on something inconsistent with faith, namely, apostasy
(_riddat_): it does not depend on sin. This is the doctrine of Muḥammad
b. `Alí Ḥakím of Tirmidh, and also of Junayd, Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí, Ḥárith
Muḥásibí, and many other mystics (_ahl-i ḥaqá´iq_). But those who attach
importance to conduct (_ahl-i mu`ámalát_), like Sahl b. `Abdalláh of
Tustar, Abú Sulaymán Dárání, Ḥamdún Qaṣṣár, and others, maintain that
saintship involves unceasing obedience (_ṭá`at_), and that when a great
sin (_kabíra_) occurs to the mind of a saint he is deposed from his
saintship. Now, as I have stated before, there is a consensus of opinion
(_ijmá`_) among Moslems that a great sin does not put anyone outside the
pale of faith; and one saintship (_wiláyat_) is no better than another.
Therefore, since the saintship of knowledge of God (_ma`rifat_), which
is the foundation of all miracles vouchsafed by Divine grace
(_karámathá_), is not lost through sin, it is impossible that what is
inferior to that in excellence and grace (_karámat_) should disappear
because of sin. The controversy among the Shaykhs on this matter has run
to great length, and I do not intend to record it here.
It is most important, however, that you should know with certainty in
what state this miraculous grace is manifested to the saint: in sobriety
or intoxication, in rapture (_ghalabat_) or composure (_tamkín_). I have
fully explained the meaning of intoxication and sobriety in my account
of the doctrine of Abú Yazíd. He and Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian and
Muḥammad b. Khafíf and Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj) and Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh
Rází and others hold that miracles are not vouchsafed to a saint except
when he is in the state of intoxication, whereas the miracles of the
prophets are wrought in the state of sobriety. Hence, according to their
doctrine, this is a clear distinction between _mu`jizát_ and _karámát_,
for the saint, being enraptured, pays no heed to the people and does not
call upon them to follow him, while the prophet, being sober, exerts
himself to attain his object and challenges the people to rival what he
has done. Moreover, the prophet may choose whether he will manifest or
conceal his extraordinary powers, but the saints have no such choice;
sometimes a miracle is not granted to them when they desire it, and
sometimes it is bestowed when they do not desire it, for the saint has
no propaganda, so that his attributes should be subsistent, but he is
hidden and his proper state is to have his attributes annihilated. The
prophet is a man of law (_ṣáḥib shar`_), and the saint is a man of
inward feeling (_ṣáḥib sirr_). Accordingly, a miracle (_karámat_) will
not be manifested to a saint unless he is in a state of absence from
himself and bewilderment, and unless his faculties are entirely under
the control of God. While saints are with themselves and maintain the
state of humanity (_bashariyyat_), they are veiled; but when the veil is
lifted they are bewildered and amazed through realizing the bounties of
God. A miracle cannot be manifested except in the state of unveiledness
(_kashf_), which is the rank of proximity (_qurb_); and whoever is in
that state, to him worthless stones appear even as gold. This is the
state of intoxication with which no human being, the prophets alone
excepted, is permanently endowed. Thus, one day, Ḥáritha was transported
from this world and had the next world revealed to him; he said: “I have
cut myself loose from this world, so that its stones and its gold and
its silver and its clay are all one to me.” Next day he was seen tending
asses, and on being asked what he was doing, he said: “I am trying to
get the food that I need.” Therefore, the saints, while they are sober,
are as ordinary men, but while they are intoxicated their rank is the
same as that of the prophets, and the whole universe becomes like gold
unto them. Shiblí says—
“_Gold wherever we go, and pearls
Wherever we turn, and silver in the waste._”
I have heard the Master and Imám Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí say: “Once I
asked Ṭábarání about the beginning of his spiritual experience. He told
me that on one occasion he wanted a stone from the river-bed at Sarakhs.
Every stone that he touched turned into a gem, and he threw them all
away.” This was because stones and gems were the same to him, or rather,
gems were of less value, since he had no desire for them. And I have
heard Khwája Imám Khazá´iní at Sarakhs relate as follows: “In my boyhood
I went to a certain place to get mulberry leaves for silkworms. When it
was midday I climbed a tree and began to shake the branches. While I was
thus employed Shaykh Abu ´l-Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan passed by, but he did not
see me, and I had no doubt that he was beside himself and that his heart
was with God. Suddenly he raised his head and cried with the boldness of
intimacy: ‘O Lord, it is more than a year since Thou hast given me a
small piece of silver (_dángí_) that I might have my hair cut. Is this
the way to treat Thy friends?’ No sooner had he spoken than I saw all
the leaves and boughs and roots of the trees turned to gold. Abu ´l-Faḍl
exclaimed: ‘How strange! The least hint that I utter is a backsliding
(_hama ta`ríḍ-i má í`ráḍ ast_). One cannot say a word to Thee for the
sake of relieving one’s mind.’” It is related that Shiblí cast four
hundred dínárs into the Tigris. When asked what he was doing, he
replied: “Stones are better in the water.” “But why,” they said, “don’t
you give the money to the poor?” He answered: “Glory to God! what plea
can I urge before Him if I remove the veil from my own heart only to
place it on the hearts of my brother Moslems? It is not religious to
wish them worse than myself.” All these cases belong to the state of
intoxication, which I have already explained.
On the other hand, Junayd and Abu ´l-`Abbás Sayyárí and Abú Bakr Wásiṭí
and Muḥammad b. `Alí of Tirmidh, the author of the doctrine, hold that
miracles are manifested in the state of sobriety and composure (_ṣaḥw ú
tamkín_), not in the state of intoxication. They argue that the saints
of God are the governors of His kingdom and the overseers of the
universe, which God has committed absolutely to their charge: therefore
their judgments must be the soundest of all, and their hearts must be
the most tenderly disposed of all towards the creatures of God. They are
mature (_rasídagán_); and whereas agitation and intoxication are marks
of inexperience, with maturity agitation is transmuted into composure.
Then, and only then, is one a saint in reality, and only then are
miracles genuine. It is well known among Ṣúfís that every night the
_Awtád_ must go round the whole universe, and if there should be any
place on which their eyes have not fallen, next day some imperfection
will appear in that place; and they must then inform the _Quṭb_, in
order that he may fix his attention on the weak spot, and that by his
blessing the imperfection may be removed. As regards the assertion that
gold and earth are one to the saint, this indifference is a sign of
intoxication and failure to see truly. More excellent is the man of true
sight and sound perception, to whom gold is gold and earth is earth, but
who recognizes the evil of the former and says: “O yellow ore! O white
ore! beguile some one else, for I am aware of your corruptedness.” He
who sees the corruptedness of gold and silver perceives them to be a
veil (between himself and God), and God will reward him for having
renounced them. Contrariwise, he to whom gold is even as earth is not
made perfect by renouncing earth. Ḥáritha, being intoxicated, declared
that stones and gold were alike to him, but Abú Bakr, being sober,
perceived the evil of laying hands on worldly wealth, and knew that God
would reward him for rejecting it. Therefore he renounced it, and when
the Apostle asked him what he had left for his family he answered, “God
and His Apostle.” And the following story is related by Abú Bakr Warráq
of Tirmidh: “One day Muḥammad b. `Alí (al-Ḥakím) said that he would take
me somewhere. I replied: ‘It is for the Shaykh to command.’ Soon after
we set out I saw an exceedingly dreadful wilderness, and in the midst
thereof a golden throne placed under a green tree beside a fountain of
running water. Seated on the throne was a person clad in beautiful
raiment, who rose when Muḥammad b. `Alí approached, and bade him sit on
the throne. After a while, people came from every side until forty were
gathered together. Then Muḥammad b. `Alí waved his hand, and immediately
food appeared from heaven, and we ate. Afterwards Muḥammad b. `Alí asked
a question of a man who was present, and he in reply made a long
discourse of which I did not understand a single word. At last the
Shaykh begged leave and took his departure, saying to me: ‘Go, for thou
art blest.’ On our return to Tirmidh, I asked him what was that place
and who was that man. He told me that the place was the Desert of the
Israelites (_tíh-i Baní Isrá´íl_) and that the man was the _Quṭb_ on
whom the order of the universe depends. ‘O Shaykh,’ I said, ‘how did we
reach the Desert of the Israelites from Tirmidh in such a brief time?’
He answered: ‘O Abú Bakr, it is thy business to arrive (_rasídan_), not
to ask questions (_pursídan_).’“ This is a mark, not of intoxication,
but of sanity.
Now I will mention some miracles and stories of the Ṣúfís, and link
thereto certain evidence which is to be found in the Book (the Koran).
_Discourse concerning their Miracles._
The reality of miracles having been established by logical argument, you
must now become acquainted with the evidence of the Koran and the
genuine Traditions of the Apostle. Both Koran and Tradition proclaim the
reality of miracles and extraordinary acts wrought by saints. To deny
this is to deny the authority of the sacred texts. One example is the
text, ”_And We caused the clouds to overshadow you and the manna and the
quails to descend upon you_” (Kor. ii, 54). If any sceptic should assert
that this was an evidentiary miracle (_mu`jizat_) of Moses, I raise no
objection, because all the miracles of the saints are an evidentiary
miracle of Muḥammad; and if he says that this miracle was wrought in the
absence of Moses, although it occurred in his time, and that therefore
it was not necessarily wrought by him, I reply that the same principle
holds good in the case of Moses, when he quitted his people and went to
Mount Sinai, as in the case of Muḥammad; for there is no difference
between being absent in time and being absent in space. We are also told
of the miracle of Áṣaf b. Barkhiyá, who brought the throne of Bilqís to
Solomon in the twinkling of an eye (Kor. xxvii, 40). This cannot have
been a _mu`jizat_, for Áṣaf was not an apostle; had it been a
_mu`jizat_, it must have been wrought by Solomon: therefore it was a
_karámat_. We are told also of Mary that whenever Zacharias went into
her chamber he found winter fruits in summer and summer fruits in
winter, so that he said: “_‘Whence hadst thou this?’ She answered, ‘It
is from God’_” (Kor. iii, 32). Everyone admits that Mary was not an
apostle. Furthermore, we have the story of the men of the cave (_aṣḥáb
al-kahf_), how their dog spoke to them, and how they slept and turned
about in the cave (Kor. xviii, 17). All these were extraordinary acts,
and since they certainly were not a _mu`jizat_, they must have been a
_karámat_. Such miracles (_karámat_) may be, for example, the answering
of prayers through the accomplishment of wishes conceived by one who is
subject to the religious law (_ba-ḥuṣúl-i umúr-i mawhúm andar zamán-i
taklíf_), or the traversing of great distances in a short time, or the
appearance of food from an unaccustomed place, or power to read the
thoughts of others, etc.
