{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64786/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64786","id":"gutenberg_64786","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64786","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Sufism -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                          Transcriber\u2019s Note:\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the \u2018_\u2019 character as _italic_. Superscripted\ncharacters are indicated with \u2018^\u2019 and, if multiple characters are\nraised, they are bracketed with \u2018{ }\u2019. Bold fonts are used in the index\nentries to indicate the primary entries in the text.\n\nFootnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are\nreferenced.\n\nThere is an editorial list of corrections and additions. These, along\nwith the errors they mention, are retained in this version.\n\nMinor errors, deemed attributable to the printer, have been corrected.\nPlease see the transcriber\u2019s note at the end of this text for details.\n\n\n\n\n                       \u201c_E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL_\u201d\n                               _SERIES._\n\n                              _VOL. XVII._\n\n                          THE KASHF AL-MA\u1e24J\u00daB\n\n                     THE OLDEST PERSIAN TREATISE ON\n                                \u1e62\u00daFIISM\n\n                                   BY\n\n                 \u2018AL\u00cd B. \u2018UTHM\u00c1N AL-JULL\u00c1B\u00cd AL-HUJW\u00cdR\u00cd\n\n            TRANSLATED FROM THE TEXT OF THE LAHORE EDITION,\n               COMPARED WITH MSS. IN THE INDIA OFFICE AND\n                            BRITISH MUSEUM.\n\n                                   BY\n\n                     REYNOLD A. NICHOLSON, LITT.D.\n\n          LECTURER IN PERSIAN IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE;\n                  FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE.\n\n                                  AND\n\n                    PRINTED FOR THE TRUSTEES OF THE\n                       \u201cE. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL\u201d.\n\n                              VOLUME XVII.\n\n               LEYDEN: E. J. BRILL, IMPRIMERIE ORIENTALE.\n             LONDON: LUZAC & CO., 46 GREAT RUSSELL STREET.\n\n                                 1911.\n\n\n\n\n                               PRINTED BY\n                     STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS, LTD.\n                               HERTFORD.\n\n                   _\u201cE. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL\u201d SERIES._\n\n\n                               PUBLISHED,\n\n1. _The_ B\u00e1bar-n\u00e1ma, _reproduced in facsimile from a MS. belonging to\n   the late Sir S\u00e1l\u00e1r Jang of \u1e24aydar\u00e1b\u00e1d, and edited with Preface and\n   Indexes, by Mrs. Beveridge, 1905. (Out of print.)_\n\n2. _An abridged translation of Ibn Isfandiy\u00e1r\u2019s_ History of \u1e6cabarist\u00e1n,\n   _by Edward G. Browne, 1905. Price 8s._\n\n3. _Translation of al-Khazraj\u00ed\u2019s_ History of the Ras\u00fal\u00ed Dynasty of\n   Yaman, _with introduction by the late Sir J. Redhouse, now edited by\n   E. G. Browne, R. A. Nicholson, and A. Rogers. Vols. I and II of the\n   Translation, 1906, 1907. Price 7s. each. Vol. III, containing the\n   Annotations, 1908. Price 5s. (Vol. IV, containing the Text, in the\n   Press.)_\n\n4. Umayyads and `Abb\u00e1sids: _being the Fourth Part of Jurj\u00ed Zayd\u00e1n\u2019s_\n   History of Islamic Civilisation, _translated by Professor D. S.\n   Margoliouth, D.Litt., 1907. Price 5s._\n\n5. _The Travels of_ Ibn Jubayr, _the late Dr. William Wright\u2019s edition\n   of the Arabic text, revised by the late Professor M. J. de Goeje,\n   1907. Price 6s._\n\n6. _Y\u00e1q\u00fat\u2019s Dictionary of Learned Men, entitled_ Irsh\u00e1du\u2019l-ar\u00edb il\u00e1\n   ma\u2018rifati\u2019l-ad\u00edb, _or_ Mu\u2018jamu\u2019l-Udab\u00e1: _edited from the Bodleian MS.\n   by Professor D. S. Margoliouth, D.Litt. Vols. I, II, 1907, \u201909. Price\n   8s. each. Vol. III, part 1, 1910. Price 5s. (Further volumes in\n   preparation.)_\n\n7. _The_ Taj\u00e1ribu\u00b4l-Umam _of Ibn Miskawayh: reproduced in facsimile from\n   MSS. Nos. 3116-3121 of \u00c1y\u00e2 Sofia, with Preface and Summary by the\n   Principe di Teano. Vol. I (to A.H. 37), 1909. Price 7s. (Further\n   volumes in preparation.)_\n\n8. _The_ Marzub\u00e1n-n\u00e1ma _of Sa`du\u00b4d-D\u00edn-i-War\u00e1w\u00edn\u00ed, edited by M\u00edrz\u00e1\n   Mu\u1e25ammad of Qazw\u00edn, 1909. Price 8s._\n\n9. _Textes persans relatifs \u00e0 la_ secte des \u1e24ouro\u00fbf\u00ees _publi\u00e9s,\n   traduits, et annot\u00e9s par Cl\u00e9ment Huart, suivis d\u2019une \u00e9tude sur la\n   religion des \u1e24ouro\u00fbf\u00ees par \u201cFeylesouf Riz\u00e1\u201d, 1909. Price 8s._\n\n10. _The_ Mu`jam f\u00ed Ma`\u00e1y\u00edri Ash`\u00e1ri\u00b4l-`Ajam _of Shams-i-Qays, edited\n   from the British Museum MS. (Or. 2814) by Edward G. Browne and M\u00edrz\u00e1\n   Mu\u1e25ammad of Qazw\u00edn, 1909. Price 8s._\n\n11. _The_ Chah\u00e1r Maq\u00e1la _of Ni\u1e0f\u1e96\u00e1m\u00ed-i-`Ar\u00fa\u1e0d\u00ed-i-Samarqand\u00ed,\n   edited, with notes in Persian, by M\u00edrz\u00e1 Mu\u1e25ammad of Qazw\u00edn, 1910.\n   Price 8s._\n\n12. Introduction \u00e0 l\u2019Histoire des Mongols _de Fadl Allah Rashid ed-Din\n   par E. Blochet, 1910. Price 8s._\n\n13. _The_ D\u00edw\u00e1n _of \u1e24ass\u00e1n b. Th\u00e1bit (d. A.H. 54), edited by Hartwig\n   Hirschfeld, Ph.D., 1910. Price 5s._\n\n14. _The_ Ta\u00b4r\u00edkh-i-Guz\u00edda _of \u1e24amdu\u00b4ll\u00e1h Mustawf\u00ed of Qazw\u00edn, reproduced\n   in facsimile from an old MS., with Introduction, Indices, etc., by\n   Edward G. Browne. Vol. I. Text._ 1910. _Price 15s._\n\n15. _The_ Earliest History of the B\u00e1b\u00eds, _composed before 1852, by \u1e24\u00e1jji\n   M\u00edrz\u00e1 J\u00e1n\u00ed of K\u00e1sh\u00e1n, edited from the unique Paris MS. (Suppl.\n   Persan, 1071) by Edward G. Browne. Price 8s._\n\n16. _The_ Ta\u00b4r\u00edkh-i-Jab\u00e1n-gush\u00e1 _of `Al\u00e1\u00b4u\u00b4d-D\u00edn `A\u1e6d\u00e1 Malik-i-Juwayn\u00ed,\n   edited from seven MSS. by M\u00edrz\u00e1 Mu\u1e25ammad of Qazw\u00edn. Price 8s._\n\n17. _A translation of the_ Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab _of `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n\n   al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, the oldest Persian manual of \u1e62\u00fafiism, by R. A.\n   Nicholson. Price 8s._\n\n                            IN PREPARATION.\n\n_The History of the Mongols, from the_ J\u00e1mi`u\u00b4t-Taw\u00e1r\u00edkh _of\n    Rash\u00eddu\u00b4d-Din Fa\u1e0dlu\u00b4ll\u00e1h, beginning with the account of Ogot\u00e1y,\n    edited by E. Blochet, comprising:\u2014_\n\n    _Tome I: Histoire des tribus turques et mongoles, des anc\u00eatres de\n      Tchinkkiz-Khan depuis Along-Goa, et de Tchinkkiz-Khan._\n\n    _Tome II: Histoire des successeurs de Tchinkkiz-Khan, d\u2019Oug\u00e9de\u00ef \u00e0\n      T\u00e9mour-Kaan, des fils apanag\u00e9s de Tchinkkiz-Khan, et des\n      gouverneurs Mongols de Perse d\u2019Houlagou \u00e0 Ghazan. (Sous presse.)_\n\n    _Tome III: Histoire de Ghazan, d\u2019Oldja\u00eftou, et de Abou-Sa\u00efd._\n\n_An abridged translation of the_ I\u1e25y\u00e1\u00b4u\u00b4l-Mul\u00fak, _a Persian History of\n    S\u00edst\u00e1n by Sh\u00e1h \u1e24usayn, from the British Museum MS. (Or. 2779), by A.\n    G. Ellis._\n\n_The geographical part of the_ Nuzhatu\u00b4l-Qul\u00fab _of \u1e24amdu\u00b4ll\u00e1h Mustawf\u00ed\n    of Qazw\u00edn, with a translation, by G. Le Strange._\n\n_The_ Fut\u00fa\u1e25u Mi\u1e63r wa\u00b4l-Maghrib wa\u00b4l-Andalus _of Abu\u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim\n    `Abdu\u00b4r-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n b. `Abdu\u00b4ll\u00e1h b. Abdu\u00b4l-\u1e24akam al-Qurash\u00ed al-Mi\u1e63r\u00ed (d.\n    A.H. 257), edited by Professor C. C. Torrey._\n\n_The_ Q\u00e1b\u00fas-n\u00e1ma, _edited in the original Persian by E. Edwards._\n\nTa\u00b4r\u00edkhu Mi\u1e63r, _the History of Egypt, by Ab\u00fa `Umar Mu\u1e25ammad b. Y\u00fasuf\n    al-Kind\u00ed (d. A.H. 350), edited from the unique MS. in the British\n    Museum (Add. 23,324) by A. Rhuvon Guest. (In the Press.)_\n\n_The_ Ans\u00e1b _of as-Sam`\u00e1n\u00ed, reproduced in facsimile from the British\n    Museum MS. (Or. 23,355), with Indices by H. Loewe. (In the Press.)_\n\n_The poems of four early Arabic poets. In two parts:\u2014(1) The_ D\u00edw\u00e1ns _of\n    `\u00c1mir b. a\u1e6d-\u1e6cufayl and `Ab\u00edd b. al-Abra\u1e63, edited by Sir Charles J.\n    Lyall, K.C.S.I.; (2) The_ D\u00edw\u00e1ns _of a\u1e6d-\u1e6cufayl b. `Awf and \u1e6cirimm\u00e1\u1e25\n    b. \u1e24ak\u00edm, edited by F. Krenkow._\n\n_The_ Kit\u00e1bu\u00b4l-Raddi `al\u00e1 ahli \u00b4l-bida`i wal-ahw\u00e1\u00b4i _of Mak\u1e25\u00fal b.\n    al-Mufa\u1e0d\u1e0dal al-Nasaf\u00ed (d. A.H. 318), edited from the Bodleian MS.\n    Pocock 271, with introductory Essay on the Sects of Islam, by G. W.\n    Thatcher, M.A._\n\n_A_ monograph on the Southern Dialects of Kurdish, _by E. B. Soane._\n\n\n\n\n                          _This Volume is one\n                              of a Series\n                    published by the Trustees of the\n                       \u201cE. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL\u201d._\n\n_The Funds of this Memorial are derived from the interest accruing from\na sum of money given by the late MRS. GIBB of Glasgow, to perpetuate the\nMemory of her beloved son_\n\n                      _ELIAS JOHN WILKINSON GIBB,_\n\n_and to promote those researches into the History, Literature,\nPhilosophy, and Religion of the Turks, Persians, and Arabs to which,\nfrom his youth upwards, until his premature and deeply lamented death in\nhis 45th year on December 5, 1901, his life was devoted._\n\n            \u062a\u0650\u0644\u0652\u0643\u064e \u0622\u062b\u064e\u0627\u0631\u064f\u0646\u064e\u0627 \u062a\u064e\u062f\u064f\u0644\u064f\u0651 \u0639\u064e\u0644\u064e\u064a\u0652\u0646\u064e\u0627 * \u0641\u064e\u0671\u0646\u0652\u0638\u064f\u0631\u064f\u0648\u0627 \u0628\u064e\u0639\u0652\u062f\u064e\u0646\u064e\u0627 \u0627\u0644\u064a \u0671\u0644\u0627\u064e\u062b\u064e\u0627\u0631\u0650\n\n                 \u201c_The worker pays his debt to Death;\n                 His work lives on, nay, quickeneth._\u201d\n\n_The following memorial verse is contributed by `Abdu\u00b4l-\u1e24aqq \u1e24\u00e1mid Bey\nof the Imperial Ottoman Embassy in London, one of the Founders of the\nNew School of Turkish Literature, and for many years an intimate friend\nof the deceased._\n\n                    \u062c\u0645\u0644\u0647 \u064a\u0627\u0631\u0627\u0646\u0649 \u0648\u0641\u0627\u0633\u064a\u0644\u0647 \u0627\u064a\u062f\u0631\u0643\u0646 \u0646\u0637\u064a\u064a\u0628\n                   \u06a9\u0646\u062f\u06cc \u0639\u0645\u0631\u0646\u062f\u0647 \u0648\u0641\u0627\u06af\u0648\u0631\u0645\u062f\u06cc \u0627\u0648\u0644 \u0630\u0627\u062a\u0650 \u0627\u062f\u064a\u0628\n                   \u06af\u0646\u062c \u0627\u064a\u06a9\u0646 \u0627\u0648\u0644\u0645\u0634 \u0627\u064a\u062f\u06cc \u0627\u0648\u062c\u0650 \u06a9\u0645\u0627\u0644\u0647 \u0648\u0627\u0635\u0644\n                 \u0646\u0647 \u0627\u0648\u0644\u0648\u0631\u062f\u06cc \u064a\u0627\u0634\u0627\u0645\u0634 \u0627\u0648\u0644\u0633\u0647 \u0627\u064a\u062f\u06cc \u0645\u0633\u062a\u0631 \u06af\u064a\u0628\n\n\n\n\n                      \u201c_E. J. W. GIBB MEMORIAL._\u201d\n\n                          _ORIGINAL TRUSTEES._\n\n[_JANE GIBB, died November 26, 1904_],\n\n_E. G. BROWNE_,\n\n_G. LE STRANGE_,\n\n_H. F. AMEDROZ_,\n\n_A. G. ELLIS_,\n\n_R. A. NICHOLSON_,\n\n_E. DENISON ROSS_,\n\n     _AND_\n\n_IDA W. E. OGILVY GREGORY (formerly GIBB), appointed 1905._\n\n                         _CLERK OF THE TRUST._\n\n_JULIUS BERTRAM,\n         14 Suffolk Street, Pall Mall,\n                                LONDON, S.W._\n\n                     _PUBLISHERS FOR THE TRUSTEES._\n\n_E. J. BRILL, LEYDEN.\nLUZAC & CO., LONDON._\n\n\n\n\n                       CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS.\n\nPage 2, penult. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).\n\np. 3, line 14 and l. 30. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).\n\np. 4, l. 18. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).\n\np. 4, l. 26. _For_ just as the veil destroys revelation _(muk\u00e1shafat)\n    read_ just as veiling destroys the unveiled object (_muk\u00e1shaf_).\n\np. 6, l. 4 and l. 16. _For_ (p. 3) _read_ (p. 1).\n\np. 51, l. 6. _For_ Parg _read_ Burk _or_ Purg, and correct the note\n    accordingly. See Guy Le Strange, _The Lands of the Eastern\n    Caliphate_, p. 292.\n\np. 54, l. 28. _For_ the infectious cankers of the age _read_ the cankers\n    which infect age after age.\n\np. 85, l. 19. For (_s\u00e1\u1e25ib al-qul\u00fab_) read (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25i\u00b4l-qul\u00fab_). _\u1e62\u00e1\u1e25\u00ed_,\n    \u201csober,\u201d is the antithesis of _maghl\u00fab_, \u201cenraptured.\u201d\n\np. 127, l. 17. _For_ AL-IN\u1e6c\u00c1K\u00cd _read_ AL-AN\u1e6c\u00c1K\u00cd.\n\np. 130, l. 27. Although some writers give \u201cAbu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan\u201d as the _kunya_\n    of N\u00far\u00ed, the balance of authority is in favour of \u201cAbu \u00b4l-\u1e24usayn\u201d.\n\np. 131, n. 2. _Add_, See Goldziher in _ZDMG._, 61, 75 ff., and a passage\n    in Y\u00e1q\u00fat\u2019s _Irsh\u00e1d al-Ar\u00edb_, ed. by Margoliouth, vol. iii, pt. i,\n    153, 3 ff.; cited by Goldziher in _JRAS._ for 1910, p. 888.\n\np. 140, l. 19. _For_ AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD `ABDALL\u00c1H _read_ AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H.\n\np. 155, l. 26. _Omit_ B. _before_ DULAF.\n\np. 169, l. 1. _Omit_ B. _before_ `AL\u00cd.\n\np. 173, l. 11. _For_ P\u00e1dsh\u00e1h-i _read_ P\u00e1dish\u00e1h-i.\n\np. 182, l. 26. _Sh\u00e1hmurgh\u00ed_ is probably a mistake for _siy\u00e1h murgh\u00ed_, \u201ca\n    blackbird.\u201d Cf. my edition of the _Tadhkirat al-Awliy\u00e1_, ii, 259,\n    23.\n\np. 257, l. 1. For _t`a\u1e6d\u00edl_ read _ta`\u1e6d\u00edl_.\n\np. 323, l. 10. _For_ Mi\u1e63\u1e63\u00ed\u1e63\u00ed _read_ Ma\u1e63\u1e63\u00ed\u1e63\u00ed.\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n CHAPTER.                                                    PAGES.\n\n          Translator\u2019s Preface                               xvii-xxiv\n\n          Author\u2019s Introduction                              1-9\n\n I.       On the Affirmation of Knowledge                    11-18\n\n II.      On Poverty                                         19-29\n\n III.     On \u1e62\u00fafiism                                         30-44\n\n IV.      On the Wearing of Patched Frocks                   45-57\n\n V.       On the Different Opinions held concerning Poverty  58-61\n          and Purity\n\n VI.      On Blame (_Mal\u00e1mat_)                               62-9\n\n VII.     Concerning their Im\u00e1ms who belonged to the         70-4\n          Companions\n\n VIII.    Concerning their Im\u00e1ms who belonged to the House   75-80\n          of the Prophet\n\n IX.      Concerning the People of the Veranda (_Ahl-i       81-2\n          \u1e62uffa_)\n\n X.       Concerning their Im\u00e1ms who belonged to the         83-7\n          Followers (_al-T\u00e1bi`\u00fan_)\n\n XI.      Concerning their Im\u00e1ms who lived subsequently to   88-160\n          the Followers down to our day\n\n XII.     Concerning the principal \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds of recent times     161-71\n\n XIII.    A brief account of the modern \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in different   172-5\n          countries\n\n XIV.     Concerning the Doctrines held by the different     176-266\n          sects of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\n\n XV.      The Uncovering of the First Veil: Concerning the   267-77\n          Gnosis of God (_ma`rifat Allah_)\n\n XVI.     The Uncovering of the Second Veil: Concerning      278-85\n          Unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_)\n\n XVII.    The Uncovering of the Third Veil: Concerning Faith 286-90\n\n XVIII.   The Uncovering of the Fourth Veil: Concerning      291-9\n          Purification from Foulness\n\n XIX.     The Uncovering of the Fifth Veil: Concerning       300-13\n          Prayer (_al-\u1e63al\u00e1t_)\n\n XX.      The Uncovering of the Sixth Veil: Concerning Alms  314-19\n          (_al-zak\u00e1t_)\n\n XXI.     The Uncovering of the Seventh Veil: On Fasting     320-5\n          (_al-\u1e63awm_)\n\n XXII.    The Uncovering of the Eighth Veil: Concerning the  326-33\n          Pilgrimage\n\n XXIII.   