THE UNCOVERING OF THE SIXTH VEIL: CONCERNING ALMS (_al-zakát_).
Alms is one of the obligatory ordinances of the faith. It becomes due on
the completion of a benefit; e.g., two hundred dirhems constitute a
complete benefit (_ni`matí tamám_), and anyone who is in possession of
that sum ought to pay five dirhems; or if he possesses twenty dínárs he
ought to pay half a dínár; or if he possesses five camels he ought to
pay one sheep, and so forth. Alms is also due on account of dignity
(_jáh_), because that too is a complete benefit. The Apostle said:
“Verily, God has made it incumbent upon you to pay the alms of your
dignity, even as He has made it incumbent upon you to pay the alms of
your property”; and he said also: “Everything has its alms, and the alms
of a house is the guest-room.”
Alms is really thanksgiving for a benefit received, the thanks being
similar in kind to the benefit. Thus health is a great blessing, for
which every limb owes alms. Therefore healthy persons ought to occupy
all their limbs with devotion and not yield them to pleasure and
pastime, in order that the alms due for the blessing of health may be
fully paid. Moreover, there is an alms for every spiritual blessing,
namely, outward and inward acknowledgment of that blessing in proportion
to its worth. Thus, when a man knows that the blessings bestowed upon
him by God are infinite, he should render infinite thanks by way of
alms. The Ṣúfís do not consider it praiseworthy to give alms on account
of worldly blessings, because they disapprove of avarice, and a man must
needs be extremely avaricious to keep two hundred dirhems in his
possession for a whole year and then give away five dirhems in alms.
Since it is the custom of the generous to lavish their wealth, and since
they are disposed to be liberal, how should almsgiving be incumbent upon
them?
I have read in the Anecdotes that a certain formal theologian, wishing
to make trial of Shiblí, asked him what sum ought to be given in alms.
Shiblí replied: “Where avarice is present and property exists, five
dirhems out of every two hundred dirhems, and half a dínár out of every
twenty dínárs. That is according to thy doctrine; but according to mine,
a man ought not to possess anything, in which case he will be saved from
the trouble of giving alms.” The divine asked: “Whose authority do you
follow in this matter?” Shiblí said: “The authority of Abú Bakr the
Veracious, who gave away all that he possessed, and on being asked by
the Apostle what he had left behind for his family, answered, ‘God and
His Apostle.’” And it is related that `Alí said in an ode—
“_Almsgiving is not incumbent on me,
For how can a generous man be required to give alms?_”
But it is absurd for anyone to cultivate ignorance and to say that
because he has no property he need not be acquainted with the theory of
almsgiving. To learn and obtain knowledge is an essential obligation,
and to profess one’s self independent of knowledge is mere infidelity.
It is one of the evils of the present age that many who pretend to be
pious dervishes reject knowledge in favour of ignorance. The author
says: “Once I was giving devotional instruction to some novices in
Ṣúfiism and was discussing the chapter on the poor-rate of camels
(_ṣadaqat al-ibil_) and explaining the rules in regard to she-camels
that have entered on their third or second or fourth year (_bint-i labún
ú bint-i makháḍ ú ḥiqqa_). An ignorant fellow, tired of listening to my
discourse, rose and said: ‘I have no camels: what use is this knowledge
to me?’ I answered: ‘Knowledge is necessary in taking alms no less than
in giving alms: if anyone should give you a she-camel in her third year
and you should accept her, you ought to be informed on this point; and
even though one has no property and does not want to have any property,
he is not thereby relieved from the obligation of knowledge.’”
SECTION.
Some of the Ṣúfí Shaykhs have accepted alms, while others have declined
to do so. Those whose poverty is voluntary (_ba-ikhtiyár_) belong to the
latter class. “We do not amass property,” they say, “therefore we need
not give alms; nor will we accept alms from worldlings, lest they should
have the upper hand (_yad-i `ulyá_) and we the lower (_yad-i suflá_).“
But those who in their poverty are under Divine compulsion (_muḍtarr_)
accept alms, not for their own wants but with the purpose of relieving a
brother Moslem of his obligation. In this case the receiver of alms, not
the giver, has the upper hand; otherwise, the words of God, ”_And He
accepteth the alms_” (Kor. ix, 105), are meaningless, and the giver of
alms must be superior to the receiver, a belief which is utterly false.
No; the upper hand belongs to him who takes something from a brother
Moslem in order that the latter may escape from a heavy responsibility.
Dervishes are not of this world (_dunyá´í_), but of the next world
(_`uqbá´í_), and if a dervish fails to relieve a worldling of his
responsibility, the worldling will be held accountable and punished at
the Resurrection for having neglected to fulfil his obligation.
Therefore God afflicts the dervish with a slight want in order that
worldlings may be able to perform what is incumbent upon them. The upper
hand is necessarily the hand of the dervish who receives alms in
accordance with the requirement of the law, because it behoves him to
take that which is due to God. If the hand of the recipient were the
lower hand, as some anthropomorphists (_ahl-i ḥashw_) declare, then the
hands of the Apostles, who often received alms due to God and delivered
it to the proper authority, must have been lower (than the hands of
those who gave the alms to them). This view is erroneous; its adherents
do not see that the Apostles received alms in consequence of the Divine
command. The religious Imáms have acted in the same manner as the
Apostles, for they have always received payments due to the public
treasury. Those are in the wrong who assert that the hand of the
receiver is the lower and that of the giver is the higher.