Among the genuine Traditions is the story of the cave (_ḥadíth
al-ghár_), which is told as follows. One day the Companions of the
Apostle begged him to relate to them some marvellous tale of the ancient
peoples. He said: “Once three persons were going to a certain place. At
eventide they took shelter in a cave, and while they were asleep a rock
fell from the mountain and blocked the mouth of the cave. They said to
one another, ‘We shall never escape from here unless we make our
disinterested actions plead for us before God.’ So one of them began: ‘I
had a father and mother and I had no worldly goods except a goat, whose
milk I used to give to them; and every day I used to gather a bundle of
firewood and sell it and spend the money in providing food for them and
myself. One night I came home rather late, and before I milked the goat
and steeped their food in the milk they had fallen asleep. I kept the
bowl in my hand and stood there, without having eaten anything, until
morning, when they awoke and ate; then I sat down.’ ‘O Lord’ (he
continued), ‘if I speak the truth concerning this matter, send us
deliverance and come to our aid!’” The Apostle said: “Thereupon the rock
moved a little and a crevice appeared. The next man said: ‘There was a
beautiful blind girl, with whom I was deeply in love, but she would not
listen to my suit. I managed to send to her a hundred and twenty dínárs
with a promise that she should keep the money if she would be mine for
one night. When she came the fear of God seized my heart. I turned from
her and let her keep the money.’ He added, ‘O God, if I speak the truth,
deliver us!’” The Apostle said: “Then the rock moved a little further
and the crevice widened, but they could not yet go forth. The third man
said: ‘I had some labourers working for me. When the work was done they
all received their wages except one, who disappeared. With his wages I
bought a sheep. Next year there were two, and in the year after that
there were four, and they soon became a large flock. After several years
the labourer returned and asked me for his wages. I said to him, “Go and
take all these sheep; they are your property.” He thought I must be
mocking him, but I assured him that it was true, and he went off with
the whole flock.’ The narrator added, ‘O Lord, if I speak the truth,
deliver us!’” “He had scarcely finished,” said the Apostle, “when the
rock moved away from the mouth of the cave and let the three men come
forth.”[122] It is related that Abú Sa`íd Kharráz said: “For a long time
I used to eat only once in three days. I was journeying in the desert,
and on the third day I felt weak through hunger. A voice from heaven
cried to me, ‘Dost thou prefer food that will quiet thy lower nature, or
an expedient that will enable thee to overcome thy weakness without
food?’ I replied, ‘O God, give me strength!’ Then I rose and travelled
twelve stages without meat or drink.” It is well known that at the
present day the house of Sahl b. `Abdalláh at Tustar is called the House
of the Wild Beasts (_bayt al-sibá`_), and the people of Tustar are
agreed that many wild beasts used to come to him, and that he fed and
tended them. Abu ´l-Qásim of Merv tells the following story: “As I was
walking on the seashore with Abú Sa`íd Kharráz, I saw a youth clad in a
patched frock and carrying a bucket (_rakwa_), to which an ink-bottle
was fastened. Kharráz said: ‘When I look at this youth he seems to be
one of the adepts (_rasídagán_), but when I look at his ink-bottle I
think he is a student. Let me question him.’ So he accosted the youth
and said, ‘What is the way to God?’ The youth answered: ‘There are two
ways to God: the way of the vulgar and the way of the elect. Thou hast
no knowledge of the latter, but the way of the vulgar, which thou
pursuest, is to regard thine own actions as the cause of attaining to
God, and to suppose that an ink-bottle is one of the things that
interfere with attainment.’” Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian says: “Once I
embarked in a ship voyaging from Egypt to Jidda. Among the passengers
was a youth wearing a patched frock. I was eager to be his companion,
but he inspired me with such awe that I did not venture to address him,
for his spiritual state was very exalted and he was constantly engaged
in devotion. One day a certain man lost a purse of jewels, and suspicion
fell on this youth. They were about to maltreat him, but I said, ‘Let me
question him courteously.’ I told him that he was suspected of theft and
that I had saved him from maltreatment. ‘And now,’ I said, ‘what is to
be done?’ He looked towards Heaven and spoke a few words. The fishes
came to the surface of the sea, each with a jewel in its mouth. He took
a jewel and gave it to his accuser; then he set his foot on the water
and walked away. Thereupon the real thief dropped the purse, and the
people in the ship repented.” Ibráhím Raqqí[123] is related to have
said: “In my novitiate I set out to visit Muslim Maghribí. I found him
in his mosque, acting as precentor. He pronounced _al-ḥamd_ incorrectly.
I said to myself, ‘My trouble has been wasted.’ Next day, when I was
going to the bank of the Euphrates to perform the religious ablution, I
saw a lion asleep on the road. I turned back, and was faced by another
lion which had been following me. Hearing my cry of despair, Muslim came
forth from his cell. When the lions saw him they humbled themselves
before him. He took the ear of each one and rubbed it, saying, ‘O dogs
of God, have not I told you that you must not interfere with my guests?’
Then he said to me: ‘O Abú Isḥáq, thou hast busied thyself with
correcting thy exterior for the sake of God’s creatures, hence thou art
afraid of them; but it has been my business to correct my interior for
God’s sake, hence His creatures are afraid of me.’” One day my Shaykh
set out from Bayt al-Jinn to Damascus. Heavy rain had begun to fall, and
I was walking with difficulty in the mire. I noticed that the Shaykh’s
shoes and clothes were perfectly dry. On my pointing this out to him, he
said: “Yes; God has preserved me from mud ever since I put unquestioning
trust in Him and guarded my interior from the desolation of cupidity.”
Once an experience occurred to me which I could not unravel. I set out
to visit Shaykh Abu `l-Qásim Gurgání at Ṭús. I found him alone in his
chamber in the mosque, and he was expounding precisely the same
difficulty to a pillar, so that I was answered without having asked the
question. “O Shaykh,” I cried, “to whom art thou saying this?” He
replied: “O son, God just now caused this pillar to speak and ask me
this question.” In Farghána, at a village called Ashlátak,[124] there
was an old man, one of the _Awtád_ of the earth. His name was Báb
`Umar[125]—all the dervishes in that country give the title of Báb to
their great Shaykhs—and he had an old wife called Fáṭima. I went from
Uzkand to see him. When I entered his presence he said: “Why have you
come?” I replied: “In order that I might see the Shaykh in person and
that he might look on me with kindness.” He said: “I have been seeing
you continually since such and such a day, and I wish to see you as long
as you are not removed from my sight.” I computed the day and year: it
was the very day on which my conversion began. The Shaykh said: “To
traverse distance (_sipardan-i masáfat_) is child’s play: henceforth pay
visits by means of thought (_himmat_); it is not worth while to visit
any person (_shakhṣ_), and there is no virtue in bodily presence
(_ḥuḍúr-i ashbáḥ_).” Then he bade Fáṭima bring something to eat. She
brought a dish of new grapes, although it was not the season for them,
and some fresh ripe dates, which cannot possibly be procured in
Farghána. On another occasion, while I was sitting alone, as is my
custom, beside the tomb of Shaykh Abú Sa`íd at Mihna, I saw a white
pigeon fly under the cloth (_fúṭa_) covering the sepulchre. I supposed
that the bird had escaped from its owner, but when I looked under the
cloth nothing was to be seen. This happened again next day, and also on
the third day. I was at a loss to understand it, until one night I
dreamed of the saint and asked him about my experience. He answered:
“That pigeon is my good conduct (_ṣafá-yi mu`ámalat_), which comes every
day to my tomb to feast with me (_ba-munádamat-i man_).”[126] I might
adduce many more of these tales without exhausting them, but my purpose
in this book is to establish the principles of Ṣúfiism. As regards
derivatives and matters of conduct books have been compiled by the
traditionists (_naqqálán_), and these topics are disseminated from the
pulpit by preachers (_mudhakkirán_). Now I will give, in one or two
sections, an adequate account of certain points bearing on the present
discussion, in order that I may not have to return to it again.
Footnote 122:
Here follow (1) a Tradition, related by Abú Hurayra, of three infants
who were miraculously endowed with speech: (_a_) Jesus, (_b_) a child
who exculpated the monk Jurayj (George) when he was falsely accused by
a harlot, (_c_) a child who divined the characters of a horseman and a
woman. (2) A story of Zá´ida, the handmaid of the Caliph `Umar: how a
knight descended from heaven and gave her a message from Riḍwán, the
keeper of Paradise, to the Prophet; and how, when she could not lift a
bundle of firewood from a rock on which she had laid it, the Prophet
bade the rock go with her and carry the firewood to `Umar’s house. (3)
A story of `Alá b. al-Ḥaḍramí, who, having been sent on a warlike
expedition by the Prophet, walked dry-shod across a river with his
company. (4) A story of `Abdalláh b. `Umar, at whose bidding a lion
decamped and left the way open for a party of travellers. (5) A story
of a man who was seen sitting in the air, and when Abraham asked him
by what means he had obtained such power, replied that he had
renounced the world and that God had bestowed on him an aerial
dwelling-place where he was not disturbed by any thought of mankind.