The Uncovering of the Ninth Veil: Concerning       334-66\n          Companionship, together with its Rules and\n          Principles\n\n XXIV.    The Uncovering of the Tenth Veil: explaining their 367-92\n          phraseology and the definitions of their terms and\n          the verities of the ideas which are signified\n\n XXV.     The Uncovering of the Eleventh Veil: Concerning    393-420\n          Audition (_sam\u00e1`_)\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nThis translation of the most ancient and celebrated Persian treatise on\n\u1e62\u00fafiism will, I hope, be found useful not only by the small number of\nstudents familiar with the subject at first hand, but also by many\nreaders who, without being Orientalists themselves, are interested in\nthe general history of mysticism and may wish to compare or contrast the\ndiverse yet similar manifestations of the mystical spirit in\nChristianity, Buddhism, and Islam. The origin of \u1e62\u00fafiism and its\nrelation to these great religions cannot properly be considered here,\nand I dismiss such questions the more readily because I intend to deal\nwith them on another occasion. It is now my duty to give some account of\nthe author of the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_, and to indicate the character of\nhis work.\n\nAbu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n b. `Al\u00ed al-Ghaznaw\u00ed al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed\nal-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed[1] was a native of Ghazna in Afghanistan.[2] Of his life very\nlittle is known beyond what he relates incidentally in the _Kashf\nal-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_. He studied \u1e62\u00fafiism under Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan\nal-Khuttal\u00ed[3] (p. 166), who was a pupil of Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan al-\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed (ob.\n371 A.H.), and under Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Ashq\u00e1n\u00ed or\nal-Shaq\u00e1n\u00ed[4] (p. 168). He also received instruction from Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim\nGurg\u00e1n\u00ed[5] (p. 169) and Khw\u00e1ja Mu\u1e95affar[6] (p. 170), and he mentions a\ngreat number of Shaykhs whom he had met and conversed with in the course\nof his wanderings. He travelled far and wide through the Mu\u1e25ammadan\nempire from Syria to Turkist\u00e1n and from the Indus to the Caspian Sea.\nAmong the countries and places which he visited were \u00c1dharb\u00e1yaj\u00e1n (pp.\n57 and 410), the tomb of B\u00e1yaz\u00edd at Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m (p. 68), Damascus, Ramla, and\nBayt al-Jinn in Syria (pp. 94, 167, 343), \u1e6c\u00fas and Uzkand (p. 234), the\ntomb of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd b. Abi \u00b4l-Khayr at Mihna (p. 235), Merv (p. 401), and\nthe Jabal al-Buttam to the east of Samarcand (p. 407). He seems to have\nsettled for a time in `Ir\u00e1q, where he ran deeply into debt (p. 345). It\nmay be inferred from a passage on p. 364 that he had a short and\nunpleasant experience of married life. Finally, according to the _Riy\u00e1\u1e0d\nal-Awliy\u00e1_, he went to reside at Lahore and ended his days in that city.\nHis own statement, however, shows that he was taken there as a prisoner\nagainst his will (p. 91), and that in composing the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ he\nwas inconvenienced by the loss of the books which he had left at Ghazna.\nThe date of his death is given as 456 A.H. (1063-4 A.D.) or 464 A.H.\n(1071-2 A.D.), but it is likely that he survived Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim\nal-Qushayr\u00ed, who died in 465 A.H. (1072 A.D.). Rieu\u2019s observation (_Cat.\nof the Persian MSS. in the British Museum_, i, 343) that the author\nclasses Qushayr\u00ed with the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds who had passed away before the time at\nwhich he was writing, is not quite accurate. The author says (p. 161):\n\u201cSome of those whom I shall mention in this chapter are already\ndeceased, and some are still living.\u201d But of the ten \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in question\nonly one, namely, Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed, is referred to in terms which\nleave no doubt that he was alive when the author wrote. In the _Saf\u00ednat\nal-Awliy\u00e1_, No. 71, it is stated that Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed died in 450\nA.H. If this date were correct, the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ must have been\nwritten at least fifteen years before Qushayr\u00ed\u2019s death. On the other\nhand, my MS. of the _Shadhar\u00e1t al-Dhahab_ records the death of Abu\n\u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed under the year 469 A.H., a date which appears to me\nmore probable, and in that case the statement that the author survived\nQushayr\u00ed may be accepted, although the evidence on which it rests is\nmainly negative, for we cannot lay much stress on the fact that\nQushayr\u00ed\u2019s name is sometimes followed by the Moslem equivalent for \u201cof\nblessed memory\u201d. I conjecture, then, that the author died between 465\nand 469 A.H.[7] His birth may be placed in the last decade of the tenth\nor the first decade of the eleventh century of our era, and he must have\nbeen in the prime of youth when Sultan Ma\u1e25m\u00fad died in 421 A.H. (1030\nA.D.). The _Ris\u00e1la-i Abd\u00e1liyya_,[8] a fifteenth century treatise on the\nMu\u1e25ammadan saints by Ya`q\u00fab b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Ghaznaw\u00ed, contains an\nanecdote, for which it would be hazardous to claim any historical value,\nto the effect that al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed once argued in Ma\u1e25m\u00fad\u2019s presence with an\nIndian philosopher and utterly discomfited him by an exhibition of\nmiraculous powers. Be that as it may, he was venerated as a saint long\nafter his death, and his tomb at Lahore was being visited by pilgrims\nwhen Bakht\u00e1war Kh\u00e1n wrote the _Riy\u00e1\u1e0d al-Awliy\u00e1_ in the latter half of\nthe seventeenth century.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Jull\u00e1b and Hujw\u00edr were two suburbs of Ghazna. Evidently he resided for\n  some time in each of them.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Notices occur in the _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t al-Uns_, No. 377; the _Saf\u00ednat\n  al-Awliy\u00e1_, No. 298 (Eth\u00e9\u2019s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the Library\n  of the India Office_, i, col. 304); the _Riy\u00e1\u1e0d al-Awliy\u00e1_, Or. 1745,\n  f. 140_a_ (Rieu\u2019s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the British Museum_,\n  iii, 975). In the _kh\u00e1timat al-\u1e6dab`_ on the last page of the Lahore\n  edition of the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ he is called \u1e24a\u1e0drat-i D\u00e1t\u00e1\n  Ganj-bakhsh `Al\u00ed al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 376. Through al-Khuttal\u00ed, al-\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed, and Ab\u00fa Bakr\n  al-Shibl\u00ed the author of the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ is spiritually connected\n  with Junayd of Baghd\u00e1d (ob. 297 A.H.).\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Ibid., No. 375. The _nisba_ Shaqq\u00e1n\u00ed or Shaq\u00e1n\u00ed is derived from\n  Shaqq\u00e1n, a village near N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 367.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Ibid., No. 368.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  The date 465 A.H. is given by \u00c1z\u00e1d in his biographical work on the\n  famous men of Balgr\u00e1m, entitled _Ma\u00b4\u00e1thir al-Kir\u00e1m_.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  See Eth\u00e9\u2019s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the India Office Library_, No.\n  1774 (2). The author of this treatise does not call al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed the\n  _brother_ of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd b. Abi \u00b4l-Khayr, as Eth\u00e9 says, but his\n  _spiritual_ brother (_bir\u00e1dar-i \u1e25aq\u00edqat_).\n\nIn the introduction to the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed complains that\ntwo of his former works had been given to the public by persons who\nerased his name from the title-page, and pretended that they themselves\nwere the authors. In order to guard against the repetition of this\nfraud, he has inserted his own name in many passages of the present\nwork. His writings, to which he has occasion to refer in the _Kashf\nal-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_, are\u2014\n\n1. A _d\u00edw\u00e1n_ (p. 2).\n\n2. _Minh\u00e1j al-d\u00edn_, on the method of \u1e62\u00fafiism (p. 2). It comprised a\ndetailed account of the Ahl-i \u1e62uffa (p. 80) and a full biography of\n\u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far al-\u1e24all\u00e1j (p. 153).\n\n3. _Asr\u00e1r al-khiraq wa \u00b4l-ma\u00b4\u00fan\u00e1t_, on the patched frocks of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\n(p. 56).\n\n4. _Kit\u00e1b-i fan\u00e1 \u00fa baq\u00e1_, composed \u201cin the vanity and rashness of youth\u201d\n(p. 60).\n\n5. A work, of which the title is not mentioned, in explanation of the\nsayings of \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far al-\u1e24all\u00e1j (p. 153).\n\n6. _Kit\u00e1b al-bay\u00e1n li-ahl al-`iy\u00e1n_, on union with God (p. 259).\n\n7. _Ba\u1e25r al-qul\u00fab_ (p. 259).\n\n8. _Al-Ri`\u00e1yat li-\u1e25uq\u00faq Allah_, on the Divine unity (p. 280).\n\n9. A work, of which the title is not mentioned, on faith (p. 286).\n\nNone of these books has been preserved.\n\nThe _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_,[9] which belongs to the later years of the\nauthor\u2019s life, and, partly at any rate, to the period of his residence\nin Lahore, was written in reply to certain questions addressed to him by\na fellow-townsman, Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed. Its object is to set forth a\ncomplete system of \u1e62\u00fafiism, not to put together a great number of\nsayings by different Shaykhs, but to discuss and expound the doctrines\nand practices of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. The author\u2019s attitude throughout is that of\na teacher instructing a pupil. Even the biographical section of the work\n(pp. 70-175) is largely expository. Before stating his own view the\nauthor generally examines the current opinions on the same topic and\nrefutes them if necessary. The discussion of mystical problems and\ncontroversies is enlivened by many illustrations drawn from his personal\nexperience. In this respect the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ is more interesting\nthan the _Ris\u00e1la_ of Qushayr\u00ed, which is so valuable as a collection of\nsayings, anecdotes, and definitions, but which follows a somewhat formal\nand academic method on the orthodox lines. No one can read the present\nwork without detecting, behind the scholastic terminology, a truly\nPersian flavour of philosophical speculation.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  Its full title is _Kashf al-ma\u1e25j\u00fab li-arb\u00e1b al-qul\u00fab_ (\u1e24\u00e1jj\u00ed Khal\u00edfa,\n  v, 215).\n\nAlthough he was a Sunn\u00ed and a \u1e24anafite, al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, like many \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\nbefore and after him, managed to reconcile his theology with an advanced\ntype of mysticism, in which the theory of \u201cannihilation\u201d (_fan\u00e1_) holds\na dominant place, but he scarcely goes to such extreme lengths as would\njustify us in calling him a pantheist. He strenuously resists and\npronounces heretical the doctrine that human personality can be merged\nand extinguished in the being of God. He compares annihilation to\nburning by fire, which transmutes the quality of all things to its own\nquality, but leaves their essence unchanged. He agrees with his\nspiritual director, al-Khuttal\u00ed, in adopting the theory of Junayd that\n\u201csobriety\u201d in the mystical acceptation of the term is preferable to\n\u201cintoxication\u201d. He warns his readers often and emphatically that no\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, not even those who have attained the highest degree of holiness,\nare exempt from the obligation of obeying the religious law. In other\npoints, such as the excitation of ecstasy by music and singing, and the\nuse of erotic symbolism in poetry, his judgment is more or less\ncautious. He defends al-\u1e24all\u00e1j from the charge of being a magician, and\nasserts that his sayings are pantheistic only in appearance, but\ncondemns his doctrines as unsound. It is clear that he is anxious to\nrepresent \u1e62\u00fafiism as the true interpretation of Islam, and it is equally\ncertain that the interpretation is incompatible with the text.[10]\nNotwithstanding the homage which he pays to the Prophet we cannot\nseparate al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, as regards the essential principles of his\nteaching, from his older and younger contemporaries, Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd b. Abi\n\u00b4l-Khayr and `Abdall\u00e1h An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed.[11] These three mystics developed the\ndistinctively Persian theosophy which is revealed in full-blown\nsplendour by Far\u00edd al-d\u00edn `A\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1r and Jal\u00e1l al-d\u00edn R\u00fam\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  The author\u2019s view as to the worthlessness of outward forms of religion\n  is expressed with striking boldness in his chapter on the Pilgrimage\n  (pp. 326-9).\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Many passages from the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ are quoted, word for word, in\n  J\u00e1m\u00ed\u2019s _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t al-Uns_, which is a modernized and enlarged recension\n  of `Abdall\u00e1h An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed\u2019s _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-\u1e62\u00fafiyya_.\n\nThe most remarkable chapter in the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ is the fourteenth,\n\u201cConcerning the Doctrines held by the different sects of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds,\u201d in\nwhich the author enumerates twelve mystical schools and explains the\nspecial doctrine of each.[12] So far as I know, he is the first writer\nto do this. Only one of the schools mentioned by him, namely, that of\nthe Mal\u00e1mat\u00eds, seems to be noticed in earlier books on \u1e62\u00fafiism; such\nbrief references to the other schools as occur in later books, for\nexample in the _Tadhkirat al-Awliy\u00e1_, are probably made on his\nauthority. The question may be asked, \u201cDid these schools really exist,\nor were they invented by al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed in his desire to systematize the\ntheory of \u1e62\u00fafiism?\u201d I see no adequate ground at present for the latter\nhypothesis, which involves the assumption that al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed made precise\nstatements that he must have known to be false. It is very likely,\nhowever, that in his account of the special doctrines which he\nattributes to the founder of each school he has often expressed his own\nviews upon the subject at issue and has confused them with the original\ndoctrine. The existence of these schools and doctrines, though lacking\nfurther corroboration,[13] does not seem to me incredible; on the\ncontrary, it accords with what happened in the case of the Mu`tazilites\nand other Mu\u1e25ammadan schismatics. Certain doctrines were produced and\nelaborated by well-known Shaykhs, who published them in the form of\ntracts or were content to lecture on them until, by a familiar process,\nthe new doctrine became the pre-eminent feature of a particular school.\nOther schools might then accept or reject it. In some instances sharp\ncontroversy arose, and the novel teaching gained so little approval that\nit was confined to the school of its author or was embraced only by a\nsmall minority of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed brotherhood. More frequently it would, in the\ncourse of time, be drawn into the common stock and reduced to its proper\nlevel. Dr. Goldziher has observed that \u1e62\u00fafiism cannot be regarded as a\nregularly organized sect within Islam, and that its dogmas cannot be\ncompiled into a regular system.