_Chapter on Liberality and Generosity._
In the opinion of theologians liberality (_júd_) and generosity
(_sakhá_), when regarded as human attributes, are synonymous; but God,
although He is called liberal (_jawád_), is not called generous
(_sakhí_), because He has not called Himself by the latter name, nor is
He so called in any Apostolic Tradition. All orthodox Moslems are agreed
that it is not allowable to apply to God any name that is not proclaimed
in the Koran and the Sunna: thus He may be called knowing (_`álim_), but
not intelligent (_`áqil_) or wise (_faqíh_), although the three terms
bear the same signification. Hence God is called liberal, since that
name is accompanied by His blessing; and He is not called generous,
since that name lacks His blessing. Men have made a distinction between
liberality (_júd_) and generosity (_sakhá_), and have said that the
generous man discriminates in his liberality, and that his actions are
connected with a selfish motive (_gharaḍ_) and a cause (_sabab_). This
is a rudimentary stage in liberality, for the liberal man does not
discriminate, and his actions are devoid of self-interest and without
any secondary cause. These two qualities were exhibited by two Apostles,
viz., Abraham, the Friend of God (_Khalíl_), and Muḥammad, the Beloved
of God (_Ḥabíb_). It is related in the genuine Traditions that Abraham
was accustomed not to eat anything until a guest came to him. Once,
after three days had passed without the arrival of a guest, a
fire—worshipper appeared at the door, but Abraham, on hearing who he
was, refused to give him entertainment. God reproached him on this
account, saying: “Wilt not thou give a piece of bread to one whom I have
nourished for seventy years?” But Muḥammad, when the son of Ḥátim
visited him, spread his own mantle on the ground for him and said:
“Honour the noble chieftain of a people when he comes to you.” Abraham’s
position was generosity, but our Apostle’s was liberality.
The best rule in this matter is set forth in the maxim that liberality
consists in following one’s first thought, and that it is a sign of
avarice when the second thought prevails over the first; for the first
thought is unquestionably from God. I have read that at Níshápúr there
was a merchant who used regularly to attend the meetings held by Shaykh
Abú Sa`íd. One day a dervish who was present begged the Shaykh to give
him something. The merchant had a dínár and a small piece of clipped
money (_quráḍa_). His first thought was: “I will give the dínár,” but on
second thoughts he gave the clipped piece. When the Shaykh finished his
discourse the merchant asked: “Is it right for anyone to contend with
God?” The Shaykh answered: “You contended with Him: He bade you give the
dínár, but you gave the clipping.” I have also read that Shaykh Abú
`Abdalláh Rúdbárí came to the house of a disciple in his absence, and
ordered that all the effects in the house should be taken to the bazaar.
When the disciple returned he was delighted that the Shaykh had behaved
with such freedom, but he said nothing. His wife, however, tore off her
dress and flung it down, saying: “This belongs to the effects of the
house.” The husband exclaimed: “You are doing more than is necessary and
showing self-will.” “O husband,” said she, “what the Shaykh did was the
result of his liberality: we too must exert ourselves (_takalluf kuním_)
to display liberality.” “Yes,” replied the husband, “but if we allow the
Shaykh to be liberal, that is real liberality in us, whereas liberality,
regarded as a human quality, is forced and unreal.” A disciple ought
always to sacrifice his property and himself in obedience to the command
of God. Hence Sahl b. `Abdalláh (al-Tustarí) said: “The Ṣúfí’s blood may
be shed with impunity, and his property may be seized.” I have heard the
following story of Shaykh Abú Muslim Fárisí: “Once (he said) I set out
with a number of people for the Ḥijáz. In the neighbourhood of Ḥulwán we
were attacked by Kurds, who stripped us of our patched frocks. We
offered no resistance. One man, however, became greatly excited,
whereupon a Kurd drew his scimitar and killed him, notwithstanding our
entreaties that his life might be spared. On our asking why he had
killed him he answered: ‘Because he is no Ṣúfí and acts disloyally in
the company of saints: such a one is better dead.’ We said: ‘How so?’ He
replied: ‘The first step in Ṣúfiism is liberality. This fellow, who was
so desperately attached to these rags that he quarrelled with his own
friends, how should he be a Ṣúfí? His own friends, I say, for it is a
long time since we have been doing as you do, and plundering you and
stripping you of worldly encumbrances.’”[157] A man came to the house of
Ḥasan b. `Alí and said that he owed four hundred dirhems. Ḥasan gave him
four hundred dínárs and went into the house, weeping. They asked him why
he wept. He answered: “I have been remiss in making inquiry into the
circumstances of this man, and have reduced him to the humiliation of
begging.” Abú Sahl Ṣu`lúkí never put alms into the hand of a dervish,
and always used to lay on the ground anything that he gave. “Worldly
goods,” he said, “are too worthless to be placed in the hand of a
Moslem, so that my hand should be the upper and his the lower.”[158] I
once met a dervish to whom a Sultan had sent three hundred drachms of
pure gold. He went to a bath-house, and gave the whole sum to the
superintendent and immediately departed. I have already discussed the
subject of liberality in the chapter on preference (_íthár_), where I
have dealt with the doctrine of the Núrís.
Footnote 157:
Here follows a story of `Abdalláh b. Ja`far and an Abyssinian slave,
who let a dog eat the whole of his daily portion of food.
Footnote 158:
Here the author relates three short anecdotes illustrating the
liberality of Muḥammad.