(6) A story of the Caliph `Umar, who was on the point of being killed
by a Persian, when two lions suddenly appeared and caused the assassin
to desist. (7) A story of Khálid b. Walíd, who said “Bismillah” and
drank a deadly poison, which did him no harm. (8) A story, related by
Ḥasan of Baṣra, of a negro who turned the walls of a tavern into gold.
(9) A story, related by Ibráhím b. Adham, of a shepherd who smote a
rock with his staff and caused water to gush forth. (10) A story of a
cup which pronounced the words “Glory to God” in the hearing of Abú
Dardá and Salmán Fárisí.
Footnote 123:
Died in 326 A.H. See Abu ´l-Maḥásin, _Nujúm_, ii, 284, 13.
Footnote 124:
L. سلاتک. IJ. اسلاتک.
Footnote 125:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 351.
Footnote 126:
Here the author tells the story, which has already been related (p.
142 _supra_), of Abú Bakr Warráq, who was commanded by Muḥammad b.
`Alí of Tirmidh to throw some of the latter’s mystical writings into
the Oxus.
_Discourse on the Superiority of the Prophets to the Saints._
You must know that, by universal consent of the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, the saints
are at all times and in all circumstances subordinate to the prophets,
whose missions they confirm. The prophets are superior to the saints,
because the end of saintship is only the beginning of prophecy. Every
prophet is a saint, but some saints are not prophets. The prophets are
constantly exempt from the attributes of humanity, while the saints are
so only temporarily; the fleeting state (_ḥál_) of the saint is the
permanent station (_maqám_) of the prophet; and that which to the saints
is a station (_maqám_) is to the prophets a veil (_ḥijáb_). This view is
held unanimously by the Sunní divines and the Ṣúfí mystics, but it is
opposed by a sect of the Ḥashwiyya—the Anthropomorphists (_mujassima_)
of Khurásán—who discourse in a self-contradictory manner concerning the
principles of Unification (_tawḥíd_), and who, although they do not know
the fundamental doctrine of Ṣúfiism, call themselves saints. Saints they
are indeed, but saints of the Devil. They maintain that the saints are
superior to the prophets, and it is a sufficient proof of their error
that they declare an ignoramus to be more excellent than Muḥammad, the
Chosen of God. The same vicious opinion is held by another sect of
Anthropomorphists (_mushabbiha_), who pretend to be Ṣúfís, and admit the
doctrines of the incarnation of God and His descent (into the human
body) by transmigration (_intiqál_), and the division (_tajziya_) of His
essence. I will treat fully of these matters when I give my promised
account of the two reprobated sects (of Ṣúfís). The sects to which I am
now referring claim to be Moslems, but they agree with the Brahmans in
denying special privileges to the prophets; and whoever believes in this
doctrine becomes an infidel. Moreover, the prophets are propagandists
and Imáms, and the saints are their followers, and it is absurd to
suppose that the follower of an Imám is superior to the Imám himself. In
short, the lives, experiences, and spiritual powers of all the saints
together appear as nothing compared with one act of a true prophet,
because the saints are seekers and pilgrims, whereas the prophets have
arrived and have found and have returned with the command to preach and
to convert the people. If any one of the above-mentioned heretics should
urge that an ambassador sent by a king is usually inferior to the person
to whom he is sent, as e.g. Gabriel is inferior to the Apostles, and
that this is against my argument, I reply that an ambassador sent to a
single person should be inferior to him, but when an ambassador is sent
to a large number of persons or to a people, he is superior to them, as
the Apostles are superior to the nations. Therefore one moment of the
prophets is better than the whole life of the saints, because when the
saints reach their goal they tell of contemplation (_musháhadat_) and
obtain release from the veil of humanity (_bashariyyat_), although they
are essentially men. On the other hand, contemplation is the first step
of the apostle; and since the apostle’s starting-place is the saint’s
goal, they cannot be judged by the same standard. Do not you perceive
that, according to the unanimous opinion of all the saints who seek God,
the station of union (_jam`_) belongs to the perfection of saintship?
Now, in this station, a man attains such a degree of rapturous love that
his intelligence is enraptured in gazing upon the act of God (_fi`l_),
and in his longing for the Divine Agent (_fá`il_) he regards the whole
universe as that and sees nothing but that. Thus Abú `Alí Rúdbárí says:
“Were the vision of that which we serve to vanish from us, we should
lose the name of servantship (_`ubúdiyyat_)” for we derive the glory of
worship (_`ibádat_) solely from vision of Him. This is the beginning of
the state of the prophets, inasmuch as separation (_tafriqa_) is
inconceivable in relation to them. They are entirely in the essence of
union, whether they affirm or deny, whether they approach or turn away,
whether they are at the beginning or at the end. Abraham, in the
beginning of his state, looked on the sun and said: “_This is my Lord_,”
and he looked on the moon and stars and said: “_This is my Lord_” (Kor.
vi, 76-8), because his heart was overwhelmed by the Truth and he was
united in the essence of union. Therefore he saw naught else, or if he
saw aught else he did not see it with the eye of “otherness” (_ghayr_),
but with the eye of union (_jam`_), and in the reality of that vision he
disavowed his own and said: “_I love not those that set_” (Kor. vi, 76).
As he began with union, so he ended with union. Saintship has a
beginning and an end, but prophecy has not. The prophets were prophets
from the first, and shall be to the last, and before they existed they
were prophets in the knowledge and will of God. Abú Yazíd was asked
about the state of the prophets. He replied: “Far be it from me to say!
We have no power to judge of them, and in our notions of them we are
wholly ourselves. God has placed their denial and affirmation in such an
exalted degree that human vision cannot reach unto it.” Accordingly, as
the rank of the saints is hidden from the perception of mankind, so the
rank of the prophets is hidden from the judgment of the saints. Abú
Yazíd was the proof (_ḥujjat_) of his age, and he says: “I saw that my
spirit (_sirr_) was borne to the heavens. It looked at nothing and gave
no heed, though Paradise and Hell were displayed to it, for it was freed
from phenomena and veils. Then I became a bird, whose body was of
Oneness and whose wings were of Everlastingness, and I continued to fly
in the air of the Absolute (_huwiyyat_), until I passed into the sphere
of Purification (_tanzíh_), and gazed upon the field of Eternity
(_azaliyyat_) and beheld there the tree of Oneness. When I looked I
myself was all those. I cried: ‘O Lord, with my egoism (_maní-yi man_) I
cannot attain to Thee, and I cannot escape from my selfhood. What am I
to do?’ God spake: ‘O Abú Yazíd, thou must win release from thy
“thou-ness” by following My beloved i.e. (Muḥammad). Smear thine eyes
with the dust of his feet and follow him continually.‘” This is a long
narrative. The Ṣúfís call it the Ascension (_mi`ráj_) of Báyazíd;[127]
and the term “ascension” denotes proximity to God (_qurb_). The
ascension of prophets takes place outwardly and in the body, whereas
that of saints takes place inwardly and in the spirit. The body of an
apostle resembles the heart and spirit of a saint in purity and nearness
to God. This is a manifest superiority. When a saint is enraptured and
intoxicated he is withdrawn from himself by means of a spiritual ladder
and brought near to God; and as soon as he returns to the state of
sobriety all those evidences have taken shape in his mind and he has
gained knowledge of them. Accordingly, there is a great difference
between one who is carried thither in person and one who is carried
thither only in thought (_fikrat_), for thought involves duality.
Footnote 127:
A full account of Báyazíd’s ascension is given in the _Tadhkirat
al-Awliyá_, i, 172 ff.
_Discourse on the Superiority of the Prophets and Saints to the Angels._
The whole community of orthodox Moslems and all the Ṣúfí Shaykhs agree
that the prophets and such of the saints as are guarded from sin
(_maḥfúẕ_) are superior to the angels. The opposite view is held by the
Mu`tazilites, who declare that the angels are superior to the prophets,
being of more exalted rank, of more subtle constitution, and more
obedient to God. I reply that this is not as you imagine, for an
obedient body, an exalted rank, and a subtle constitution cannot be
causes of superiority, which belongs only to those on whom God has
bestowed it. Iblís had all the qualities that you mention, yet he is
universally acknowledged to have become accursed. The superiority of the
prophets is indicated by the fact that God commanded the angels to
worship Adam; for the state of one who is worshipped is higher than the
state of the worshipper. If they argue that, just as a true believer is
superior to the Ka`ba, an inanimate mass of stone, although he bows down
before it, so the angels may be superior to Adam, although they bowed
down before him, I reply: “No one says that a believer bows down to a
house or an altar or a wall, but all say that he bows down to God, and
it is admitted by all that the angels bowed down to Adam (Kor. ii, 32).
How, then, can the Ka`ba be compared to Adam? A traveller may worship
God on the back of the animal which he is riding, and he is excused if
his face be not turned towards the Ka`ba; and, in like manner, one who
has lost his bearings in a desert, so that he cannot tell the direction
of the Ka`ba, will have done his duty in whatever direction he may turn
to pray. The angels offered no excuse when they bowed down to Adam, and
the one who made an excuse for himself became accursed.” These are clear
proofs to any person of insight.