[14] That is perfectly true, but after\nallowing for all divergences there remains a fairly definite body of\ndoctrine which is held in common by \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds of many different shades and\nis the result of gradual agglomeration from many different minds.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  A summary of these doctrines will be found in the abstract of a paper\n  on \u201cThe Oldest Persian Manual of \u1e62\u00fafiism\u201d which I read at Oxford in\n  1908 (_Trans. of the Third International Congress for the History of\n  Religions_, i, 293-7).\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Some of al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed\u2019s twelve sects reappear at a later epoch as orders\n  of dervishes, but the pedigree of those orders which trace their\n  descent from ancient \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds is usually fictitious.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  _JRAS._, 1904, p. 130.\n\nIt is probable that oral tradition was the main source from which\nal-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed derived the materials for his work. Of extant treatises on\n\u1e62\u00fafiism he mentions by name only the _Kit\u00e1b al-Luma`_ by Ab\u00fa Na\u1e63r\nal-Sarr\u00e1j, who died in 377 or 378 A.H. This book is written in Arabic\nand is the oldest specimen of its class. Through the kindness of Mr. A.\nG. Ellis, who has recently acquired the sole copy that is at present\nknown to Orientalists, I have been able to verify the reading of a\npassage quoted by al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed (p. 341), and to assure myself that he was\nwell acquainted with his predecessor\u2019s work. The arrangement of the\n_Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ is partially based on that of the _Kit\u00e1b al-Luma`_,\nthe two books resemble each other in their general plan, and some\ndetails of the former are evidently borrowed from the latter. Al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed\nrefers in his notice of Ma`r\u00faf al-Karkh\u00ed (p. 114) to the biographies of\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds compiled by Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed and Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim\nal-Qushayr\u00ed. Although he does not give the titles, he is presumably\nreferring to Sulam\u00ed\u2019s _\u1e6dabaq\u00e1t Al-\u1e63\u00fafiyya_ and Qushayr\u00ed\u2019s _Ris\u00e1la_.[15]\nThe _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ contains a Persian rendering of some passages in\nthe _Ris\u00e1la_ of Qushayr\u00ed, with whom al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed seems to have been\npersonally acquainted. A citation from `Abdall\u00e1h An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed occurs on p. 26.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  Cf., however, p. 114, note.\n\nManuscripts of the _Kashf al-Ma\u1e25j\u00fab_ are preserved in several European\nlibraries.[16] It has been lithographed at Lahore, and Professor\nSchukovski of St. Petersburg is now, as I understand, engaged in\npreparing a critical text. The Lahore edition is inaccurate, especially\nin the spelling of names, but most of its mistakes are easy to emend,\nand the text agrees closely with two MSS. in the Library of the India\nOffice (Nos. 1773 and 1774 in Eth\u00e9\u2019s _Catalogue_), with which I have\ncompared it. I have also consulted a good MS. in the British Museum\n(Rieu\u2019s _Catalogue_, i, 342). The following abbreviations are used: L.\nto denote the Lahore edition, =I.= to denote the India Office MS. 1773\n(early seventeenth century), =J.= to denote the India Office MS. 1774\n(late seventeenth century), and =B.= to denote the British Museum MS.\nOr. 219 (early seventeenth century). In my translation I have, of\ncourse, corrected the Lahore text where necessary. While the doubtful\npassages are few in number, there are, I confess, many places in which a\nconsiderable effort is required in order to grasp the author\u2019s meaning\nand follow his argument. The logic of a Persian \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed must sometimes\nappear to European readers curiously illogical. Other obstacles might\nhave been removed by means of annotation, but this expedient, if adopted\nconsistently, would have swollen the volume to a formidable size.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  See Eth\u00e9\u2019s _Cat. of the Persian MSS. in the India Office Library_, i,\n  col. 970, where other MSS. are mentioned, and Blochet, _Cat. des\n  manuscrits persans de la Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale_, i, 261 (No. 401).\n\nThe English version is nearly complete, and nothing of importance has\nbeen omitted, though I have not hesitated to abridge when opportunity\noffered. Arabists will remark an occasional discrepancy between the\nArabic sayings printed in italics and the translations accompanying\nthem: this is due to my having translated, not the original Arabic, but\nthe Persian paraphrase given by al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed.\n\n                                               REYNOLD A. NICHOLSON.\n\n\n\n\n                            KASHF AL-MA\u1e24J\u00daB.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MERCIFUL, THE COMPASSIONATE.\n\n_O Lord, bestow on us mercy from Thyself and provide for us a right\n    course of action!_\n\n_Praise be to God, who hath revealed the secrets of His kingdom to His\n    Saints, and hath disclosed the mysteries of His power to His\n    intimates, and hath shed the blood of Lovers with the sword of His\n    glory, and hath let the hearts of Gnostics taste the joy of His\n    communion! He it is that bringeth dead hearts to life by the\n    radiance of the perception of His eternity and His majesty, and\n    reanimates them with the comforting spirit of knowledge by divulging\n    His Names._\n\n_And peace be upon His Apostle, Mu\u1e25ammad, and his family and his\n    companions and his wives!_\n\n`Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n b. `Al\u00ed al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed al-Ghaznaw\u00ed al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed (may God be\nwell pleased with him!) says as follows:\u2014\n\n  I have asked God\u2019s blessing, and have cleared my heart of motives\n  related to self, and have set to work in accordance with your\n  invitation\u2014may God make you happy!\u2014and have firmly resolved to fulfil\n  all your wishes by means of this book. I have entitled it \u201cThe\n  Revelation of The Mystery\u201d. Knowing what you desire, I have arranged\n  the book in divisions suitable to your purpose. Now I pray God to aid\n  and prosper me in its completion, and I divest myself of my own\n  strength and ability in word and deed. It is God that gives success.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nTwo considerations have impelled me to put my name at the beginning of\nthe book: one particular, the other general.[17] As regards the latter,\nwhen persons ignorant of this science see a new book, in which the\nauthor\u2019s name is not set down in several places, they attribute his work\nto themselves, and thus the author\u2019s aim is defeated, since books are\ncompiled, composed, and written only to the end that the author\u2019s name\nmay be kept alive and that readers and students may pronounce a blessing\non him. This misfortune has already befallen me twice. A certain\nindividual borrowed my poetical works, of which there was no other copy,\nand retained the manuscript in his possession, and circulated it, and\nstruck out my name which stood at its head, and caused all my labour to\nbe lost. May God forgive him! I also composed another book, entitled\n\u201cThe Highway of Religion\u201d (_Minh\u00e1j al-D\u00edn_), on the method of\n\u1e62\u00fafiism\u2014may God make it flourish! A shallow pretender, whose words carry\nno weight, erased my name from the title page and gave out to the public\nthat he was the author, notwithstanding that connoisseurs laughed at his\nassertion. God, however, brought home to him the unblessedness of this\nact and erased _his_ name from the register of those who seek to enter\nthe Divine portal.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  The author\u2019s meaning appears to be that one consideration has a\n  special reference to connoisseurs and competent persons, while the\n  other has a general reference to the public at large.\n\nAs regards the particular consideration, when people see a book, and\nknow that its author is skilled in the branch of science of which it\ntreats, and is thoroughly versed therein, they judge its merits more\nfairly and apply themselves more seriously to read and remember it, so\nthat both author and reader are better satisfied. The truth is best\nknown to God.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nIn using the words \u201cI have asked God\u2019s blessing\u201d (p. 3), I wished to\nobserve the respect due to God, who said to His Apostle: \u201c_When you read\nthe Koran, take refuge with God from the stoned Devil_\u201d (Kor. xvi, 100).\n\u201cTo ask blessing\u201d means \u201cto commit all one\u2019s affairs to God and to be\nsaved from the various sorts of contamination\u201d. The Prophet used to\nteach his followers to ask a blessing (_istikh\u00e1rat_) just as he taught\nthem the Koran. When a man recognizes that his welfare does not depend\non his own effort and foresight, but that every good and evil that\nhappens to him is decreed by God, who knows best what is salutary for\nhim, he cannot do otherwise than surrender himself to Destiny and\nimplore God to deliver him from the wickedness of his own soul.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nAs to the words \u201cI have cleared my heart of all motives related to self\u201d\n(p. 3), no blessing arises from anything in which selfish interest has a\npart. If the selfish man succeeds in his purpose, it brings him to\nperdition, for \u201cthe accomplishment of a selfish purpose is the key of\nHell\u201d; and if he fails, he will nevertheless have removed from his heart\nthe means of gaining salvation, for \u201cresistance to selfish promptings is\nthe key of Paradise\u201d, as God hath said: \u201c_Whoso refrains his soul from\nlust, verily Paradise shall be his abode_\u201d (Kor. lxxix, 40-1). People\nact from selfish motives when they desire aught except to please God and\nto escape from Divine punishment. In fine, the follies of the soul have\nno limit and its man\u0153uvres are hidden from sight. If God will, a\nchapter on this subject will be found at its proper place in the present\nbook.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nNow as to the words \u201cI have set to work in accordance with your\ninvitation, and have firmly resolved to fulfil all your wishes by means\nof this book\u201d (p. 3), since you thought me worthy of being asked to\nwrite this book for your instruction, it was incumbent on me to comply\nwith your request. Accordingly it behoved me to make an unconditional\nresolution that I would carry out my undertaking completely. When anyone\nbegins an enterprise with the intention of finishing it, he may be\nexcused if imperfections appear in his work; and for this reason the\nProphet said: \u201cThe believer\u2019s intention is better than his performance.\u201d\nGreat is the power of intention, through which a man advances from one\ncategory to another without any external change. For example, if anyone\nendures hunger for a while without having intended to fast, he gets no\nrecompense (_thaw\u00e1b_) for it in the next world; but if he forms in his\nheart the intention of fasting, he becomes one of the favourites of God\n(_muqarrab\u00e1n_). Again, a traveller who stays for a time in a city does\nnot become a resident until he has formed the intention to reside there.\nA good intention, therefore, is preliminary to the due performance of\nevery act.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nWhen I said that I had called this book \u201cThe Revelation of the Mystery\u201d\n(p. 3), my object was that the title of the book should proclaim its\ncontents to persons of insight. You must know that all mankind are\nveiled from the subtlety of spiritual truth except God\u2019s saints and His\nchosen friends; and inasmuch as this book is an elucidation of the Way\nof Truth, and an explanation of mystical sayings, and an uplifting of\nthe veil of mortality, no other title is appropriate to it. Essentially,\nunveiling (_kashf_) is destruction of the veiled object, just as the\nveil destroys revelation (_muk\u00e1shafat_), and just as, for instance, one\nwho is near cannot bear to be far, and one who is far cannot bear to be\nnear; or as an animal which is generated from vinegar dies when it falls\ninto any other substance, while those animals which are generated from\nother substances perish if they are put in vinegar. The spiritual path\nis hard to travel except for those who were created for that purpose.\nThe Prophet said: \u201cEveryone finds easy that for which he was created.\u201d\nThere are two veils: one is the \u201cveil of covering\u201d (_\u1e25ij\u00e1b-i rayn\u00ed_),\nwhich can never be removed, and the other is the \u201cveil of clouding\u201d\n(_\u1e25ij\u00e1b-i ghayn\u00ed_), which is quickly removed. The explanation is as\nfollows: one man is veiled from the Truth by his essence (_dh\u00e1t_), so\nthat in his view truth and falsehood are the same. Another man is veiled\nfrom the Truth by his attributes (_\u1e63ifat_), so that his nature and heart\ncontinually seek the Truth and flee from falsehood. Therefore the veil\nof essence, which is that of \u201ccovering\u201d (_rayn\u00ed_), is never removed.\n_Rayn_ is synonymous with _khatin_ (sealing) and _\u1e6dab`_ (imprinting).\nThus God hath said: \u201c_By no means: but their deeds have spread a\ncovering_ (r\u00e1na) _over their hearts_\u201d (Kor. lxxxiii, 14); then He made\nthe sense of this manifest and said: \u201c_Verily it is all one to the\nunbelievers whether thou warnest them or no; they will not believe_\u201d\n(Kor. ii, 5); then he explained the cause thereof, saying: \u201c_God hath\nsealed up their hearts_\u201d (Kor. ii, 6). But the veil of attributes, which\nis that of \u201cclouding\u201d (_ghayn\u00ed_), may be removed at times, for essence\ndoes not admit of alteration, but the alteration of attributes is\npossible. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have given many subtle hints on the subject\nof _rayn_ and _ghayn_. Junayd said: _Al-rayn min jumlat al-wa\u1e6dan\u00e1t wa\n\u00b4l-ghayn min jumlat al-kha\u1e6dar\u00e1t_, \u201c_Rayn_ belongs to the class of\nabiding things and _ghayn_ to the class of transient things.\u201d _Wa\u1e6dan_ is\npermanent and _kha\u1e6dar_ is adventitious. For example, it is impossible to\nmake a mirror out of a stone, though many polishers assemble to try\ntheir skill on it, but a rusty mirror can be made bright by polishing;\ndarkness is innate in the stone, and brightness is innate in the mirror;\nsince the essence is permanent, the temporary attribute does not endure.\n\nAccordingly, I have composed this book for polishers of hearts which are\ninfected by the veil of \u201cclouding\u201d but in which the substance of the\nlight of the Truth is existent, in order that the veil may be lifted\nfrom them by the blessing of reading it, and that they may find their\nway to spiritual reality. Those whose being is compounded of denial of\nthe truth and perpetration of falsehood will never find their way\nthither, and this book will be of no use to them.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nNow with reference to my words \u201cknowing what you desire, I have arranged\nthe book in divisions suitable to your purpose\u201d (p. 3), a questioner\ncannot be satisfied until he makes his want known to the person whom he\ninterrogates. A question presupposes a difficulty, and a difficulty is\ninsoluble until its nature is ascertained. Furthermore, to answer a\nquestion in general terms is only possible when he who asks it has full\nknowledge of its various departments and corollaries, but with a\nbeginner one needs to go into detail, and offer diverse explanations and\ndefinitions; and in this case especially, seeing that you\u2014God grant you\nhappiness!\u2014desired me to answer your questions in detail and write a\nbook on the matter.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nI said, \u201cI pray God to aid and prosper me\u201d (p. 3), because God alone can\nhelp a man to do good deeds. When God assists anyone to perform acts\ndeserving recompense, this is truly \u201csuccess given by God\u201d (_tawf\u00edq_).