Again, the angels are equal to the prophets in knowledge of God, but not
in rank. The angels are without lust, covetousness, and evil; their
nature is devoid of hypocrisy and guile, and they are instinctively
obedient to God; whereas lust is an impediment in human nature; and men
have a propensity to commit sins and to be impressed by the vanities of
this world; and Satan has so much power over their bodies that he
circulates with the blood in their veins; and closely attached to them
is the lower soul (_nafs_), which incites them to all manner of
wickedness. Therefore, one whose nature has all these characteristics
and who, in spite of the violence of his lust, refrains from immorality,
and notwithstanding his covetousness renounces this world, and, though
his heart is still tempted by the Devil, turns back from sin and averts
his face from sensual depravity in order to occupy himself with devotion
and persevere in piety and mortify his lower soul and contend against
the Devil, such a one is in reality superior to the angel who is not the
battle-field of lust, and is naturally without desire of food and
pleasures, and has no care for wife and child and kinsfolk, and need not
have recourse to means and instruments, and is not absorbed in corrupt
ambitions. A Gabriel, who worships God so many thousands of years in the
hope of gaining a robe of honour, and the honour bestowed on him was
that of acting as Muḥammad’s groom on the night of the Ascension—how
should he be superior to one who disciplines and mortifies his lower
soul by day and night in this world, until God looks on him with favour
and grants to him the grace of seeing Himself and delivers him from all
distracting thoughts? When the pride of the angels passed all bounds,
and every one of them vaunted the purity of his conduct and spoke with
an unbridled tongue in blame of mankind, God resolved that He would show
to them their real state. He therefore bade them choose three of the
chief among them, in whom they had confidence, to go to the earth and be
its governors and reform its people. So three angels were chosen, but
before they came to the earth one of them perceived its corruption and
begged God to let him return. When the other two arrived on the earth
God changed their nature so that they felt a desire for food and drink
and were inclined to lust, and God punished them on that account, and
the angels were forced to recognize the superiority of mankind to
themselves.[128] In short, the elect among the true believers are
superior to the elect among the angels, and the ordinary believers are
superior to the ordinary angels. Accordingly those men who are preserved
(_ma`ṣúm_) and protected (_maḥfúẕ_) from sin are more excellent than
Gabriel and Michael, and those who are not thus preserved are better
than the Recording Angels (_ḥafaẕa_) and the noble Scribes (_kirám-i
kátibín_).
Footnote 128:
See Kor. ii, 96 ff.
Something has been said on this subject by every one of the Shaykhs. God
awards superiority to whom He pleases, over whom He pleases. You must
know that saintship is a Divine mystery which is revealed only through
conduct (_rawish_). A saint is known only to a saint. If this matter
could be made plain to all reasonable men it would be impossible to
distinguish the friend from the foe or the spiritual adept from the
careless worldling. Therefore God so willed that the pearl of His love
should be set in the shell of popular contempt and be cast into the sea
of affliction, in order that those who seek it may hazard their lives on
account of its preciousness and dive to the bottom of this ocean of
death, where they will either win their desire or bring their mortal
state to an end.
8.THE KHARRÁZÍS.
They are the followers of Abú Sa`íd Kharráz, who wrote brilliant works
on Ṣúfiism and attained a high degree in detachment from the world. He
was the first to explain the state of annihilation and subsistence
(_faná ú baqá_), and he comprehended his whole doctrine in these two
terms. Now I will declare their meaning and show the errors into which
some have fallen in this respect, in order that you may know what his
doctrine is and what the Ṣúfís intend when they employ these current
expressions.
_Discourse on Subsistence_ (baqá) _and Annihilation_ (faná).
You must know that annihilation and subsistence have one meaning in
science and another meaning in mysticism, and that formalists
(_ẕáhiriyán_) are more puzzled by these words than by any other
technical terms of the Ṣúfís. Subsistence in its scientific and
etymological acceptation is of three kinds: (1) a subsistence that
begins and ends in annihilation, e.g. this world, which had a beginning
and will have an end, and is now subsistent; (2) a subsistence that came
into being and will never be annihilated, viz. Paradise and Hell and the
next world and its inhabitants; (3) a subsistence that always was and
always will be, viz. the subsistence of God and His eternal attributes.
Accordingly, knowledge of annihilation lies in your knowing that this
world is perishable, and knowledge of subsistence lies in your knowledge
that the next world is everlasting.
But the subsistence and annihilation of a state (_ḥál_) denotes, for
example, that when ignorance is annihilated knowledge is necessarily
subsistent, and that when sin is annihilated piety is subsistent, and
that when a man acquires knowledge of his piety his forgetfulness
(_ghaflat_) is annihilated by remembrance of God (_dhikr_), i.e., when
anyone gains knowledge of God and becomes subsistent in knowledge of Him
he is annihilated from (entirely loses) ignorance of Him, and when he is
annihilated from forgetfulness he becomes subsistent in remembrance of
Him, and this involves the discarding of blameworthy attributes and the
substitution of praiseworthy attributes. A different signification,
however, is attached to the terms in question by the elect among the
Ṣúfís. They do not refer these expressions to “knowledge” (_`ilm_) or to
“state” (_ḥál_), but apply them solely to the degree of perfection
attained by the saints who have become free from the pains of
mortification and have escaped from the prison of “stations” and the
vicissitude of “states”, and whose search has ended in discovery, so
that they have seen all things visible, and have heard all things
audible, and have discovered all the secrets of the heart; and who,
recognizing the imperfection of their own discovery, have turned away
from all things and have purposely become annihilated in the object of
desire, and in the very essence of desire have lost all desires of their
own, for when a man becomes annihilated from his attributes he attains
to perfect subsistence, he is neither near nor far, neither stranger nor
intimate, neither sober nor intoxicated, neither separated nor united;
he has no name, or sign, or brand, or mark.
In short, real annihilation from anything involves consciousness of its
imperfection and absence of desire for it, not merely that a man should
say, when he likes a thing, “I am subsistent therein,” or when he
dislikes it, that he should say, “I am annihilated therefrom”; for these
qualities are characteristic of one who is still seeking. In
annihilation there is no love or hate, and in subsistence there is no
consciousness of union or separation. Some wrongly imagine that
annihilation signifies loss of essence and destruction of personality,
and that subsistence indicates the subsistence of God in Man; both these
notions are absurd. In India I had a dispute on this subject with a man
who claimed to be versed in Koranic exegesis and theology. When I
examined his pretensions I found that he knew nothing of annihilation
and subsistence, and that he could not distinguish the eternal from the
phenomenal. Many ignorant Ṣúfís consider that total annihilation
(_faná-yi kulliyyat_) is possible, but this is a manifest error, for
annihilation of the different parts of a material substance (_ṭínatí_)
can never take place. I ask these ignorant and mistaken men: “What do
you mean by this kind of annihilation?” If they answer, “Annihilation of
substance” (_faná-yi `ayn_), that is impossible; and if they answer,
“Annihilation of attributes,” that is only possible in so far as one
attribute may be annihilated through the subsistence of another
attribute, both attributes belonging to Man; but it is absurd to suppose
that anyone can subsist through the attributes of another individual.
The Nestorians of Rúm and the Christians hold that Mary annihilated by
self-mortification all the attributes of humanity (_awṣáf-i násútí_) and
that the Divine subsistence became attached to her, so that she was made
subsistent through the subsistence of God, and that Jesus was the result
thereof, and that he was not originally composed of the stuff of
humanity, because his subsistence is produced by realization of the
subsistence of God; and that, in consequence of this, he and his mother
and God are all subsistent through one subsistence, which is eternal and
an attribute of God. All this agrees with the doctrine of the
anthropomorphistic sects of the Ḥashwiyya, who maintain that the Divine
essence is a _locus_ of phenomena (_maḥall-i ḥawádith_) and that the
Eternal may have phenomenal attributes. I ask all who proclaim such
tenets: “What difference is there between the view that the Eternal is
the _locus_ of the phenomenal and the view that the phenomenal is the
_locus_ of the Eternal, or between the assertion that the Eternal has
phenomenal attributes and the assertion that the phenomenal has eternal
attributes?” Such doctrines involve materialism (_dahr_) and destroy the
proof of the phenomenal nature of the universe, and compel us to say
that both the Creator and His creation are eternal or that both are
phenomenal, or that what is created may be commingled with what is
uncreated, and that what is uncreated may descend into what is created.
If, as they cannot help admitting, the creation is phenomenal, then
their Creator also must be phenomenal, because the _locus_ of a thing is
like its substance; if the _locus_ (_maḥall_) is phenomenal, it follows
that the contents of the _locus_ (_ḥáll_) are phenomenal too. In fine,
when one thing is linked and united and commingled with another, both
things are in principle as one.
Accordingly, our subsistence and annihilation are attributes of
ourselves, and resemble each other in respect of their being our
attributes. Annihilation is the annihilation of one attribute through
the subsistence of another attribute. One may speak, however, of an
annihilation that is independent of subsistence, and also of a
subsistence that is independent of annihilation: in that case
annihilation means “annihilation of all remembrance of other”, and
subsistence means “subsistence of the remembrance of God” (_baqá-yi
dhikr-i ḥaqq_). Whoever is annihilated from his own will subsists in the
will of God, because thy will is perishable and the will of God is
everlasting: when thou standest by thine own will thou standest by
annihilation, but when thou art absolutely controlled by the will of God
thou standest by subsistence. Similarly, the power of fire transmutes to
its own quality anything that falls into it, and surely the power of
God’s will is greater than that of fire; but fire affects only the
quality of iron without changing its substance, for iron can never
become fire.
SECTION.
All the Shaykhs have given subtle indications on this subject. Abú Sa’íd
Kharráz, the author of the doctrine, says: “Annihilation is annihilation
of consciousness of manhood (_`ubúdiyyat_), and subsistence is
subsistence in the contemplation of Godhead (_iláhiyyat_),” i.e., it is
an imperfection to be conscious in one’s actions that one is a man, and
one attains to real manhood (_bandagí_) when one is not conscious of
them, but is annihilated so as not to see them, and becomes subsistent
through beholding the action of God. Hence all one’s actions are
referred to God, not to one’s self, and whereas a man’s actions that are
connected with himself are imperfect, those which are attached to him by
God are perfect. Therefore, when anyone becomes annihilated from things
that depend on himself, he becomes subsistent through the beauty of
Godhead. Abú Ya`qúb Nahrajúrí says: “A man’s true servantship
(_`ubúdiyyat_) lies in annihilation and subsistence,” because no one is
capable of serving God with sincerity until he renounces all
self-interest: therefore to renounce humanity (_ádamiyyat_) is
annihilation, and to be sincere in servantship is subsistence. And
Ibráhím b. Shaybán says: “The science of annihilation and subsistence
turns on sincerity (_ikhláṣ_) and unity (_wáḥid—iyyat_) and true
servantship; all else is error and heresy,” i.e., when anyone
acknowledges the unity of God he feels himself overpowered by the
omnipotence of God, and one who is overpowered (_maghlúb_) is
annihilated in the might of his vanquisher; and when his annihilation is
rightly fulfilled on him, he confesses his weakness and sees no resource
except to serve God, and tries to gain His satisfaction (_riḍá_). And
whoever explains these terms otherwise, i.e. annihilation as meaning
“annihilation of substance” and subsistence as meaning “subsistence of
God (in Man)”, is a heretic and a Christian, as has been stated above.
Now I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, declare that all these sayings are
near to each other in meaning, although they differ in expression; and
their real gist is this, that annihilation comes to a man through vision
of the majesty of God and through the revelation of Divine omnipotence
to his heart, so that in the overwhelming sense of His majesty this
world and the next world are obliterated from his mind, and “states” and
“stations” appear contemptible in the sight of his aspiring thought, and
what is shown to him of miraculous grace vanishes into nothing: he
becomes dead to reason and passion alike, dead even to annihilation
itself; and in that annihilation of annihilation his tongue proclaims
God, and his mind and body are humble and abased, as in the beginning
when Adam’s posterity were drawn forth from his loins without admixture
of evil and took the pledge of servantship to God (Kor. vii, 171).
Such are the principles of annihilation and subsistence. I have
discussed a portion of the subject in the chapter on Poverty and
Ṣúfiism, and wherever these terms occur in the present work they bear
the meaning which I have explained.
9.THE KHAFÍFÍS.
They are the followers of Abú `Abdalláh Muḥammad b. Khafíf of Shíráz, an
eminent mystic in his time and the author of celebrated treatises on
various branches of Ṣúfiism. He was a man of great spiritual influence,
and was not led by his lusts. I have heard that he contracted four
hundred marriages. This was due to the fact that he was of royal
descent, and that after his conversion the people of Shíráz paid great
court to him, and the daughters of kings and nobles desired to marry him
for the sake of the blessing which would accrue to them. He used to
comply with their wishes, and then divorce them before consummation of
the marriage. But in the course of his life forty wives, who were
strangers to him (_bégána_), two or three at a time, used to serve him
as bed-makers (_khádimán-i firásh_), and one of them—she was the
daughter of a vizier—lived with him for forty years. I have heard from
Abu ´l-Ḥasan `Alí b. Bakrán of Shíráz that one day several of his wives
were gathered together, and each one was telling some story about him.
They all agreed _sese nunquam eum vidisse libidini obsequentem_.
Hitherto each of them had believed that she was peculiarly treated in
this respect, and when they learned that the Shaykh’s behaviour was the
same towards them all, they were astonished and doubted whether such was
truly the case. Accordingly, they sent two of their number to question
the vizier’s daughter, who was his favourite, as to his dealings with
her. She replied: “When the Shaykh wedded me and I was informed that he
would visit me that night, I prepared a fine repast and adorned myself
assiduously. As soon as he came and the food was brought in, he called
me to him and looked for a while first at me and then at the food. Then
he took my hand and drew it into his sleeve. From his breast to his
navel there were fifteen knots (_`aqd_) growing out of his belly. He
said, ‘Ask me what these are’; so I asked him and he replied, ‘They are
knots made by the tribulation and anguish of my abstinence in renouncing
a face like this and viands like these.’ He said no more, but departed;
and that is all my intimacy with him.”
The form of his doctrine in Ṣúfiism is “absence” (_ghaybat_) and
“presence” (_ḥuḍúr_). I will explain it as far as possible.
_Discourse on Absence_ (ghaybat) _and Presence_ (ḥuḍúr).
These terms, although apparently opposed to each other, express the same
meaning from different points of view. “Presence” is “presence of the
heart”, as a proof of intuitive faith (_yaqín_), so that what is hidden
from it has the same force as what is visible to it. “Absence” is
“absence of the heart from all things except God” to such an extent that
it becomes absent from itself and absent even from its absence, so that
it no longer regards itself; and the sign of this state is withdrawal
from all formal authority (_ḥukm-i rusúm_), as when a prophet is
divinely preserved from what is unlawful. Accordingly, absence from
one’s self is presence with God, and _vice versâ_. God is the lord of
the human heart: when a divine rapture (_jadhbat_) overpowers the heart
of the seeker, the absence of his heart becomes equivalent to its
presence (with God); partnership (_shirkat_) and division (_qismat_)
disappear, and relationship to “self” comes to an end, as one of the
Shaykhs has said in verse—
“_Thou art the Lord of my heart,
Without any partner: how, then, can it be divided?_”
Inasmuch as God is sole lord of the heart, He has absolute power to keep
it absent or present as He will, and, in regard to the essence of the
case, this is the whole argument for the doctrine of His favourites; but
when a distinction is made, the Shaykhs hold various opinions on the
subject, some preferring “presence” to “absence”, while others declare
that “absence” is superior to “presence”. There is the same controversy
as that concerning sobriety and intoxication, which I have explained
above; but these terms indicate that the human attributes are still
subsistent, whereas “absence” and “presence” indicate that the human
attributes are annihilated: therefore the latter terms are in reality
more sublime. “Absence” is preferred to “presence” by Ibn `Aṭá, Ḥusayn
b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj), Abú Bakr Shiblí, Bundár b. al-Ḥusayn, Abú Ḥamza
of Baghdád, Sumnún Muḥibb, and a number of the Shaykhs of `Iráq. They
say: “Thou thyself art the greatest of all veils between thee and God:
when thou hast become absent from thyself, the evils implicit in thy
being are annihilated in thee, and thy state undergoes a fundamental
change: the ‘stations’ of novices become a veil to thee, and the
‘states’ of those who seek God become a source of mischief to thee;
thine eye is closed to thyself and to all that is other than God, and
thy human attributes are consumed by the flame of proximity to God
(_qurbat_). This is the same state of ‘absence’ in which God drew thee
forth from the loins of Adam, and caused thee to hear His exalted word,
and distinguished thee by the honorary robe of Unification and the
garment of contemplation; so long as thou wert absent from thyself, thou
wert present with God face to face, but when thou becamest present with
thine own attributes, thou becamest absent from thy proximity to God.
Therefore thy ‘presence’ is thy perdition. This is the meaning of God’s
word, ‘_And now are ye come unto us alone, as We created you at first_’”
(Kor. vi, 94). On the other hand, Ḥárith Muḥásibí, Junayd, Sahl b.
`Abdalláh, Abú Ja`far Ḥaddád,[129] Ḥamdún Qaṣṣár, Abú Muḥammad Jurayrí,
Ḥuṣrí, Muḥammad b. Khafíf, who is the author of the doctrine, and others
hold that “presence” is superior to “absence”. They argue that inasmuch
as all excellences are bound up with “presence”, and as “absence” from
one’s self is a way leading to “presence” with God, the way becomes an
imperfection after you have arrived at the goal. “Presence” is the fruit
of “absence”, but what light is to be found in “absence” without
“presence”? A man must needs renounce heedlessness in order that, by
means of this “absence”, he may attain to “presence”; and when he has
attained his object, the means by which he attained it has no longer any
worth.
“_The ‘absent’ one is not he who is absent from his country,
But he who is absent from all desire.
The ‘present’ one is not he who hath no desire,
But he who hath no heart (no thought of worldly things),
So that his desire is ever fixed on God._”
Footnote 129:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 201.
It is a well-known story that one of the disciples of Dhu ´l-Nún set out
to visit Abú Yazíd. When he came to Abú Yazíd’s cell and knocked at the
door Abú Yazíd said: “Who art thou, and whom dost thou wish to see?” He
answered: “Abú Yazíd.” Abú Yazíd said: “Who is Abú Yazíd, and where is
he, and what thing is he? I have been seeking Abú Yazíd for a long
while, but I have not found him.” When the disciple returned to Dhu
´l-Nún and told him what had passed, Dhu ´l-Nún said: “My brother Abú
Yazíd is lost with those who are lost in God.” A certain man came to
Junayd and said: “Be present with me for a moment that I may speak to
thee.” Junayd answered: “O young man, you demand of me something that I
have long been seeking. For many years I have been wishing to become
present with myself a moment, but I cannot; how, then, can I become
present with you just now?” Therefore, “absence” involves the sorrow of
being veiled, while “presence” involves the joy of revelation, and the
former state can never be equal to the latter. Shaykh Abú Sa`íd says on
this subject—
_Taqashsha`a ghaymu ´l-hajri `an qamari ´l-ḥubbi
Wa-asfara núru ´l-ṣubḥi `an ẕulmati ´l-ghaybi._
“The clouds of separation have been cleared away from the moon of love,
And the light of morning has shone forth from the darkness of the
Unseen.”