\nThe Koran and the Sunna attest the genuineness of _tawf\u00edq_, and the\nwhole Moslem community are unanimous therein, except some Mu`tazilites\nand Qadarites, who assert that the expression _tawf\u00edq_ is void of\nmeaning. Certain \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have said, _Al-tawf\u00edq huwa \u00b4l-qudrat `ala\n\u00b4l-\u1e6d\u00e1`at `inda \u00b4l-isti`m\u00e1l_, \u201cWhen a man is obedient to God he receives\nfrom God increased strength.\u201d In short, all human action and inaction is\nthe act and creation of God: therefore the strength whereby a man\nrenders obedience to God is called _tawf\u00edq_. The discussion of this\ntopic, however, would be out of place here. Please God, I will now\nreturn to the task which you have proposed, but before entering on it I\nwill set down your question in its exact form.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThe questioner, Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, said: \u201cExplain to me the true\nmeaning of the Path of \u1e62\u00fafiism and the nature of the \u2018stations\u2019\n(_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and explain their doctrines and sayings, and\nmake clear to me their mystical allegories, and the nature of Divine\nLove and how it is manifested in human hearts, and why the intellect is\nunable to reach the essence thereof, and why the soul recoils from the\nreality thereof, and why the spirit is lulled in the purity thereof; and\nexplain the practical aspects of \u1e62\u00fafiism which are connected with these\ntheories.\u201d\n\n\n                                ANSWER.\n\nThe person questioned, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed\u2014may God\nhave mercy on him!\u2014says:\u2014\n\nKnow that in this our time the science of \u1e62\u00fafiism is obsolete,\nespecially in this country. The whole people is occupied with following\nits lusts and has turned its back on the path of quietism (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_),\nwhile the _`ulam\u00e1_ and those who pretend to learning have formed a\nconception of \u1e62\u00fafiism which is quite contrary to its fundamental\nprinciples.\n\nHigh and low alike are content with empty professions: blind conformity\nhas taken the place of spiritual enthusiasm. The vulgar say, \u201cWe know\nGod,\u201d and the elect, satisfied if they feel in their hearts a longing\nfor the next world, say, \u201cThis desire is vision and ardent love.\u201d\nEveryone makes pretensions, none attains to reality. The disciples,\nneglecting their ascetic practices, indulge in idle thoughts, which they\ncall \u201ccontemplation\u201d.\n\nI myself (the author proceeds) have already written several books on\n\u1e62\u00fafiism, but all to no purpose. Some false pretenders picked out\npassages here and there in order to deceive the public, while they\nerased and destroyed the rest; others did not mutilate the books, but\nleft them unread; others read them, but did not comprehend their\nmeaning, so they copied the text and committed it to memory and said:\n\u201cWe can discourse on mystical science.\u201d Nowadays true spiritualism is as\nrare as the Philosopher\u2019s Stone (_kibr\u00edt-i a\u1e25mar_); for it is natural to\nseek the medicine that fits the disease, and nobody wants to mix pearls\nand coral with common remedies like _shal\u00edth\u00e1_[18] and _daw\u00e1\nal-misk_.[19] In time past the works of eminent _\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds_, falling into\nthe hands of those who could not appreciate them, have been used to make\nlining for caps or binding for the poems of Ab\u00fa Nuw\u00e1s and the\npleasantries of J\u00e1\u1e25i\u1e95. The royal falcon is sure to get its wings clipped\nwhen it perches on the wall of an old woman\u2019s cottage. Our\ncontemporaries give the name of \u201claw\u201d to their lusts, pride and ambition\nthey call \u201chonour and learning\u201d, hypocrisy towards men \u201cfear of God\u201d,\nconcealment of anger \u201cclemency\u201d, disputation \u201cdiscussion\u201d, wrangling and\nfoolishness \u201cdignity\u201d, insincerity \u201crenunciation\u201d, cupidity \u201cdevotion to\nGod\u201d, their own senseless fancies \u201cdivine knowledge\u201d, the motions of the\nheart and affections of the animal soul \u201cdivine love\u201d, heresy \u201cpoverty\u201d,\nscepticism \u201cpurity\u201d, disbelief in positive religion (_zandaqa_)\n\u201cself-annihilation\u201d, neglect of the Law of the Prophet \u201cthe mystic\nPath\u201d, evil communication with time-servers \u201cexercise of piety\u201d. As Ab\u00fa\nBakr al-W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed said: \u201cWe are afflicted with a time in which there are\nneither the religious duties of Islam nor the morals of Paganism nor the\nvirtues of Chivalry\u201d (_a\u1e25l\u00e1m-i dhawi \u00b4l-\u1e43uruwwa_). And Mutanabb\u00ed says to\nthe same effect:\u2014[20]\n\n \u201c_God curse this world! What a vile place for any camel-rider to alight\n    in!\n For here the man of lofty spirit is always tormented._\u201d\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  An electuary used as a remedy for paralysis of the tongue or mouth.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  See Dozy, _Suppl\u00e9ment_, under _daw\u00e1_.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Mutanabb\u00ed, ed. by Dieterici, p. 662, l. 4 from foot.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nKnow that I have found this universe an abode of Divine mysteries, which\nare deposited in created things. Substances accidents, elements, bodies,\nforms, and properties\u2014all these are veils of Divine mysteries. From the\nstandpoint of Unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_) it is polytheism to assert that any\nsuch veils exist, but in this world everything is veiled, by its being,\nfrom Unification, and the spirit is held captive by admixture and\nassociation with phenomenal being. Hence the intellect can hardly\ncomprehend those Divine mysteries, and the spirit can but dimly perceive\nthe marvels of nearness to God. Man, enamoured of his gross environment,\nremains sunk in ignorance and apathy, making no attempt to cast off the\nveil that has fallen upon him. Blind to the beauty of Oneness, he turns\naway from God to seek the vanities of this world and allows his\nappetites to domineer over his reason, notwithstanding that the animal\nsoul, which the Koran (xii, 53) describes as \u201ccommanding to evil\u201d\n(_amm\u00e1rat^{un} bi \u00b4l-s\u00fa\u00b4_), is the greatest of all veils between God and\nMan.\n\nNow I will begin and explain to you, fully and lucidly, what you wish to\nknow concerning the \u201cstations\u201d and the \u201cveils\u201d, and I will interpret the\nexpressions of the technicologists (_ahl-i \u1e63an\u00e1\u00b4i`_), and add thereto\nsome sayings of the Shaykhs and anecdotes about them, in order that your\nobject may be accomplished and that any learned doctors of law or others\nwho look into this work may recognize that the Path of \u1e62\u00fafiism has a\nfirm root and a fruitful branch, since all the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have been\npossessed of knowledge and have encouraged their disciples to acquire\nknowledge and to persevere in doing so. They have never been addicted to\nfrivolity and levity. Many of them have composed treatises on the method\nof \u1e62\u00fafiism which clearly prove that their minds were filled with divine\nthoughts.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n                    ON THE AFFIRMATION OF KNOWLEDGE.\n\n\nGod hath said, describing the savants (_`ulam\u00e1_): \u201c_Of those who serve\nGod only the savants fear Him_\u201d (Kor. xxxv, 25). The Prophet said: \u201cTo\nseek knowledge is obligatory on every Moslem man and woman;\u201d and he said\nalso: \u201cSeek knowledge even in China.\u201d Knowledge is immense and life is\nshort: therefore it is not obligatory to learn all the sciences, such as\nAstronomy and Medicine, and Arithmetic, etc., but only so much of each\nas bears upon the religious law: enough astronomy to know the times (of\nprayer) in the night, enough medicine to abstain from what is injurious,\nenough arithmetic to understand the division of inheritances and to\ncalculate the duration of the _`idda_,[21] etc. Knowledge is obligatory\nonly in so far as is requisite for acting rightly. God condemns those\nwho learn useless knowledge (Kor. ii, 96), and the Prophet said: \u201cI take\nrefuge with Thee from knowledge that profiteth naught.\u201d Much may be done\nby means of a little knowledge, and knowledge should not be separated\nfrom action. The Prophet said: \u201cThe devotee without divinity is like a\ndonkey turning a mill,\u201d because the donkey goes round and round over its\nown tracks and never makes any advance.\n\nSome regard knowledge as superior to action, while others put action\nfirst, but both parties are wrong. Unless action is combined with\nknowledge, it is not deserving of recompense. Prayer, for instance, is\nnot really prayer, unless performed with knowledge of the principles of\npurification and those which concern the _qibla_,[22] and with knowledge\nof the nature of intention. Similarly, knowledge without action is not\nknowledge. Learning and committing to memory are acts for which a man is\nrewarded in the next world; if he gained knowledge without action and\nacquisition on his part, he would get no reward. Hence two classes of\nmen fall into error: firstly, those who claim knowledge for the sake of\npublic reputation but are unable to practise it, and in reality have not\nattained it; and secondly, those who pretend that practice suffices and\nthat knowledge is unnecessary. It is told of Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham that he\nsaw a stone on which was written, \u201cTurn me over and read!\u201d He obeyed,\nand found this inscription: \u201cThou dost not practise what thou knowest;\nwhy, then, dost thou seek what thou knowest not?\u201d \u00c1nas b. M\u00e1lik says:\n\u201cThe wise aspire to know, the foolish to relate.\u201d He who uses his\nknowledge as a means of winning power and honour and wealth is no\nsavant. The highest pinnacle of knowledge is expressed in the fact that\nwithout it none can know God.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  The period within which a woman, who has been divorced or whose\n  husband has died, may not marry again.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  The point to which a Moslem turns his face when worshipping, viz. the\n  Ka`ba.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nKnowledge is of two kinds: Divine and Human. The latter is worthless in\ncomparison with the former, because God\u2019s knowledge is an attribute of\nHimself, subsisting in Him, whose attributes are infinite; whereas our\nknowledge is an attribute of ourselves, subsisting in us, whose\nattributes are finite. Knowledge has been defined as \u201ccomprehension and\ninvestigation of the object known\u201d, but the best definition of it is\nthis: \u201cA quality whereby the ignorant are made wise.\u201d God\u2019s knowledge is\nthat by which He knows all things existent and non-existent: He does not\nshare it with Man: it is not capable of division nor separable from\nHimself. The proof of it lies in the disposition of His actions\n(_tart\u00edb-i fi`lash_), since action demands knowledge in the agent as an\nindispensable condition. The Divine knowledge penetrates what is hidden\nand comprehends what is manifest. It behoves the seeker to Contemplate\nGod in every act, knowing that God sees him and all that he does.\n\n_Story._ They relate that a leading man in Ba\u1e63ra went to his garden. By\nchance his eye fell upon the beautiful wife of his gardener. He sent the\nfellow away on some business and said to the woman: \u201cShut the gates.\u201d\nShe replied: \u201cI have shut them all except one, which I cannot shut.\u201d He\nasked: \u201cWhich one is that?\u201d \u201cThe gate,\u201d said she, \u201cthat is between us\nand God.\u201d On receiving this answer the man repented and begged to be\nforgiven.\n\n\u1e24\u00e1tim al-A\u1e63amm said: \u201cI have chosen four things to know, and have\ndiscarded all the knowledge in the world besides.\u201d He was asked: \u201cWhat\nare they?\u201d \u201cOne,\u201d he answered, \u201cis this: I know that my daily bread is\napportioned to me, and will neither be increased nor diminished;\nconsequently I have ceased to seek to augment it. Secondly, I know that\nI owe to God a debt which no other person can pay instead of me;\ntherefore I am occupied with paying it. Thirdly, I know that there is\none pursuing me (i.e. Death) from whom I cannot escape; accordingly I\nhave prepared myself to meet him. Fourthly, I know that God is observing\nme; therefore I am ashamed to do what I ought not.\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThe object of human knowledge should be to know God and His\nCommandments. Knowledge of \u201ctime\u201d (_`ilm-i waqt_)[23], and of all\noutward and inward circumstances of which the due effect depends on\n\u201ctime\u201d, is incumbent upon everyone. This is of two sorts: primary and\nsecondary. The external division of the primary class consists in making\nthe Moslem\u2019s profession of faith, the internal division consists in the\nattainment of true cognition. The external division of the secondary\nclass consists in the practice of devotion, the internal division\nconsists in rendering one\u2019s intention sincere. The outward and inward\naspects cannot be divorced. The exoteric aspect of Truth without the\nesoteric is hypocrisy, and the esoteric without the exoteric is heresy.\nSo, with regard to the Law, mere formality is defective, while mere\nspirituality is vain.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  \u201cTime\u201d (_waqt_) is used by Mu\u1e25ammadan mystics to denote the spiritual\n  state in which anyone finds himself, and by which he is dominated at\n  the moment. The expression _`ilm-i waqt_ occurs again in the notice of\n  Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n al-D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed (chapter x, No. 17), where _waqt_ is explained\n  as meaning \u201cthe preservation of one\u2019s spiritual state\u201d. According to a\n  definition given by Sahl b. `Abdallah al-Tustar\u00ed, _waqt_ is \u201csearch\n  for knowledge of the state, i.e. the decision (_\u1e25ukm_) of a man\u2019s\n  state, which exists between him and God in this world and hereafter\u201d.\n\nThe Knowledge of the Truth (_\u1e24aq\u00edqat_) has three pillars\u2014\n\n    (1) Knowledge of the Essence and Unity of God.\n    (2) Knowledge of the Attributes of God.\n    (3) Knowledge of the Actions and Wisdom of God.\n\nThe Knowledge of the Law (_Shar\u00ed`at_) also has three pillars\u2014\n\n    (1) The Koran.\n    (2) The Sunna.\n    (3) The Consensus (_ijm\u00e1`_) of the Moslem community.\n\nKnowledge of the Divine Essence involves recognition, on the part of one\nwho is reasonable and has reached puberty, that God exists externally by\nHis essence, that He is infinite and not bounded by space, that His\nessence is not the cause of evil, that none of His creatures is like\nunto Him, that He has neither wife nor child, and that He is the Creator\nand Sustainer of all that your imagination and intellect can conceive.\n\nKnowledge of the Divine Attributes requires you to know that God has\nattributes existing in Himself, which are not He nor a part of Him, but\nexist in Him and subsist by Him, e.g. Knowledge, Power, Life, Will,\nHearing, Sight, Speech, etc.\n\nKnowledge of the Divine Actions is your knowledge that God is the\nCreator of mankind and of all their actions, that He brought the\nnon-existent universe into being, that He predestines good and evil and\ncreates all that is beneficial and injurious.\n\nKnowledge of the Law involves your knowing that God has sent us Apostles\nwith miracles of an extraordinary nature; that our Apostle, Mu\u1e25ammad (on\nwhom be peace!), is a true Messenger, who performed many miracles, and\nthat whatever he has told us concerning the Unseen and the Visible is\nentirely true.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThere is a sect of heretics called Sophists (_S\u00fafis\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4iy\u00e1n_), who\nbelieve that nothing can be known and that knowledge itself does not\nexist. I say to them: \u201cYou think that nothing can be known; is your\nopinion correct or not?