The distinction made by the Shaykhs between these two terms is mystical,
and on the surface merely verbal, for they seem to be approximately the
same. To be present with God is to be absent from one’s self—what is the
difference?—and one who is not absent from himself is not present with
God. Thus, forasmuch as the impatience of Job in his affliction did not
proceed from himself, but on the contrary he was then absent from
himself, God did not distinguish his impatience from patience, and when
he cried, “_Evil hath befallen me_” (Kor. xxi, 83), God said, “_Verily,
he was patient_.” This is evidently a judgment founded on the essential
nature of the case (_ḥukm ba-`ayn_). It is related that Junayd said:
“For a time I was such that the inhabitants of heaven and earth wept
over my bewilderment (_ḥayrat_); then, again, I became such that I wept
over their absence (_ghaybat_); and now my state is such that I have no
knowledge either of them or of myself.” This is an excellent indication
of “presence”.
I have briefly explained the meaning of “presence” and “absence” in
order that you may be acquainted with the doctrine of the Khafífís, and
may also know in what sense these terms are used by the Ṣúfís.
10. SAYYÁRÍS.
They are the followers of Abu ´l-`Abbás Sayyárí, the Imám of Merv. He
was learned in all the sciences and associated with Abú Bakr Wásiṭí. At
the present day he has numerous followers in Nasá and Merv. His school
of Ṣúfiism is the only one that has kept its original doctrine
unchanged, and the cause of this fact is that Nasá and Merv have never
been without some person who acknowledged his authority and took care
that his followers should maintain the doctrine of their founder. The
Sayyárís of Nasá carried on a discussion with those of Merv by means of
letters, and I have seen part of this correspondence at Merv; it is very
fine. Their expositions are based on “union” (_jam`_) and “separation”
(_tafriqa_). These words are common to all scientists and are employed
by specialists in every branch of learning as a means of rendering their
explanations intelligible, but they bear different meanings in each
case. Thus, in arithmetic _jam`_ denotes the addition and _tafriqa_ the
subtraction of numbers; in grammar _jam`_ is the agreement of words in
derivation, while _tafriqa_ is the difference in meaning; in law _jam`_
is analogy (_qiyás_) and _tafriqa_ the characteristics of an
authoritative text (_ṣifát-i nuṣṣ_), or _jam`_ is the text and _tafriqa_
the analogy; in divinity _jam`_ denotes the essential and _tafriqa_ the
formal attributes of God.[130] But the Ṣúfís do not use these terms in
any of the significations which I have mentioned. Now, therefore, I will
explain the meaning attached to them by the Ṣúfís and the various
opinions of the Shaykhs on this subject.
Footnote 130:
For the distinction between _ṣifát-i dhát_ and _ṣifát-i fi`l_ see
Dozy, _Supplément_, ii, 810.
_Discourse on Union_ (jam`) _and Separation_ (tafriqa).
God united all mankind in His call, as He says, “_And God calls to the
abode of peace_”; then He separated them in respect of Divine guidance,
and said, “_and guides whom He willeth into the right way_” (Kor. x,
26). He called them all, and banished some in accordance with the
manifestation of His will; He united them all and gave a command, and
then separated them, rejecting some and leaving them without succour,
but accepting others and granting to them Divine aid; then once more he
united a certain number and separated them, giving to some immunity from
sin and to others a propensity towards evil. Accordingly the real
mystery of union is the knowledge and will of God, while separation is
the manifestation of that which He commands and forbids: e.g., He
commanded Abraham to behead Ishmael, but willed that he should not do
so; and He commanded Iblís to worship Adam, but willed the contrary; and
He commanded Adam not to eat the corn, but willed that he should eat it;
and so forth. Union is that which He unites by His attributes, and
separation is that which He separates by His acts. All this involves
cessation of human volition and affirmation of the Divine will so as to
exclude all personal initiative. As regards what has been said on the
subject of union and separation, all the Sunnís, except the
Mu`tazilites, are in agreement with the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, but at this point
they begin to diverge, some applying the terms in question to the Divine
Unity (_tawḥíd_), some to the Divine attributes, and some to the Divine
acts. Those who refer to the Divine Unity say that there are two degrees
of union, one in the attributes of God and the other in the attributes
of Man. The former is the mystery of Unification (_tawḥíd_), in which
human actions have no part whatever; the latter denotes acknowledgment
of the Divine Unity with sincere conviction and unfailing resolution.
This is the opinion of Abú `Alí Rúdbárí. Those, again, who refer these
terms to the Divine attributes say that union is an attribute of God,
and separation an act of God in which Man does not co-operate, because
God has no rival in Godhead. Therefore union can be referred only to His
substance and attributes, for union is equality in the fundamental
matter (_al-taswiyat fi ´l-aṣl_), and no two things are equal in respect
of eternity except His substance and His attributes, which, when they
are separated by expository analysis (_`ibárat ú tafṣíl_), are not
united. This means that God has eternal attributes, which are peculiar
to Him and subsist through Him; and that He and His attributes are not
two, for His Unity does not admit difference and number. On this ground,
union is impossible except in the sense indicated above.
Separation in predicament (_al-tafriqat fi ´l-ḥukm_) refers to the
actions of God, all of which are separate in this respect. The
predicament of one is being (_wujúd_); of another, not-being
(_`adam_), but a not-being that is capable of being; of another,
annihilation (_faná_), and of another subsistence (_baqá_). There are
some, again, who refer these terms to knowledge (_`ilm_) and say that
union is knowledge of the Divine Unity and separation knowledge of the
Divine ordinances: hence theology is union and jurisprudence is
separation. One of the Shaykhs has said, to the same effect: “Union is
that on which theologians (_ahl al-`ilm_) are agreed, and separation
is that on which they differ.” Again, all the Ṣúfí mystics, whenever
they use the term “separation” in the course of their expositions and
indications, attach to it the meaning of “human actions” (_makásib_),
e.g. self-mortification, and by “union” they signify “divine gifts”
(_mawáhib_), e.g. contemplation. Whatever is gained by means of
mortification is “separation”, and whatever is solely the result of
Divine favour and guidance is “union”. It is Man’s glory that, while
his actions exist and mortification is possible, he should escape by
God’s goodness from the imperfection of his own actions, and should
find them to be absorbed in the bounties of God, so that he depends
entirely on God and commits all his attributes to His charge and
refers all his actions to Him and none to himself, as Gabriel told the
Apostle that God said: “My servant continually seeks access to Me by
means of works of supererogation until I love him; and when I love
him, I am his ear and his eye and his hand and his heart and his
tongue: through Me he hears and sees and speaks and grasps,” i.e., in
remembering Me he is enraptured by the remembrance (_dhikr_) of Me,
and his own “acquisition” (_kasb_) is annihilated so as to have no
part in his remembrance, and My remembrance overpowers his
remembrance, and the relationship of humanity (_ádamiyyat_) is
entirely removed from his remembrance: then My remembrance is his
remembrance, and in his rapture he becomes even as Abú Yazíd in the
hour when he said: “Glory to me! how great is my majesty!” These words
were the outward sign of his speech, but the speaker was God.
Similarly, the Apostle said: “God speaks by the tongue of `Umar.” The
fact is that when the Divine omnipotence manifests its dominion over
humanity, it transports a man out of his own being, so that his speech
becomes the speech of God. But it is impossible that God should be
mingled (_imtizáj_) with created beings or made one (_ittiḥád_) with
His works or become incarnate (_ḥáll_) in things: God is exalted far
above that, and far above that which the heretics ascribe to Him.
It may happen, then, that God’s love holds absolute sway over the heart
of His servant, and that his reason and natural faculties are too weak
to sustain its rapture and intensity, and that he loses all control of
his power to act (_kasb_). This state is called “union”.[131] Herewith
are connected all extraordinary miracles (_i`jáz_) and acts of
miraculous grace (_karámát_). All ordinary actions are “separation”, and
all acts which violate custom are “union”. God bestows these miracles on
His prophets and saints, and refers His actions to them and theirs to
Himself, as He hath said: “_Verily, they who swear fealty unto thee,
swear fealty unto God_” (Kor. xlviii, 10), and again: “_Whosoever obeys
the Apostle has obeyed God_” (Kor. iv, 82). Accordingly, His saints are
united (_mujtami`_) by their inward feelings (_asrár_) and separated
(_muftariq_) by their outward behaviour, so that their love of God is
strengthened by the internal union, and the right fulfilment of their
duty as servants of God is assured by their external separation. A
certain great Shaykh says—
“_I have realized that which is within me, and my tongue hath conversed
with Thee in secret,
And we are united in one respect, but we are separated in another.
Although awe has hidden Thee from the glances of mine eye,
Ecstasy has made Thee near to my inmost parts._”[132]
The state of being inwardly united he calls “union”, and the secret
conversation of the tongue he calls “separation”; then he indicates that
both union and separation are in himself, and attributes the basis
(_qá`ida_) of them to himself. This is very subtle.
Footnote 131:
Here the author illustrates the meaning of “union” and “separation” by
the action of Muḥammad when he threw gravel in the eyes of the
unbelievers at Badr, and by that of David when he slew Goliath. See p.
185 _supra_.
Footnote 132:
The last words are corrupt and unmetrical in all the texts. I have
found the true reading, من الأَحْشآءِ دانى, in a MS. of the _Kitáb
al-Luma`_ by Abú Naṣr al-Sarráj, which has recently come into the
possession of Mr. A. G. Ellis.
SECTION.
Here I must notice a matter of controversy between us and those who
maintain that the manifestation of union is the denial of separation,
because the two terms contradict each other, and that when anyone passes
under the absolute sway of Divine guidance he ceases to act and to
mortify himself. This is sheer nullification (_ta`ṭíl_), for a man must
never cease to practise devotion and mortify himself as long as he has
the possibility and power of doing so. Moreover, union is not apart from
separation, as light is apart from the sun, and accident from substance,
and attribute from object: therefore, neither is self-mortification
apart from Divine guidance, nor the Truth from the Law, nor discovery
from search. But mortification may precede or follow Divine guidance. In
the former case a man’s tribulation is increased, because he is in
“absence” (_ghaybat_), while in the latter case he has no trouble or
pain, because he is in “presence” (_haḍrat_). Those to whom negation is
the source (_mashrab_) of actions, and to whom it seems to be the
substance (_`ayn_) of action, commit a grave error. A man, however, may
attain such a degree that he regards all his qualities as faulty and
defective, for when he sees that his praiseworthy qualities are vicious
and imperfect, his blameworthy qualities will necessarily appear more
vicious. I adduce these considerations because some ignorant persons,
who have fallen into an error that is closely akin to infidelity, assert
that no result whatever depends upon our exertion, and that inasmuch as
our actions and devotions are faulty and our mortifications are
imperfect a thing left undone is better than a thing done. To this
argument I reply: “You are agreed in supposing that everything done by
us has an energy (_fi`l_), and you declare that our energies are a
centre of defect and a source of evil and corruption: consequently you
must also suppose that things left undone by us have an energy; and
since in both cases there is an energy involving defect, how can you
regard that which we leave undone as better than that which we do?” This
notion evidently is a noxious delusion. Here we have an excellent
criterion to distinguish the believer from the infidel. Both agree that
their energies are inherently defective, but the believer, in accordance
with God’s command, deems a thing done to be better than a thing left
undone, while the infidel, in accordance with his denial of the Creator
(_t`aṭíl_), deems a thing left undone to be better than a thing done.
Union, then, involves this—that, although the imperfection of
separation is recognized, its authority (_ḥukm_) should not be let go;
and separation involves this—that, although one is veiled from the
sight of union, he nevertheless thinks that separation is union.
Muzayyin the Elder[133] says in this sense: “Union is the state of
privilege (_khuṣúṣiyyat_) and separation is the state of a servant
(_`ubúdiyyat_), these states being indissolubly combined with each
other,” because it is a work of the privileged state to fulfil the
duties of servantship; therefore, although the tediousness and
painfulness of self-mortification and personal effort may be removed
from one who performs all that is required of him in this respect, it
is impossible that the substance (_`ayn_) of self-mortification and
religious obligation should be removed from anyone, even though he be
in the essence of union, unless he has an evident excuse that is
generally acknowledged by the authority of the religious law. Now I
will explain this matter in order that you may better understand it.
Footnote 133:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 188.
Union is of two kinds: (1) sound union (_jam`-i salámat_), and (2)
broken union (_jam`-i taksír_). Sound union is that which God produces
in a man when he is in the state of rapture and ecstasy, and when God
causes him to receive and fulfil His commandments and to mortify
himself. This was the state of Sahl b. `Abdalláh and Abú Ḥafṣ Ḥaddád and
Abu ´l-`Abbás Sayyárí, the author of the doctrine. Abú Yazíd of Bisṭám,
Abú Bakr Shiblí, Abu ´l-Ḥasan Ḥuṣrí, and a number of great Shaykhs were
continually in a state of rapture until the hour of prayer arrived; then
they returned to consciousness, and after performing their prayers
became enraptured again. While thou art in the state of separation, thou
art thou, and thou fulfillest the command of God; but when God
transports thee He has the best right to see that thou performest His
command, for two reasons: firstly, in order that the token of
servantship may not be removed from thee, and secondly, in order that He
may keep His promise that He will never let the law of Muḥammad be
abrogated. “Broken union” (_jam`-i taksír_) is this: that a man’s
judgment becomes distraught and bewildered, so that it is like the
judgment of a lunatic: then he is either excused from performing his
religious obligations or rewarded (_mashkúr_) for performing them; and
the state of him who is rewarded is sounder than the state of him who is
excused.
You must know, in short, that union does not involve any peculiar
“station” (_maqám_) or any peculiar “state” (_ḥál_), for union is the
concentration of one’s thoughts (_jam`-i himmat_) upon the object of
one’s desire. According to some the revelation of this matter takes
place in the “stations” (_maqámát_), according to others in the “states”
(_aḥwál_), and in either case the desire of the “united” person (_ṣáḥib
jam`_) is attained by negating his desire. This holds good in
everything, e.g., Jacob concentrated his thoughts on Joseph, so that he
had no thought but of him; and Majnún concentrated his thoughts on
Laylá, so that he saw only her in the whole world, and all created
things assumed the form of Laylá in his eyes. One day, when Abú Yazíd
was in his cell, some one came and asked: “Is Abú Yazíd here?” He
answered: “Is anyone here except God?” And a certain Shaykh relates that
a dervish came to Mecca and remained in contemplation of the Ka`ba for a
whole year, during which time he neither ate nor drank, nor slept, nor
cleansed himself, because of the concentration of his thoughts upon the
Ka`ba, which thereby became the food of his body and the drink of his
soul. The principle in all these cases is the same, viz. that God
divided the one substance of His love and bestows a particle thereof, as
a peculiar gift, upon every one of His friends in proportion to their
enravishment with Him; then He lets down upon that particle the shrouds
of humanity and nature and temperament and spirit, in order that by its
powerful working it may transmute to its own quality all the particles
that are attached to it, until the lover’s clay is wholly converted into
love, and all his actions and looks become so many indispensable
conditions of love. This state is named “union” alike by those who
regard the inward meaning and those who regard the outward expression.
Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj) says in this sense:
“_Thy will be done, O my Lord and Master!
Thy will be done, O my purpose and meaning!
O essence of my being, O goal of my desire,
O my speech and my hints and my gestures!
O all of my all, O my hearing and my sight,
O my whole and my element and my particles!_”
Therefore, to one whose qualities are only borrowed from God, it is a
disgrace to affirm his own existence, and an act of dualism (_zunnár_)
to pay any heed to the phenomenal universe; and all created objects are
despicable to his soaring thought. Some have been led by their
dialectical subtlety and their admiration of phraseology to speak of
“the union of union” (_jam` al-jam`_). This is a good expression as
phrases go, but if you consider the meaning, it is better not to
predicate union of union, because the term “union” cannot properly be
applied except to separation. Before union can be united it must first
have been separated, whereas the fact is that union does not change its
state. The expression, therefore, is liable to be misunderstood, because
one who is “united” does not look forth from himself to what is above or
to what is below him. Do not you perceive that when the two worlds were
displayed to the Apostle on the night of the Ascension he paid no heed
to anything? He was in “union”, and one who is “united” does not behold
“separation”. Hence God said: “_His gaze swerved not, nor did it stray_”
(Kor. liii, 17). In my early days I composed a book on this subject and
entitled it _Kitáb al-bayán li-ahl al-`iyán_,[134] and I have also
discussed the matter at length in the _Baḥr al-qulúb_[135] in the
chapter on “Union”. I will not now burden my readers by adding to what I
have said here.
Footnote 134:
“The Book of Exposition for Persons of Intuition.”
Footnote 135:
“The Sea of Hearts.”
This sketch of the doctrine of the Sayyárís concludes my account of
those Ṣúfí sects which are approved and follow the path of true
theosophy. I now turn to the opinions of those heretics who have
connected themselves with the Ṣúfís and have adopted Ṣúfiistic
phraseology as a means of promulgating their heresy. My aim is to expose
their errors in order that novices may not be deceived by their
pretensions and may guard themselves from mischief.
11. THE ḤULÚLÍS.
Of those two reprobate sects which profess to belong to Ṣúfiism and make
the Ṣúfís partners in their error, one follows Abú Ḥulmán of
Damascus.[136] The stories which his adherents relate of him do not
agree with what is written about him in the books of the Shaykhs, for,
while the Ṣúfís regard him as one of themselves, these sectaries impute
to him the doctrines of incarnation (_ḥulúl_) and commixture (_imtizáj_)
and transmigration of spirits (_naskh-i arwáḥ_). I have seen this
statement in the book of Muqaddasí,[137] who attacks him; and the same
notion of him has been formed by theologians, but God knows best what is
the truth. The other sect refer their doctrine to Fáris,[138] who
pretends to have derived it from Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj), but he is
the only one of Ḥusayn’s followers who holds such tenets. I saw Abú
Ja`far Ṣaydalání[139] with four thousand men, dispersed throughout
`Iráq, who were Ḥallájís; and they all cursed Fáris on account of this
doctrine. Moreover, in the compositions of al-Ḥalláj himself there is
nothing but profound theosophy.
Footnote 136:
See note, p. 131.
Footnote 137:
The _nisba_ Muqaddasí or Maqdisí belongs to a number of Moslem
writers. I do not know which of them is intended here.
Footnote 138:
See _Nafaḥát_, No. 178.
Footnote 139:
This person, whom the author has already mentioned at the beginning of
Chapter XIII, is not identical with the Ṣúfí of the same name who was
a contemporary of Junayd (_Nafaḥát_, No. 197).
I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, say that I do not know who Fáris and Abú
Hulmán were or what they said, but anyone who holds a doctrine
conflicting with Unification and true theosophy has no part in religion
at all. If religion, which is the root, is not firmly based, Ṣúfiism,
which is the branch and offspring of religion, must with more reason be
unsound, for it is inconceivable that miracles and evidences should be
manifested except to religious persons and Unitarians. All the errors of
these sectaries are in regard to the spirit (_rúḥ_). Now, therefore, I
will explain its nature and principles according to the Sunní canon, and
in the course of my explanation I will notice the erroneous and delusive
opinions of the heretics in order that your faith may be strengthened
thereby.
_Discourse on the Spirit_ (al-rúḥ).