\u201d If they answer \u201cIt is correct\u201d, they thereby\naffirm the reality of knowledge; and if they reply \u201cIt is not correct\u201d,\nthen to argue against an avowedly incorrect assertion is absurd. The\nsame doctrine is held by a sect of heretics who are connected with\n\u1e62\u00fafiism. They say that, inasmuch as nothing is knowable, their negation\nof knowledge is more perfect than the affirmation of it. This statement\nproceeds from their folly and stupidity. The negation of knowledge must\nbe the result either of knowledge or of ignorance. Now it is impossible\nfor knowledge to deny knowledge; therefore knowledge cannot be denied\nexcept by ignorance, which is nearly akin to infidelity and falsehood;\nfor there is no connexion between ignorance and truth. The doctrine in\nquestion is opposed to that of all the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, but is commonly\nattributed to the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in general by people who have heard it and\nembraced it. I commit them to God, with Whom it rests whether they shall\ncontinue in their error. If religion takes hold of them, they will\nbehave more discreetly and will not misjudge the Friends of God in this\nway and will look more anxiously to what concerns themselves. Although\nsome heretics claim to be \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in order to conceal their own foulness\nunder the beauty of others, why should it be supposed that all \u1e62\u00fafis are\nlike these pretenders, and that it is right to treat them all with\ndisdain and contumely? An individual who wished to pass for learned and\northodox, but really was devoid of knowledge and religion, once said to\nme in the course of debate: \u201cThere are twelve heretical sects, and one\nof them flourishes amongst those who profess \u1e62\u00fafiism\u201d (_muta\u1e63awwifa_). I\nreplied: \u201cIf one sect belongs to us, eleven belong to you; and the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\ncan protect themselves from one better than you can from eleven.\u201d All\nthis heresy springs from the corruption and degeneracy of the times, but\nGod has always kept His Saints hidden from the multitude and apart from\nthe ungodly. Well said that eminent spiritual guide, `Al\u00ed b. Bund\u00e1r\nal-\u1e62ayraf\u00ed[24]: \u201cThe depravity of men\u2019s hearts is in proportion to the\ndepravity of the age.\u201d\n\nNow in the following section I will cite some sayings of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds as an\nadmonition to those sceptics towards whom God is favourably inclined.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  A famous \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, who died in 359 A.H. (_Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 118).\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nMu\u1e25ammad b. Fa\u1e0dl al-Balkh\u00ed says: \u201cKnowledge is of three kinds\u2014_from_\nGod, _with_ God, and _of_ God.\u201d Knowledge _of_ God is the science of\nGnosis (_`ilm-i ma`rifat_), whereby He is known to all His prophets and\nsaints. It cannot be acquired by ordinary means, but is the result of\nDivine guidance and information. Knowledge _from_ God is the science of\nthe Sacred Law (_`ilm-i shar\u00ed`at_), which He has commanded and made\nobligatory upon us. Knowledge _with_ God is the science of the\n\u201cstations\u201d and the \u201cPath\u201d and the degrees of the saints. Gnosis is\nunsound without acceptance of the Law, and the Law is not practised\nrightly unless the \u201cstations\u201d are manifested. Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Thaqaf\u00ed[25] says:\n_Al-`ilm \u1e25ay\u00e1t al-qalb min al-jahl wa-n\u00far al-`ayn min al-\u1e95ulmat_,\n\u201cKnowledge is the life of the heart, which delivers it from the death of\nignorance: it is the light of the eye of faith, which saves it from the\ndarkness of infidelity.\u201d The hearts of infidels are dead, because they\nare ignorant of God, and the hearts of the heedless are sick, because\nthey are ignorant of His Commandments. Ab\u00fa Bakr Warr\u00e1q of Tirmidh says:\n\u201cThose who are satisfied with disputation (_kal\u00e1m_) about knowledge and\ndo not practise asceticism (_zuhd_) become _zind\u00edqs_ (heretics); and\nthose who are satisfied with jurisprudence (_fiqh_) and do not practise\nabstinence (_wara`_)become wicked.\u201d This means that Unification\n(_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), without works, is predestination (_jabr_), whereas the\nassertor of Unification ought to hold the doctrine of predestination but\nto act as though he believed in free will, taking a middle course\nbetween free will and predestination. Such is the true sense of another\nsaying uttered by the same spiritual guide, viz.: \u201cUnification is below\npredestination and above free will.\u201d\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  Also a native of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far. He died in 328 A.H. (_Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 248).\n\nLack of positive religion and of morality arises from heedlessness\n(_ghaflat_). Well said that great master, Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed:\n\u201cAvoid the society of three classes of men\u2014heedless savants,\nhypocritical Koran-readers, and ignorant pretenders to \u1e62\u00fafiism.\u201d The\nheedless savants are they who have set their hearts on worldly gain and\npaid court to governors and tyrants, and have been seduced by their own\ncleverness to spend their time in subtle disputations, and have attacked\nthe leading authorities on religion. The hypocritical Koran-readers are\nthey who praise whatever is done in accordance with their desire, even\nif it is bad, and blame whatever they dislike, even if it is good: they\nseek to ingratiate themselves with the people by acting hypocritically.\nThe ignorant pretenders to \u1e62\u00fafiism are they who have never associated\nwith a spiritual director (_p\u00edr_), nor learned discipline from a shaykh,\nbut without any experience have thrown themselves among the people, and\nhave donned a blue mantle (_kab\u00fad\u00ed_), and have trodden the path of\nunrestraint.\n\nAb\u00fa Yaz\u00edd Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed says: \u201cI strove in the spiritual combat for thirty\nyears, and I found nothing harder to me than knowledge and its pursuit.\u201d\nIt is more easy for human nature to walk on fire than to follow the road\nof knowledge, and an ignorant heart will more readily cross the Bridge\n(_\u1e62ir\u00e1\u1e6d_) a thousand times than learn a single piece of knowledge; and\nthe wicked man would rather pitch his tent in Hell than put one item of\nknowledge into practice. Accordingly you must learn knowledge and seek\nperfection therein. The perfection of human knowledge is ignorance of\nDivine knowledge. You must know enough to know that you do not know.\nThat is to say, human knowledge is alone possible to Man, and humanity\nis the greatest barrier that separates him from Divinity. As the poet\nsays:\u2014\n\n               _Al-`ajzu `an daraki \u00b4l-idr\u00e1ki idr\u00e1ku\n               Wa \u00b4l-waqfu f\u00ed \u1e6duruqi \u00b4l-akhy\u00e1ri ishr\u00e1ku._\n\n    \u201cTrue perception is to despair of attaining perception,\n    But not to advance on the paths of the virtuous is polytheism.\u201d\n\nHe who will not learn and perseveres in his ignorance is a polytheist,\nbut to the learner, when his knowledge becomes perfect, the reality is\nrevealed, and he perceives that his knowledge is no more than inability\nto know what his end shall be, since realities are not affected by the\nnames bestowed upon them.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n                              ON POVERTY.\n\n\nKnow that Poverty has a high rank in the Way of Truth, and that the poor\nare greatly esteemed, as God said: \u201c(Give alms) _unto the poor, who are\nkept fighting in God\u2019s cause and cannot go to and fro on the earth; whom\nthe ignorant deem rich forasmuch as they refrain_ (from begging).\u201d[26]\nAnd again: \u201c_Their sides are lifted from their beds while they call on\ntheir Lord in fear and hope_\u201d (Kor. xxxii, 16). Moreover, the Prophet\nchose poverty and said: \u201cO God, make me live lowly and die lowly and\nrise from the dead amongst the lowly!\u201d And he also said: \u201cOn the day of\nResurrection God will say, \u2018Bring ye My loved ones nigh unto Me;\u2019 then\nthe angels will say, \u2018Who are Thy loved ones?\u2019 and God will answer them,\nsaying, \u2018The poor and destitute.\u2019\u201d There are many verses of the Koran\nand Traditions to the same effect, which on account of their celebrity\nneed not be mentioned here. Among the Refugees (_Muh\u00e1jir\u00edn_) in the\nProphet\u2019s time were poor men (_fuqar\u00e1_) who sat in his mosque and\ndevoted themselves to the worship of God, and firmly believed that God\nwould give them their daily bread, and put their trust (_tawakkul_) in\nHim. The Prophet was enjoined to consort with them and take due care of\nthem; for God said: \u201c_Do not repulse those who call on their Lord in the\nmorning and in the evening, desiring His favour_\u201d (Kor. vi, 52). Hence,\nwhenever the Prophet saw one of them, he used to say: \u201cMay my father and\nmother be your sacrifice! since it was for your sakes that God\nreproached me.\u201d\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Kor. ii, 274.\n\nGod, therefore, has exalted Poverty and has made it a special\ndistinction of the poor, who have renounced all things external and\ninternal, and have turned entirely to the Causer; whose poverty has\nbecome their pride, so that they lamented its going and rejoiced at its\ncoming, and embraced it and deemed all else contemptible.\n\nNow, Poverty has a form (_rasm_) and an essence (_\u1e25aq\u00edqat_). Its form is\ndestitution and indigence, but its essence is fortune and free choice.\nHe who regards the form rests in the form and, failing to attain his\nobject, flees from the essence; but he who has found the essence averts\nhis gaze from all created things, and, in complete annihilation, seeing\nonly the All-One he hastens towards the fullness of eternal life\n(_ba-fan\u00e1-yi kull andar ru\u00b4yat-i kull ba-baq\u00e1-yi kull shit\u00e1ft_). The\npoor man _(faq\u00edr)_ has nothing and can suffer no loss. He does not\nbecome rich by having anything, nor indigent by having nothing: both\nthese conditions are alike to him in respect of his poverty. It is\npermitted that he should be more joyful when he has nothing, for the\nShaykhs have said: \u201cThe more straitened one is in circumstances, the\nmore expansive (cheerful and happy) is one\u2019s (spiritual) state,\u201d because\nit is unlucky for a dervish to have property: if he \u201cimprisons\u201d anything\n(_dar band kunad_) for his own use, he himself is \u201cimprisoned\u201d in the\nsame proportion. The friends of God live by means of His secret\nbounties. Worldly wealth holds them back from the path of quietism\n(_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_).\n\n_Story._ A dervish met a king. The king said: \u201cAsk a boon of me.\u201d The\ndervish replied: \u201cI will not ask a boon from one of my slaves.\u201d \u201cHow is\nthat?\u201d said the king. The dervish said: \u201cI have two slaves who are thy\nmasters: covetousness and expectation.\u201d\n\nThe Prophet said: \u201cPoverty is glorious to those who are worthy of it.\u201d\nIts glory consists in this, that the poor man\u2019s body is divinely\npreserved from base and sinful acts, and his heart from evil and\ncontaminating thoughts, because his outward parts are absorbed in\n(contemplation of) the manifest blessings of God, while his inward parts\nare protected by invisible grace, so that his body is spiritual\n(_r\u00fa\u1e25\u00e1n\u00ed_) and his heart divine (_rabb\u00e1n\u00ed_). Then no relation subsists\nbetween him and mankind: this world and the next weigh less than a\ngnat\u2019s wing in the scales of his poverty: he is not contained in the two\nworlds for a single moment.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs differ in opinion as to whether poverty or wealth is\nsuperior, both being regarded as human attributes; for true wealth\n(_ghin\u00e1_) belongs to God, who is perfect in all His attributes. Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b.\nMu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed, A\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed, \u1e24\u00e1rith al-Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, Abu\n\u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s b. `A\u1e6d\u00e1, Ruwaym, Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan b. Sim`\u00fan,[27] and among the\nmoderns the Grand Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Fa\u1e0dlallah b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Mayhan\u00ed, all\nhold the view that wealth is superior to poverty. They argue that wealth\nis an attribute of God, whereas poverty cannot be ascribed to Him:\ntherefore an attribute common to God and Man is superior to one that is\nnot applicable to God. I answer: \u201cThis community of designation is\nmerely nominal, and has no existence in reality: real community involves\nmutual resemblance, but the Divine attributes are eternal and the human\nattributes are created; hence your proof is false.\u201d I, who am `Al\u00ed b.\n`Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, declare that wealth is a term that may fitly be\napplied to God, but one to which Man has no right; while poverty is a\nterm that may properly be applied to Man, but not to God. Metaphorically\na man is called \u201crich\u201d, but he is not really so. Again, to give a\nclearer proof, human wealth is an effect due to various causes, whereas\nthe wealth of God, who Himself is the Author of all causes, is not due\nto any cause. Therefore there is no community in regard to this\nattribute. It is not allowable to associate anything with God either in\nessence, attribute, or name. The wealth of God consists in His\nindependence of anyone and in His power to do whatsoever He wills: such\nHe has always been and such He shall be for ever. Man\u2019s wealth, on the\nother hand, is, for example, a means of livelihood, or the presence of\njoy, or the being saved from sin, or the solace of contemplation; which\nthings are all of phenomenal nature and subject to change.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 291, where his \u201cname of honour\u201d is given as Abu\n  \u00b4l-\u1e24usayn.\n\nFurthermore, some of the vulgar prefer the rich man to the poor, on the\nground that God has made the former blest in both worlds and has\nbestowed the benefit of riches on him. Here they mean by \u201cwealth\u201d\nabundance of worldly goods and enjoyment of pleasures and pursuit of\nlusts. They argue that God has commanded us to be thankful for wealth\nand patient in poverty, i.e. patient in adversity and thankful in\nprosperity; and that prosperity is essentially better than adversity. To\nthis I reply that, when God commanded us to be thankful for prosperity\nHe made thankfulness the means of increasing our prosperity; but when He\ncommanded us to be patient in adversity He made patience the means of\ndrawing nigh unto Himself. He said: \u201c_Verily, if ye return thanks, I\nwill give you an increase_\u201d (Kor. xiv, 7), and also, \u201c_God is with the\npatient_\u201d (Kor. ii, 148).\n\nThe Shaykhs who prefer wealth to poverty do not use the term \u201cwealth\u201d in\nits popular sense. What they intend is not \u201cacquisition of a benefit\u201d\nbut \u201cacquisition of the Benefactor\u201d; to gain union (with God) is a\ndifferent thing from gaining forgetfulness (of God). Shaykh Ab\u00fa\nSa`\u00edd[28]\u2014God have mercy on him!\u2014says: \u201cPoverty is wealth in God\u201d\n(_al-faqr huwa \u00b4l-ghin\u00e1 bill\u00e1h_), i.e. everlasting revelation of the\nTruth. I answer to this, that revelation (_muk\u00e1shafat_) implies the\npossibility of a veil (_\u1e25ij\u00e1b_); therefore, if the person who enjoys\nrevelation is veiled from revelation by the attribute of wealth, he\neither becomes in need of revelation or he does not; if he does not, the\nconclusion is absurd, and if he does, need is incompatible with wealth;\ntherefore that term cannot stand. Besides, no one has \u201cwealth in God\u201d\nunless his attributes are permanent and his object is invariable; wealth\ncannot coincide with the subsistence of an object or with the\naffirmation of the attributes of human nature, inasmuch as the essential\ncharacteristics of mortality and phenomenal being are need and\nindigence. One whose attributes still survive is not rich, and one whose\nattributes are annihilated is not entitled to any name whatever.