You must know that knowledge concerning the existence of the spirit is
intuitive (_darúrí_), and the intelligence is unable to apprehend its
(the spirit’s) nature. Every Moslem divine and sage has expressed some
conjectural opinion on this point, which has also been debated by
unbelievers of various sorts. When the unbelievers of Quraysh, prompted
by the Jews, sent Naḍr b. al-Ḥárith to question the Apostle concerning
the nature and essence of the spirit, God in the first place affirmed
its substance and said, “_And they will ask thee concerning the
spirit_”; then He denied its eternity, saying, “_Answer, ‘The spirit
belongs to that which_ (i.e. the creation of which) _my Lord
commanded’_” (Kor. xvii, 87). And the Apostle said: “The spirits are
hosts gathered together: those that know one another agree, and those
that do not know one another disagree.” There are many similar proofs of
the existence of the spirit, but they contain no authoritative statement
as to its nature. Some have said that the spirit is the life whereby the
body lives, a view which is also held by a number of scholastic
philosophers. According to this view the spirit is an accident
(_`araḍ_), which at God’s command keeps the body alive, and from which
proceed conjunction, motion, cohesion. and similar accidents by which
the body is changed from one state to another. Others, again, declare
that the spirit is not life, but that life does not exist without it,
just as the spirit does not exist without the body, and that the two are
never found apart, because they are inseparable, like pain and the
knowledge of pain. According to this view also the spirit is an
accident, like life. All the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, however, and most orthodox
Moslems hold that the spirit is a substance, and not an attribute; for,
so long as it is connected with the body, God continually creates life
in the body, and the life of Man is an attribute and by it he lives, but
the spirit is deposited in his body and may be separated from him while
he is still living, as in sleep. But when it leaves him, intelligence
and knowledge can no longer remain with him, for the Apostle has said
that the spirits of martyrs are in the crops of birds: consequently it
must be a substance; and the Apostle has said that the spirits are hosts
(_junúd_), and hosts are subsistent (_báqí_), and no accident can
subsist, for an accident does not stand by itself.
The spirit, then, is a subtle body (_jismí laṭíf_), which comes and goes
by the command of God. On the night of the Ascension, when the Apostle
saw in Heaven Adam, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Jesus, and Abraham, it was
their spirits that he saw; and if the spirit were an accident, it would
not stand by itself so as to become visible, for it would need a _locus_
in substances, and substances are gross (_kathíf_). Accordingly, it has
been ascertained that the spirit is subtle and corporeal (_jasím_), and
being corporeal, it is visible, but visible only to the eye of
intelligence (_chashm-i dil_). And spirits may reside in the crops of
birds or may be armies that move to and fro, as the Apostolic Traditions
declare.
Here we are at variance with the heretics, who assert that the spirit is
eternal (_qadím_), and worship it, and regard it as the sole agent and
governor of things, and call it the uncreated spirit of God, and aver
that it passes from one body to another. No popular error has obtained
such wide acceptance as this doctrine, which is held by the Christians,
although they express it in terms that appear to conflict with it, and
by all the Indians, Tibetans, and Chinese, and is supported by the
consensus of opinion among the Shí`ites, Carmathians, and Ismá`ílís
(_Báṭiniyán_), and is embraced by the two false sects abovementioned.
All these sectaries base their belief on certain propositions and bring
forward proofs in defence of their assertion. I ask them this question:
“What do you mean by ‘eternity’ (_qidam_)? Do you mean the pre-existence
of a non-eternal thing, or an eternal thing that never came into being?”
If they mean the pre-existence of a non-eternal thing, then there is no
difference between us in principle, for we too say that the spirit is
non-eternal (_muḥdath_), and that it existed before the body, as the
Apostle said: “God created the spirits two thousand years before the
bodies.” Accordingly, the spirit is one sort of God’s creatures, and He
joins it to another sort of His creatures, and in joining them together
He produces life through His predestination. But the spirit cannot pass
from body to body, because, just as a body cannot have two lives, so a
spirit cannot have two bodies. If these facts were not affirmed in
Apostolic Traditions by an Apostle who speaks the truth, and if the
matter were considered purely from the standpoint of a reasonable
intelligence, then the spirit would be life and nothing else, and it
would be an attribute, not a substance. Now suppose, on the other hand,
they say that the spirit is an eternal thing that never came into being.
In this case, I ask: “Does it stand by itself or by something else?” If
they say, “By itself,” I ask them, “Is God its world (_`álam_) or not?”
If they answer that God is not its world, they affirm the existence of
two eternal beings, which is contrary to reason, for the eternal is
infinite, and the essence of one eternal being would limit the other.
But if they answer that God is its world, then I say that God is eternal
and His creatures are non-eternal: it is impossible that the eternal
should be commingled with the non-eternal or made one with it, or become
immanent in it, or that the non-eternal should be the place of the
eternal or that the eternal should carry it; for whatever is joined to
anything must be like that to which it is joined, and only homogeneous
things are capable of being united and separated. And if they say that
the spirit does not stand by itself, but by something else, then it must
be either an attribute (_ṣifat_) or an accident (_`araḍ_). If it is an
accident, it must either be in a _locus_ or not. If it is in a _locus_,
its _locus_ must be like itself, and neither can be called eternal; and
to say that it has no _locus_ is absurd, for an accident cannot stand by
itself. If, again, they say that the spirit is an eternal attribute—and
this is the doctrine of the Ḥulúhs and those who believe in
metempsychosis (_tanásukhiyán_)—and call it an attribute of God, I reply
that an eternal attribute of God cannot possibly become an attribute of
His creatures; for, if His life could become the life of His creatures,
similarly His power could become their power; and inasmuch as an
attribute stands by its object, how can an eternal attribute stand by a
non-eternal object? Therefore, as I have shown, the eternal has no
connexion with the non-eternal, and the doctrine of the heretics who
affirm this is false. The spirit is created and is under God’s command.
Anyone who holds another belief is in flagrant error and cannot
distinguish what is non-eternal from what is eternal. No saint, if his
saintship be sound, can possibly be ignorant of the attributes of God. I
give praise without end to God, who hath guarded us from heresies and
dangers, and hath bestowed on us intelligence to examine and refute them
by our arguments, and hath given us faith in order that we may know Him.
When men who see only the exterior hear stories of this kind from
theologians, they imagine that this is the doctrine of all aspirants to
Ṣúfiism. They are grossly mistaken and utterly deceived, and the
consequence is that they are blinded to the beauty of our mystic
knowledge and to the loveliness of Divine saintship and to the flashes
of spiritual illumination, because eminent Ṣúfís regard popular applause
and popular censure with equal indifference.
SECTION.
One of the Shaykhs says: “The spirit in the body is like fire in fuel;
the fire is created (_makhlúq_) and the coal is made (_maṣnú`_).”
Nothing can be described as eternal except the essence and attributes of
God. Abú Bakr Wásiṭí has discoursed on the spirit more than any of the
Ṣúfí Shaykhs. It is related that he said: “There are ten stations
(_maqámát_) of spirits: (1) the spirits of the sincere (_mukhliṣán_),
which are imprisoned in a darkness and know not what will befall them;
(2) the spirits of pious men (_pársá-mardán_), which in the heaven of
this world rejoice in the fruits of their actions and take pleasure in
devotions, and walk by the strength thereof; (3) the spirits of
disciples (_murídán_), which are in the fourth heaven and dwell with the
angels in the delights of veracity, and in the shadow of their good
works; (4) the spirits of the beneficent (_ahl-i minan_) which are hung
in lamps of light from the Throne of God, and their food is mercy, and
their drink is favour and proximity; (5) the spirits of the faithful
(_ahl-i wafá_), which thrill with joy in the veil of purity and the
station of electness (_iṣṭifá_); (6) the spirits of martyrs
(_shahídán_), which are in Paradise in the crops of birds, and go where
they will in its gardens early and late; (7) the spirits of those who
yearn (_mushtáqán_), which stand on the carpet of respect (_adab_) clad
in the luminous veils of the Divine attributes; (8) the spirits of
gnostics (_`árifán_), which, in the precincts of holiness, listen at
morn and eve to the word of God and see their places in Paradise and in
this world; (9) the spirits of lovers (_dústán_), which have become
absorbed in contemplation of the Divine beauty and the station of
revelation (_kashf_), and perceive nothing but God and rest content with
no other thing; (10) the spirits of dervishes, which have found favour
with God in the abode of annihilation, and have suffered a
transformation of quality and a change of state.”
It is related concerning the Shaykhs that they have seen the spirit in
different shapes, and this may well be, because, as I have said, it is
created, and a subtle body (_jismí laṭíf_) is necessarily visible. God
shows it to every one of His servants, when and as it pleases Him.
I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, declare that our life is wholly through
God, and our stability is through Him, and our being kept alive is the
act of God in us, and we live through His creation, not through His
essence and attributes. The doctrine of the animists (_rúḥiyán_) is
entirely false. Belief in the eternity of the spirit is one of the grave
errors which prevail among the vulgar, and is expressed in different
ways, e.g. they use the terms “soul” and “matter” (_nafs ú hayúlá_), or
“light” and “darkness” (_núr ú ẕulmat_), and those Ṣúfí impostors speak
of “annihilation” and “subsistence” (_faná ú baqá_), or “union” and
“separation” (_jam` ú tafriqa_), or adopt similar phrases as a fair mask
for their infidelity. But the Ṣúfís abjure these heretics, for the Ṣúfís
hold that saintship and true love of God depend on knowledge of Him, and
anyone who does not know the eternal from the non-eternal is ignorant in
what he says, and the intelligent pay no attention to what is said by
the ignorant. Now I will unveil the portals of the practice and theory
of the Ṣúfís, furnishing my explanation with evident proofs, in order
that you may the more easily comprehend my meaning, and that any sceptic
possessed of insight may be led back into the right way, and that I may
thereby gain a blessing and a Divine reward.