\nTherefore \u201cthe rich man is he who is enriched by God\u201d (_al-ghan\u00ed man\naghn\u00e1hu \u00b4ll\u00e1h_), because the term \u201crich in God\u201d refers to the agent\n(_f\u00e1`il_), whereas the term \u201cenriched by God\u201d denotes the person acted\nupon (_maf`\u00fal_); the former is self-subsistent, but the latter subsists\nthrough the agent; accordingly self-subsistence is an attribute of human\nnature, while subsistence through God involves the annihilation of\nattributes. I, then, who am `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, assert that true\nwealth is incompatible with the survival (_baq\u00e1_) of any attribute,\nsince human attributes have already been shown to be defective and\nsubject to decay; nor, again, does wealth consist in the annihilation of\nthese attributes, because a name cannot be given to an attribute that no\nlonger exists, and he whose attributes are annihilated cannot be called\neither \u201cpoor\u201d or \u201crich\u201d; therefore the attribute of wealth is not\ntransferable from God to Man, and the attribute of poverty is not\ntransferable from Man to God.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  See Chapter XII, No. 5.\n\nAll the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs and most of the vulgar prefer poverty to wealth for\nthe reason that the Koran and the Sunna expressly declare it to be\nsuperior, and herein the majority of Moslems are agreed. I find, among\nthe anecdotes which I have read, that on one occasion this question was\ndiscussed by Junayd and Ibn `A\u1e6d\u00e1. The latter maintained the superiority\nof the rich. He argued that at the Resurrection they would be called to\naccount for their wealth, and that such an account (_\u1e25is\u00e1b_) entails the\nhearing of the Divine Word, without any mediation, in the form of\nreproach (_`it\u00e1b_): and reproach is addressed by the Beloved to the\nlover. Junayd answered: \u201cIf He will call the rich to account, He will\nask the poor for their excuse; and asking an excuse is better than\ncalling to account.\u201d This is a very subtle point. In true love excuse is\n\u201cotherness\u201d (_b\u00e9g\u00e1nag\u00ed_) and reproach is contrary to unity (_yag\u00e1nag\u00ed_).\nLovers regard both these things as a blemish, because excuse is made for\nsome disobedience to the command of the Beloved and reproach is made on\nthe same score; but both are impossible in true love, for then neither\ndoes the Beloved require an expiation from the lover nor does the lover\nneglect to perform the will of the Beloved.\n\nEvery man is \u201cpoor\u201d, even though he be a prince. Essentially the wealth\nof Solomon and the poverty of Solomon are one. God said to Job in the\nextremity of his patience, and likewise to Solomon in the plenitude of\nhis dominion: \u201c_Good servant that thou art_!\u201d[29] When God\u2019s pleasure\nwas accomplished, it made no difference between the poverty and the\nwealth of Solomon.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Kor. xxxviii, 29, 44.\n\nThe author says: \u201cI have heard that Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Qushayr\u00ed\u2014God have mercy\non him!\u2014said: \u2018People have spoken much concerning poverty and wealth,\nand have chosen one or the other for themselves, but I choose whichever\nstate God chooses for me and keeps me in; if He keeps me rich I will not\nbe forgetful, and if He wishes me to be poor I will not be covetous and\nrebellious.\u2019\u201d Therefore, both wealth and poverty are Divine gifts:\nwealth is corrupted by forgetfulness, poverty by covetousness. Both\nconceptions are excellent, but they differ in practice. Poverty is the\nseparation of the heart from all but God, and wealth is the\npreoccupation of the heart with that which does not admit of being\nqualified. When the heart is cleared (of all except God), poverty is not\nbetter than wealth nor is wealth better than poverty. Wealth is\nabundance of worldly goods and poverty is lack of them: all goods belong\nto God: when the seeker bids farewell to property, the antithesis\ndisappears and both terms are transcended.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nAll the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have spoken on the subject of poverty. I will now\ncite as many of their sayings as it is possible to include in this book.\n\nOne of the moderns says: _Laysa \u00b4l-faq\u00edr man khal\u00e1 min al-z\u00e1d: innama\n\u00b4l-faq\u00edr man khal\u00e1 min al-mur\u00e1d_, \u201cThe poor man is not he whose hand is\nempty of provisions, but he whose nature is empty of desires.\u201d For\nexample, if God gives him money and he desires to keep it, then he is\nrich; and if he desires to renounce it, he is rich no less, because\npoverty consists in ceasing to act on one\u2019s own initiative. Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b.\nMu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed says: _Al-faqr khawf al-faqr_, \u201cIt is a sign of true\npoverty that, although one has reached the perfection of saintship and\ncontemplation and self-annihilation, one should always be dreading its\ndecline and departure.\u201d And Ruwaym says: _Min na`t al-faq\u00edr \u1e25if\u1e63u\nsirrihi wa-\u1e63iy\u00e1natu nafsihi wa-ad\u00e1\u00b4u far\u00ed\u1e0datihi_, \u201cIt is characteristic\nof the poor man that his heart is protected from selfish cares, and that\nhis soul is guarded from contaminations, and that he performs the\nobligatory duties of religion:\u201d that is to say, his inward meditations\ndo not interfere with his outward acts, nor _vice vers\u00e2_; which is a\nsign that he has cast off the attributes of mortality. Bishr \u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed says:\n_Af\u1e0dal al-maq\u00e1m\u00e1t i`tiq\u00e1d al-\u1e63abr `ala \u00b4l-faqr ila \u00b4l-qabr_, \u201cThe best\nof \u2018stations\u2019 is a firm resolution to endure poverty continually.\u201d Now\npoverty is the annihilation of all \u201cstations\u201d: therefore the resolution\nto endure poverty is a sign of regarding works and actions as imperfect,\nand of aspiring to annihilate human attributes. But in its obvious sense\nthis saying pronounces poverty to be superior to wealth, and expresses a\ndetermination never to abandon it. S\u1e25ibl\u00ed says: _Al-faq\u00edr man l\u00e1\nyastaghn\u00ed bi-shay\u00b4^{in} d\u00fana \u00b4ll\u00e1h_, \u201cThe poor man does not rest content\nwith anything except God,\u201d because he has no other object of desire. The\nliteral meaning is that you will not become rich except by Him, and that\nwhen you have gained Him you have become rich. Your being, then, is\nother than God; and since you cannot gain wealth except by renouncing\n\u201cother\u201d, your \u201cyou-ness\u201d is a veil between you and wealth: when that is\nremoved, you are rich. This saying is very subtle and obscure. In the\nopinion of advanced spiritualists (_ahl-i \u1e25aq\u00edqat_) it means: _Al-faqr\nan l\u00e1 yustaghn\u00e1 `anhu_, \u201cPoverty consists in never being independent of\npoverty.\u201d This is what the P\u00edr, i.e. Master `Abdall\u00e1h An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed[30]\u2014may God\nbe well-pleased with him!\u2014meant when he said that our sorrow is\neverlasting, that our aspiration never reaches its goal, and that our\nsum (_kulliyyat_) never becomes non-existent in this world or the next,\nbecause for the fruition of anything homogeneity is necessary, but God\nhas no congener, and for turning away from Him forgetfulness is\nnecessary, but the dervish is not forgetful. What an endless task, what\na difficult road! The dead (_f\u00e1n\u00ed_) never become living (_b\u00e1q\u00ed_), so as\nto be united with Him; the living never become dead, so as to approach\nHis presence. All that His lovers do and suffer is entirely a probation\n(_mi\u1e25nat_); but in order to console themselves they have invented a\nfine-sounding phraseology (_`ib\u00e1rat\u00ed muzakhraf_) and have produced\n\u201cstations\u201d and \u201cstages\u201d and a \u201cpath\u201d. Their symbolic expressions,\nhowever, begin and end in themselves, and their \u201cstations\u201d do not rise\nbeyond their own _genus_, whereas God is exempt from every human\nattribute and relationship. Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed says: _Na`t al-faq\u00edr\nal-suk\u00fan `inda \u00b4l-`adam wa \u00b4l-badhl `inda \u00b4l-wuj\u00fad_; and he says also:\n_Al-i\u1e0d\u1e6dir\u00e1b `inda \u00b4l-wuj\u00fad_, \u201cWhen he gets nothing he is silent, and\nwhen he gets something he regards another person as better entitled to\nit than himself, and therefore gives it away.\u201d The practice enunciated\nin this saying is of great importance. There are two meanings: (1) His\nquiescence when he gets nothing is satisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_), and his\nliberality when he gets something is love (_ma\u1e25abbat_), because\n\u201csatisfied\u201d means \u201caccepting a robe of honour\u201d (_q\u00e1bil-i khil`at_), and\nthe robe of honour is a token of proximity (_qurbat_) whereas the lover\n(_mu\u1e25ibb_) rejects the robe of honour inasmuch as it is a token of\nseverance (_furqat_); and (2) his quiescence when he gets nothing is\nexpectation of getting something, and when he has got it, that\n\u201csomething\u201d is other than God: he cannot be satisfied with anything\nother than God; therefore he rejects it. Both these meanings are\nimplicit in the saying of the Grand Shaykh, Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Junayd:\n_Al-faqr khuluww al-qalb `an al-ashk\u00e1l_, \u201cWhen his heart is empty of\nphenomena he is poor.\u201d Since the existence of phenomena is \u201cother\u201d (than\nGod), rejection is the only course possible. Shibl\u00ed says: _Al-faqr ba\u1e25r\nal-bal\u00e1 wa-bal\u00e1\u00b4uhu kulluhu `izz^{un}_, \u201cPoverty is a sea of trouble,\nand all troubles for His sake are glorious.\u201d Glory is a portion of\n\u201cother\u201d. The afflicted are plunged in trouble and know nothing of glory,\nuntil they forget their trouble and regard the Author thereof. Then\ntheir trouble is changed into glory, and their glory into a spiritual\nstate (_waqt_), and their spiritual state into love, and their love into\ncontemplation, so that finally the brain of the aspirant becomes wholly\na centre of vision through the predominance of his imagination: he sees\nwithout eye, and hears without ear. Again, it is glorious for a man to\nbear the burden of trouble laid upon him by his Beloved, for in truth\nmisfortune is glory, and prosperity is humiliation. Glory is that which\nmakes one present with God, and humiliation is that which makes one\nabsent from God: the affliction of poverty is a sign of \u201cpresence\u201d,\nwhile the delight of riches is a sign of \u201cabsence\u201d. Therefore one should\ncling to trouble of any description that involves contemplation and\nintimacy. Junayd says: _Y\u00e1 ma`shar al-fuqar\u00e1 innakum tu`raf\u00fana bill\u00e1h\nwa-tukra-m\u00fana lill\u00e1h fa-\u00b4n\u1e95ur\u00fa kayfa tak\u00fan\u00fana ma`a a \u00b4ll\u00e1h idh\u00e1\nkhalawtum bihi_, \u201cO ye that are poor, ye are known through God, and are\nhonoured for the sake of God: take heed how ye behave when ye are alone\nwith Him,\u201d i.e. if people call you \u201cpoor\u201d and recognize your claim, see\nthat you perform the obligations of the path of poverty; and if they\ngive you another name, inconsistent with what you profess, do not accept\nit, but fulfil your professions. The basest of men is he who is thought\nto be devoted to God, but really is not; and the noblest is he who is\nnot thought to be devoted to God, but really is. The former resembles an\nignorant physician, who pretends to cure people, but only makes them\nworse, and when he falls ill himself needs another physician to\nprescribe for him; and the latter is like one who is not known to be a\nphysician, and does not concern himself with other folk, but employs his\nskill in order to maintain his own health. One of the moderns has said:\n_Al-faqr `adam^{un} bil\u00e1 wuj\u00fad^{in}_, \u201cPoverty is not-being without\nexistence.\u201d To interpret this saying is impossible, because what is\nnon-existent does not admit of being explained. On the surface it would\nseem that, according to this dictum, poverty is nothing, but such is not\nthe case; the explanations and consensus of the Saints of God are not\nfounded on a principle that is essentially non-existent. The meaning\nhere is not \u201cthe not-being of the essence\u201d, but \u201cthe not-being of that\nwhich contaminates the essence\u201d; and all human attributes are a source\nof contamination: when that is removed, the result is annihilation of\nthe attributes (_fan\u00e1-yi \u1e63ifat_), which deprives the sufferer of the\ninstrument whereby he attains, or fails to attain, his object; but his\nnot-going to the essence (_`adam-i rawish ba-`ayn_) seems to him\nannihilation of the essence and casts him into perdition.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  The celebrated mystic of Her\u00e1t, who died in 481 A.H. See Professor\n  Browne\u2019s _Literary History of Persia_, vol. ii, p. 269.\n\nI have met with some scholastic philosophers who, failing to understand\nthe drift of this saying, laughed at it and declared it to be nonsense;\nand also with certain pretenders (to \u1e62\u00fafiism) who made nonsense of it\nand were firmly convinced of its truth, although they had no grasp of\nthe fundamental principle. Both parties are in the wrong: one ignorantly\ndenies the truth, and the other makes ignorance a state (of perfection).\nNow the expressions \u201cnot-being\u201d (_`adam_) and \u201cannihilation\u201d (_fan\u00e1_),\nas they are used by \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, denote the disappearance of a blameworthy\ninstrument (_\u00e1lat-i madhm\u00fam_) and disapproved attribute in the course of\nseeking a praiseworthy attribute; they do not signify the search for\nnon-reality (_`adam-i ma`n\u00ed_) by means of an instrument which exists.\n\nDervishhood in all its meanings is a metaphorical poverty, and amidst\nall its subordinate aspects there is a transcendent principle. The\nDivine mysteries come and go over the dervish, so that his affairs are\nacquired by himself, his actions attributed to himself, and his ideas\nattached to himself. But when his affairs are freed from the bonds of\nacquisition (_kasb_), his actions are no more attributed to himself.\nThen he is the Way, not the wayfarer, i.e. the dervish is a place over\nwhich something is passing, not a wayfarer following his own will.\nAccordingly, he neither draws anything to himself nor puts anything away\nfrom himself: all that leaves any trace upon him belongs to the essence.\n\nI have seen false \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, mere tonguesters (_arb\u00e1b al-lis\u00e1n_), whose\nimperfect apprehension of this matter seemed to deny the existence of\nthe essence of poverty, while their lack of desire for the reality of\npoverty seemed to deny the attributes of its essence. They called by the\nname of \u201cpoverty\u201d and \u201cpurity\u201d their failure to seek Truth and Reality,\nand it looked as though they affirmed their own fancies but denied all\nelse. Every one of them was in some degree veiled from poverty, because\nthe conceit of \u1e62\u00fafiism (_pind\u00e1r-i \u00edn \u1e25ad\u00edth_) betokens perfection of\nsaintship, and the claim to be suspected of \u1e62\u00fafiism (_tawall\u00e1-yi\ntuhmat-i \u00edn \u1e25ad\u00edth_) is the ultimate goal, i.e. this claim belongs only\nto the state of perfection. Therefore the seeker has no choice but to\njourney in their path and to traverse their \u201cstations\u201d and to know their\nsymbolic expressions, in order that he may not be a plebeian _(`\u00e1mm\u00ed)_\namong the elect. Those who are ignorant of general principles (_`aw\u00e1mm-i\nu\u1e63\u00fal_) have no ground to stand on, whereas those who are ignorant only\nas regards the derivative branches are supported by the principles. I\nhave said all this to encourage you to undertake this spiritual journey\nand occupy yourself with the due fulfilment of its obligations.\n\nNow in the chapter on \u1e62\u00fafiism I will explain some of the principles and\nallegories and mystic sayings of this sect. Then I will mention the\nnames of their holy men, and afterwards elucidate the different\ndoctrines held by the \u1e62\u00fafi Shaykhs. In the next place, I will treat of\nthe Verities, Sciences, and Laws of \u1e62\u00fafiism. Lastly, I will set forth\ntheir rules of discipline and the significance of their \u201cstations\u201d, in\norder that the truth of this matter may become clear to you and to all\nmy readers.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n                              ON \u1e62\u00daFIISM.\n\n\nGod, Almighty and Glorious, has said: \u201c_And those who walk meekly on the\nearth, and when the ignorant speak to them answer \u2018Peace\u2019_,\u201d (shall be\nrewarded with the highest place in Paradise).[31] And the Apostle has\nsaid: \u201cHe that hears the voice of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds (_ahl al-ta\u1e63awwuf_) and does not\nsay Amen to their prayer is inscribed before God among the heedless.\u201d\nThe true meaning of this name has been much discussed and many books\nhave been composed on the subject. Some assert that the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is so\ncalled because he wears a woollen garment (_j\u00e1ma\u00b4-i \u1e63\u00faf_); others that\nhe is so called because he is in the first rank (_\u1e63aff-i awwal_); others\nsay it is because the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds claim to belong to the _A\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b-i \u1e62uffa_,[32]\nwith whom may God be well-pleased! Others, again, declare that the name\nis derived from _\u1e63af\u00e1_ (purity). These explanations of the true meaning\nof \u1e62\u00fafiism are far from satisfying the requirements of etymology,\nalthough each of them is supported by many subtle arguments. _\u1e62af\u00e1_\n(purity) is universally praised, and its opposite is _kadar_. The\nApostle\u2014on whom be peace!\u2014said: \u201cThe _\u1e63afw_ (pure part, i.e. the best)\nof this world is gone, and only its _kadar_ (impurity) remains.\u201d\nTherefore, since the people of this persuasion have purged their morals\nand conduct, and have sought to free themselves from natural taints, on\nthat account they are called \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds; and this designation of the sect is\na proper name (_az as\u00e1mi-yi a`l\u00e1m_), inasmuch as the dignity of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds is too great for their transactions (_mu`\u00e1mal\u00e1t_) to be hidden, so\nthat their name should need a derivation. In this age, however, God has\nveiled most people from \u1e62\u00fafiism and from its votaries, and has concealed\nits mysteries from their hearts. Accordingly some imagine that it\nconsists merely in the practice of outward piety without inward\ncontemplation, and others suppose that it is a form and a system without\nessence and root, to such an extent that they have adopted the view of\nscoffers (_ahl-i hazl_) and theologians (_`ulam\u00e1_), who regard only the\nexternal, and have condemned \u1e62\u00f9fiism altogether, making no attempt to\ndiscover what it really is. The people in general, blindly conforming to\nthis opinion, have erased from their hearts the quest for inward purity\nand have discarded the tenets of the Ancients and the Companions of the\nProphet. _Verily, purity is characteristic of the \u1e62idd\u00edq,[33] if thou\ndesirest a true \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed_\u2014because purity (_\u1e63af\u00e1_) has a root and a branch:\nits root being severance of the heart from \u201cothers\u201d (_aghy\u00e1r_), and its\nbranch that the heart should be empty of this deceitful world. Both\nthese are characteristic of the Greatest _\u1e62idd\u00edq_, (the Caliph) Ab\u00fa Bakr\n`Abdall\u00e1h b. Ab\u00ed Qu\u1e25\u00e1fa, with whom may God be well-pleased! He is the\nleader (_im\u00e1m_) of all the folk of this Path.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Kor. xxv, 64.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  See Chapter IX.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  The name _zadd\u00edq_ (an Aramaic word meaning \u201crighteous\u201d) was given to\n  the ascetics and spiritual adepts among the Manich\u00e6ans. Its Arabic\n  equivalent, _sidd\u00edq_, which means \u201cveracious\u201d, is a term that is\n  frequently applied to \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds.\n\n  [The author then relates how, on Mu\u1e25ammad\u2019s decease, when `Umar\n  threatened to decapitate anyone who asserted that the Prophet was\n  dead, Ab\u00fa Bakr stepped forth and cried with a loud voice: \u201cWhoever\n  worships Mu\u1e25ammad, let him know that Mu\u1e25ammad is dead; but whoever\n  worships Mu\u1e25ammad\u2019s Lord, let him know that HE is living and dieth\n  not.\u201d Those who regarded Mu\u1e25ammad with the eye of mortality ceased to\n  venerate him as soon as he departed from this world, but to those who\n  regarded him with the eye of reality his presence and absence were\n  alike, because they attributed both to God; and looked, not at the\n  particular change which had come to pass, but at the Author of all\n  change; and venerated Mu\u1e25ammad only in proportion as God honoured him;\n  and did not attach their hearts to anyone (except God); and did not\n  open their eyes to gaze upon mankind, inasmuch as \u201che that beholdeth\n  mankind waneth, but he that returneth unto God reigneth\u201d (_man na\u1e95ara\n  ila \u00b4l-khalq halak wa-man raja`a ila \u00b4l-\u1e25aqq malak_). And Ab\u00fa Bakr\n  showed that his heart was empty of this deceitful world, for he gave\n  away all his wealth and his clients (_maw\u00e1l\u00ed_), and clad himself in a\n  woollen garment (_gil\u00edm_), and came to the Apostle, who asked him what\n  he had left for his family. Ab\u00fa Bakr replied: \u201cOnly God and His\n  Apostle.\u201d All this is characteristic of the sincere \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed.]\n\nI said that _\u1e63af\u00e1_ (purity) is the opposite of _kadar_ (impurity), and\n_kadar_ is one of the qualities of Man. The true \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is he that leaves\nimpurity behind. Thus, human nature (_bashariyyat_) prevailed in the\nwomen of Egypt as they gazed, enraptured, on the wondrous beauty of\nY\u00fasuf (Joseph), on whom be peace! But afterwards the preponderance was\nreversed, until at last they beheld him with their human nature\nannihilated (_ba-fan\u00e1-yi bashariyyat_) and cried: \u201c_This is no human\nbeing_\u201d (Kor. xii, 31). They made him their object and gave expression\nto their own state. Hence the Shaykhs of this Path\u2014God have mercy on\nthem!\u2014have said: _Laysa \u00b4l-\u1e63af\u00e1 min \u1e63ifat al-bashar li\u00b4anna \u00b4l-bashar\nmadar wa\u00b4l-madar l\u00e1 yakhl\u00fa min al-kadar_, \u201cPurity is not one of the\nqualities of Man, for Man is clay, and clay involves impurity, and Man\ncannot escape from impurity.\u201d Therefore purity bears no likeness to acts\n(_af`\u00e1l_), nor can the human nature be destroyed by means of effort. The\nquality of purity is unrelated to acts and states, and its name is\nunconnected with names and nicknames\u2014_purity is characteristic of the\nlovers_ (of God), _who are suns without cloud_\u2014because purity is the\nattribute of those who love, and the lover is he that is dead (_f\u00e1n\u00ed_)\nin his own attributes and living (_b\u00e1q\u00ed_) in the attributes of his\nBeloved, and their \u201cstates\u201d resemble the clear sun in the opinion of\nmystics (_arb\u00e1b-i \u1e25\u00e1l_). The beloved of God, Mu\u1e25ammad the Chosen One,\nwas asked concerning the state of \u1e24\u00e1ritha. He answered: _`Abd nawwara\n\u00b4ll\u00e1h qalbahu bi \u00b4l-\u00edm\u00e1n_, \u201cHe is a man whose heart is illumined by the\nlight of faith, so that his face shines like the moon from the effect\nthereof, and he is formed by the Divine light.\u201d An eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed says:\n_\u1e0ciy\u00e1 al-shams wa\u00b4l-qamar idha \u00b4shtarak\u00e1 nam\u00fadhaj^{un} min \u1e63af\u00e1 al-\u1e25ubb\nwa \u00b4l-taw\u1e25\u00edd idha \u00b4shtabak\u00e1_, \u201cThe combination of the light of the sun\nand moon, when they are in conjunction, is like the purity of Love and\nUnification when these are mingled together.\u201d Assuredly, the light of\nthe sun and moon is worthless beside the light of the Love and\nUnification of God Almighty, and they should not be compared; but in\nthis world there is no light more conspicuous than those two luminaries.\nThe eye cannot see the light of the sun and moon with complete\ndemonstration. During the sway of the sun and moon it sees the sky,\nwhereas the heart (_dil_) sees the empyrean (_`arsh_) by the light of\nknowledge and unification and love, and while still in this world\nexplores the world to come. All the Shaykhs of this Path are agreed that\nwhen a man has escaped from the captivity of \u201cstations\u201d (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_), and\ngets rid of the impurity of \u201cstates\u201d (_a\u1e25w\u00e1l_), and is liberated from\nthe abode of change and decay, and becomes endowed with all praiseworthy\nqualities, he is disjoined from all qualities. That is to say, he is not\nheld in bondage by any praiseworthy quality of his own, nor does he\nregard it, nor is he made self-conceited thereby. His state is hidden\nfrom the perception of intelligences, and his time is exempt from the\ninfluence of thoughts. His presence (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_) with God has no end and\nhis existence has no cause. And when he arrives at this degree, he\nbecomes annihilated (_f\u00e1n\u00ed_) in this world and in the next, and is made\ndivine (_rabb\u00e1n\u00ed_) in the disappearance of humanity; and gold and earth\nare the same in his eyes, and the ordinances which others find hard to\nkeep become easy to him.\n\n  [Here follows the story of \u1e24\u00e1ritha, who declared that he had true\n  faith in God. The Prophet asked: \u201cWhat is the reality of thy faith?\u201d\n  \u1e24\u00e1ritha replied: \u201cI have cut off and turned myself away from this\n  world, so that its stones and its gold and its silver and its clay are\n  equal in my sight. And I have passed my nights in wakefulness and my\n  days in thirst until methinks I see the Throne of my Lord manifest,\n  and the people of Paradise visiting one another, and the people of\n  Hell wrestling with one another\u201d[34] (or, according to an alternative\n  reading: \u201cmaking sudden attacks on one another\u201d).[35] The Prophet\n  said, repeating the words thrice: \u201cThou knowest, therefore\n  persevere.\u201d]\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  _Yata\u1e63\u00e1ra`\u00fan._ B. has _yata`\u00e1dawn_, and in marg. _yatas\u00e1ra`\u00fan_. The\n  true reading is _yata`\u00e1wawn_, \u201cbarking (or \u2018growling\u2019) at one\n  another.\u201d Cf. _Lis\u00e1n_, xix, 343, 3.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  _Yatagh\u00e1war\u00fan._ This is the reading of J., I. has _yata`\u00e1war\u00fan_, L.\n  _yata`\u00e1wad\u00fan_, B. _yatagh\u00e1maz\u00fan_, and in marg. _yataf\u00e1waz\u00fan_.\n\n\u201c\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u201d is a name which is given, and has formerly been given, to the\nperfect saints and spiritual adepts. One of the Shaykhs says: _Man\n\u1e63aff\u00e1hu \u00b4l-\u1e25ubb fa-huwa \u1e63\u00e1f^{in} wa-man \u1e63aff\u00e1hu \u00b4l-\u1e25ab\u00edb fa-huwa\n\u1e62\u00fafiyy^{un}_, \u201cHe that is purified by love is pure, and he that is\nabsorbed in the Beloved and has abandoned all else is a \u2018\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u2019.\u201d The\nname has no derivation answering to etymological requirements, inasmuch\nas \u1e62\u00fafiism is too exalted to have any genus from which it might be\nderived; for the derivation of one thing from another demands\nhomogeneity (_muj\u00e1nasat_). All that exists is the opposite of purity\n(_\u1e63af\u00e1_), and things are not derived from their opposites. To \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds the\nmeaning of \u1e62\u00fafiism is clearer than the sun and does not need any\nexplanation or indication. Since \u201c\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u201d admits of no explanation, all\nthe world are interpreters thereof, whether they recognize the dignity\nof the name or no at the time when they learn its meaning. The perfect,\nthen, among them are called _\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed_, and the inferior aspirants\n(_\u1e6d\u00e1lib\u00e1n_) among them are called _Muta\u1e63awwif_; for _ta\u1e63awwuf_ belongs\nto the form _tafa``ul_, which implies \u201ctaking trouble\u201d (_takalluf_),[36]\nand is a branch of the original root. The difference both in meaning and\nin etymology is evident. _Purity (\u1e63af\u00e1) is a saintship with a sign and a\nrelation (riw\u00e1yat)_, and _\u1e62\u00fafiism (ta\u1e63awwuf) is an uncomplaining\nimitation of purity (\u1e25ik\u00e1yat^{un} li\u00b4l-\u1e63af\u00e1 bil\u00e1 shik\u00e1yat)._ Purity,\nthen, is a resplendent and manifest idea, and \u1e62\u00fafiism is an imitation of\nthat idea. Its followers in this degree are of three kinds: the _\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed_,\nthe _Muta\u1e63awwif_, and the _Musta\u1e63wif_. The _\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed_ is he that is dead to\nself and living by the Truth; he has escaped from the grip of human\nfaculties and has really attained (to God). The _Muta\u1e63awwif_ is he that\nseeks to reach this rank by means of self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_)\nand in his search rectifies his conduct in accordance with their (the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\u2019) example. The _Musta\u1e63wif_ is he that makes himself like them (the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds) for the sake of money and wealth and power and worldly advantage,\nbut has no knowledge of these two things.[37] Hence it has been said:\n_Al-musta\u1e63wif `inda \u00b4l-\u1e62\u00fafiyyat ka-\u00b4l-dhub\u00e1b wa-`inda ghayrihim\nka-\u00b4l-dhi\u00b4\u00e1b_, \u201cThe _Musta\u1e63wif_ in the opinion of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds is as\ndespicable as flies, and his actions are mere cupidity; others regard\nhim as being like a wolf, and his speech unbridled (_b\u00e9 afs\u00e1r_), for he\nonly desires a morsel of carrion.\u201d Therefore the _\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed_ is a man of\nunion (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib wu\u1e63\u00fal_), the _Muta\u1e63awwif_ a man of principles, (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib\nu\u1e63\u00fal_), and the _Musta\u1e63wif_ a man of superfluities (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib fu\u1e0d\u00fal_). He\nthat has the portion of union loses all end and object by gaining his\nend and reaching his object; he that has the portion of principle\nbecomes firm in the \u201cstates\u201d of the mystic path, and steadfastly devoted\nto the mysteries thereof; but he that has the portion of superfluity, is\nleft devoid of all (worth having), and sits down at the gate of\nformality (_rasm_), and thereby he is veiled from reality (_ma`n\u00ed_) and\nthis veil renders both union and principle invisible to him. The Shaykhs\nof this persuasion have given many subtle definitions of \u1e62\u00fafiism which\ncannot all be enumerated, but we shall mention some of them in this\nbook, if God will, who is the Author of success.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  Examples of this signification of the form _tafa``ul_ are given in\n  Wright\u2019s Arabic Grammar, vol. i, p. 37, Rem. _b_.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Viz., purity (_\u1e63af\u00e1_) and \u1e62\u00fafiism (_ta\u1e63awwuf_).\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nDhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan, the Egyptian, says: _Al-\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed idh\u00e1 na\u1e6daqa b\u00e1na nu\u1e6dquhu `an\nal-\u1e25aq\u00e1\u00b4iq wa-in sakata na\u1e6daqat `anhu \u00b4l-jaw\u00e1ri\u1e25 bi-qa\u1e6d` al-`al\u00e1\u00b4iq_,\n\u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is he whose language, when he speaks, is the reality of his\nstate, i.e. he says nothing which he is not, and when he is silent his\nconduct explains his state, and his state proclaims that he has cut all\nworldly ties;\u201d i.e. all that he says is based on a sound principle and\nall that he does is pure detachment from the world (_tajr\u00edd_); when he\nspeaks his speech is entirely the Truth, and when he is silent his\nactions are wholly \u201cpoverty\u201d (_faqr_). Junayd says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf\nna`t^{un} uq\u00edma \u00b4l-`abd f\u00edhi q\u00edla na`t^{un} li-\u00b4l-`abd am li-\u00b4l-\u1e25aqq\nfaq\u00e1la na`t al-\u1e25aqq \u1e25aq\u00edqat^{an} wa-na`t al-`abd rasm^{an}_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is\nan attribute wherein is Man\u2019s subsistence.\u201d They said: \u201cIs it an\nattribute of God or of mankind?\u201d He replied: \u201cIts essence is an\nattribute of God and its formal system is an attribute of mankind;\u201d i.e.\nits essence involves the annihilation of human qualities, which is\nbrought about by the everlastingness of the Divine qualities, and this\nis an attribute of God; whereas its formal system involves on the part\nof Man the continuance of self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_), and this\ncontinuance of self-mortification is an attribute of Man. Or the words\nmay be taken in another sense, namely, that in real Unification\n(_taw\u1e25\u00edd_) there are, correctly speaking, no human attributes at all,\nbecause human attributes are not constant but are only formal (_rasm_),\nhaving no permanence, for God is the agent. Therefore they are really\nthe attributes of God. Thus (to explain what is meant), God commands His\nservants to fast, and when they keep the fast He gives them the name of\n\u201cfaster\u201d (_\u1e63\u00e1\u00b4im_), and _nominally_ this \u201cfasting\u201d (_\u1e63awm_) belongs to\nMan, but _really_ it belongs to God. Accordingly God told His Apostle\nand said: _Al-\u1e63awm l\u00ed wa-ana ajz\u00ed bihi_, \u201cFasting is mine,\u201d because all\nHis acts are His possessions, and when men ascribe things to themselves,\nthe attribution is formal and metaphorical, not real. And Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan\nN\u00far\u00ed says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf tarku kulli \u1e25a\u1e95\u1e95^{in}_ _li-\u00b4l-nafs_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is\nthe renunciation of all selfish pleasures.\u201d This renunciation is of two\nkinds: formal and essential. For example, if one renounces a pleasure,\nand finds pleasure in the renunciation, this is formal renunciation; but\nif the pleasure renounces him, then the pleasure is annihilated, and\nthis case falls under the head of true contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_).\nTherefore renunciation of pleasure is the act of Man, but annihilation\nof pleasure is the act of God. The act of Man is formal and\nmetaphorical, while the act of God is real. This saying (of N\u00far\u00ed)\nelucidates the saying of Junayd which has been quoted above. And Abu\n\u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed also says: _Al-\u1e62\u00fafiyyat humu \u00b4lladh\u00edna \u1e63afat arw\u00e1\u1e25uhum\nfa-\u1e63\u00e1r\u00fa fi \u00b4l-\u1e63aff al-awwal bayna yadayi \u00b4l-\u1e25aqq_, \u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are they\nwhose spirits have been freed from the pollution of humanity, purified\nfrom carnal taint, and released from concupiscence, so that they have\nfound rest with God in the first rank and the highest degree, and have\nfled from all save Him.\u201d And he also says: _Al-\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed alladh\u00ed l\u00e1 yamlik\nwa-l\u00e1 yumlak_, \u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is he that has nothing in his possession nor is\nhimself possessed by anything.\u201d This denotes the essence of annihilation\n(_fan\u00e1_), since one whose qualities are annihilated neither possesses\nnor is possessed, inasmuch as the term \u201cpossession\u201d can properly be\napplied only to existent things. The meaning is, that the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed does not\nmake his own any good of this world or any glory of the next world, for\nhe is not even in the possession and control of himself: he refrains\nfrom desiring authority over others, in order that others may not desire\nsubmission from him. This saying refers to a mystery of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u2019s which\nthey call \u201ccomplete annihilation\u201d (_fan\u00e1-yi kull\u00ed_). If God will, we\nshall mention in this work, for your information, the points wherein\nthey have fallen into error.\n\nIbn al-Jall\u00e1[38] says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf \u1e25aq\u00edqat^{un} l\u00e1 rasm lahu_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism\nis an essence without form,\u201d because the form belongs to mankind in\nrespect to their conduct (_mu`\u00e1mal\u00e1t_), while the essence thereof is\npeculiar to God. Since \u1e62\u00fafiism consists in turning away from mankind, it\nis necessarily without form. And Ab\u00fa `Amr Dimashq\u00ed says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf\nru\u00b4yat al-kawn bi-`ayn al-naq\u1e63, bal gha\u1e0d\u1e0d al-\u1e6darf `an al-kawn_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism\nis: to see the imperfection of the phenomenal world (and this shows that\nhuman attributes are still existent), nay, to shut the eye to the\nphenomenal world\u201d (and this shows that human attributes are annihilated;\nbecause the objects of sight are phenomena, and when phenomena\ndisappear, sight also disappears). Shutting the eye to the phenomenal\nworld leaves the spiritual vision subsistent, i.e. whoever becomes blind\nto self sees by means of God, because the seeker of phenomena is also a\nself-seeker, and his action proceeds from and through himself, and he\ncannot find any way of escaping from himself. Accordingly one sees\nhimself to be imperfect, and one shuts his eye to self and does not see;\nand although the seer sees his imperfection, nevertheless his eye is a\nveil, and he is veiled by his sight, but he who does not see is not\nveiled by his blindness. This is a well-established principle in the\nPath of aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism and mystics (_arb\u00e1b-i ma`\u00e1n\u00ed_), but to\nexplain it here would be unsuitable. And Ab\u00fa Bakr Shibl\u00ed says:\n_Al-ta\u1e63awwuf shirk^{un} li\u00b4annahu \u1e63iy\u00e1nat al-qalb `an ru\u00b4yat al-ghayr\nwa-l\u00e1 ghayr_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is polytheism, because it is the guarding of the\nheart from the vision of \u2018other\u2019, and \u2018other\u2019 does not exist.\u201d That is\nto say, vision of other (than God) in affirming the Unity of God is\npolytheism, and when \u201cother\u201d has no value in the heart, it is absurd to\nguard the heart from remembrance of \u201cother\u201d. And \u1e24usr\u00ed says:\n_Al-ta\u1e63awwuf \u1e63af\u00e1 al-sirr min kud\u00farat al-mukh\u00e1lafat_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is the\nheart\u2019s being pure from the pollution of discord.\u201d The meaning thereof\nis that he should protect the heart from discord with God, because love\nis concord, and concord is the opposite of discord, and the lover has\nbut one duty in the world, namely, to keep the commandment of the\nbeloved; and if the object of desire is one, how can discord arise? And\nMu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed b. al-\u1e24usayn b. `Al\u00ed b. Ab\u00ed \u1e6c\u00e1lib\u2014may God be pleased\nwith them all!\u2014says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf khulq^{un} fa-man z\u00e1da `alayka fi\n\u00b4l-khulq z\u00e1da `alayka fi \u00b4l-ta\u1e63awwuf_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is goodness of\ndisposition: he that has the better disposition is the better \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed.\u201d Now\ngoodness of disposition is of two kinds: towards God and towards men.\nThe former is acquiescence in the Divine decrees, the latter is\nendurance of the burden of men\u2019s society for God\u2019s sake. These two\naspects refer to the seeker (_\u1e6d\u00e1lib_). God is independent of the\nseeker\u2019s acquiescence or anger, and these two qualities depend on\nconsideration of His Unity. And Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Murta`ish says: _Al-\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed l\u00e1\nyasbiqu himmatuhu kha\u1e6dwatahu_, \u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is he whose thought keeps pace\nwith his foot,\u201d i.e. he is entirely present: his soul is where his body\nis, and his body where his soul is, and his soul where his foot is, and\nhis foot where his soul is. This is the sign of presence without\nabsence. Others say, on the contrary: \u201cHe is absent from himself and\npresent with God.\u201d It is not so: he is present with himself and present\nwith God. The expression denotes perfect union (_jam` al-jam`_), because\nthere can be no absence from self so long as one regards one\u2019s self;\nwhen self-regard has ceased, there is presence (with God) without\nabsence. In this particular sense the saying closely resembles that of\nShibl\u00ed: _Al-\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed l\u00e1 yar\u00e1 fi \u00b4l-d\u00e1rayn ma`a \u00b4ll\u00e1h ghayra \u00b4ll\u00e1h_, \u201cThe\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is he that sees nothing except God in the two worlds.\u201d In short,\nhuman existence is \u201cother\u201d, and when a man does not see \u201cother\u201d he does\nnot see himself; and becomes totally void of self, whether \u201cself\u201d is\naffirmed or denied. And Junayd says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf mabniyy^{un} `al\u00e1\ntham\u00e1n khi\u1e63\u00e1l al-sakh\u00e1 wa \u00b4l-ri\u1e0d\u00e1 wa \u00b4l-\u1e63abr wa \u00b4l-ish\u00e1rat wa \u00b4l-ghurbat\nwa-labs al-\u1e63\u00faf wa \u00b4l-siy\u00e1\u1e25at wa \u00b4l-faqr amma \u00b4l-sakh\u00e1 fa-li-Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm\nwa-amma \u00b4l-ri\u1e0d\u00e1 fa-li-Ism\u00e1`\u00edl wa-amma \u00b4l-\u1e63abr fa-li-Ayy\u00fab wa-amma\n\u00b4l-ish\u00e1rat fa-li-Zakariyy\u00e1 wa-amma \u00b4l-ghurbat fa-li-Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 wa-amma labs\nal-\u1e63\u00faf fa-li-M\u00fas\u00e1 wa-amma \u00b4l-siy\u00e1\u1e25at fa-li-`\u00cds\u00e1 wa-amma \u00b4l-faqr\nfa-li-Mu\u1e25ammad \u1e63alla \u00b4ll\u00e1hu `alayhi wa-sallama wa-`alayhim ajma`\u00edn_,\n\u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is founded on eight qualities exemplified in eight Apostles:\nthe generosity of Abraham, who sacrificed his son; the acquiescence of\nIshmael, who submitted to the command of God and gave up his dear life;\nthe patience of Job, who patiently endured the affliction of worms and\nthe jealousy of the Merciful; the symbolism of Zacharias, to whom God\nsaid, \u2018_Thou shalt not speak unto men for three days save by signs_\u2019\n(Kor. iii, 36), and again to the same effect, \u2018_When he called upon his\nLord with a secret invocation_\u2019 (Kor. xix, 2); the strangerhood of John,\nwho was a stranger in his own country and an alien to his own kin\namongst whom he lived; the pilgrimhood of Jesus, who was so detached\ntherein from worldly things that he kept only a cup and a comb\u2014the cup\nhe threw away when he saw a man drinking water in the palms of his\nhands, and the comb likewise when he saw another man using his fingers\ninstead of a toothpick; the wearing of wool by Moses, whose garment was\nwoollen; and the poverty of Mu\u1e25ammad, to whom God Almighty sent the key\nof all the treasures that are upon the face of the earth, saying: \u2018Lay\nno trouble on thyself, but procure every luxury by means of these\ntreasures;\u2019 and he answered: \u2018O Lord, I desire them not; keep me one day\nfull-fed and one day hungry.\u2019\u201d These are very excellent principles of\nconduct.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  So J. The Lahore edition has Ibn al-Jal\u00e1l\u00ed, I. Ibn al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed. See\n  Chapter X, No. 34.\n\nAnd \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed says: _Al-\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed la y\u00fajadu ba`da `adamihi wa-l\u00e1 yu`damu ba`da\nwuj\u00fadihi_, \u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is he whose existence is without non-existence and\nhis non-existence without existence,\u201d i.e. he never loses that which he\nfinds, and he never finds that which he loses. Another meaning is this,\nthat his finding (_y\u00e1ft_) has no not-finding (_n\u00e1-y\u00e1ft_), and his\nnot-finding has no finding at any time, so that there is either an\naffirmation without negation or a negation without affirmation. The\nobject of all these expressions is that the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u2019s state of mortality\nshould entirely lapse, and that his bodily feelings (_shaw\u00e1hid_) should\ndisappear and his connexion with everything be cut off, in order that\nthe mystery of his mortality may be revealed and his various parts\nunited in his essential self, and that he may subsist through and in\nhimself. The effect of this can be shown in two Apostles: firstly,\nMoses, in whose existence there was no non-existence, so that he said:\n\u201c_O Lord, enlarge my breast and make my affair easy unto me_\u201d (Kor. xx,\n26, 27); secondly, the Apostle (Mu\u1e25ammad), in whose non-existence there\nwas no existence, so that God said: \u201c_Did not We enlarge thy breast?_\u201d\n(Kor. xciv, 1). The one asked for adornment and sought honour, but the\nother was adorned, since he had no request to make for himself.\n\nAnd `Al\u00ed b. Bund\u00e1r al-\u1e62ayraf\u00ed of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf isq\u00e1\u1e6d\nal-ru\u00b4yat li-\u00b4l-\u1e25aqq \u1e95\u00e1hir^{an} wa-b\u00e1\u1e6din^{an}_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is this, that\nthe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed should not regard his own exterior and interior, but should\nregard all as belonging to God.\u201d Thus, if you look at the exterior, you\nwill find an outward sign of God\u2019s blessing, and, as you look, outward\nactions will not have the weight even of a gnat\u2019s wing beside the\nblessing of God, and you will cease from regarding the exterior; and\nagain, if you look at the interior, you will find an inward sign of\nGod\u2019s aid, and, as you look, inward actions will not turn the scale by a\nsingle grain in comparison with the aid of God, and you will cease from\nregarding the interior, and will see that all belongs to God; and when\nyou see that all is God\u2019s, you will see that you yourself have nothing.\n\nMu\u1e25ammad b. A\u1e25mad al-Muqr\u00ed[39] says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf istiq\u00e1mat al-a\u1e25w\u00e1l\nma`a \u00b4l-\u1e25aqq_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is the maintenance of right states with God,\u201d\ni.e. \u201cstates\u201d do not seduce the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed from his (right) state, nor cast\nhim into wrong, since he whose heart is devoted to the Author of states\n(_mu\u1e25awwil-i a\u1e25w\u00e1l_) is not cast down from the rank of rectitude nor\nhindered from attaining to the Truth.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Died in 366 A.H. See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 332.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\n_Maxims of Conduct_ (_mu`\u00e1mal\u00e1t_).\n\nAb\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 \u1e24add\u00e1d of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf kulluhu \u00e1d\u00e1b^{un}\nli-kulli waqt^{in} adab^{un} wa-li-kulli maq\u00e1m^{in} adab^{un}\nwa-li-kulli \u1e25\u00e1l^{in} adab^{un} fa-man lazima \u00e1d\u00e1b al-awq\u00e1t balagha\nmablagh_ _al-rij\u00e1l fa-man \u1e0dayya`a \u00b4l-\u00e1d\u00e1b fa-huwa ba`\u00edd^{un} min \u1e25aythu\nya\u1e95unnu \u00b4l-qurb wa-mard\u00fad^{un} min \u1e25aythu ya\u1e95unnu \u00b4l-qab\u00fal_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism\nconsists entirely of behaviour; every time, place, and circumstance have\ntheir own propriety; he that observes the proprieties of each occasion\nattains to the rank of holy men; and he that neglects the proprieties is\nfar removed from the thought of nearness (to God) and is excluded from\nimagining that he is acceptable to God.\u201d The meaning of this is akin to\nthe dictum of Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed: _Laysa \u00b4l-ta\u1e63awwuf rus\u00fam^{an} wa-l\u00e1\n`ul\u00fam^{an} wa-l\u00e1kinnahu akhl\u00e1q^{un}_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is not composed of\npractices and sciences, but it is morals,\u201d i.e. if it consisted of\npractices, it could be acquired by effort, and if it consisted of\nsciences, it could be gained by instruction: hence it is morals, and it\nis not acquired until you demand from yourself the principles of morals,\nand make your actions square with them, and fulfil their just claims.\nThe distinction between practices (_rus\u00fam_) and morals (_akhl\u00e1q_) is\nthis, that practices are ceremonial actions proceeding from certain\nmotives, actions devoid of reality, so that their form is at variance\nwith their spirit, whereas morals are praiseworthy actions without\nceremony or motive, actions devoid of pretension, so that their form is\nin harmony with their spirit.\n\nMurta`ish says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf \u1e25usn al-khulq_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is good nature.\u201d\nThis is of three sorts: firstly, towards God, by fulfilling His\nCommandments without hypocrisy; secondly, towards men, by paying respect\nto one\u2019s superiors and behaving with kindness to one\u2019s inferiors and\nwith justice to one\u2019s equals, and by not seeking recompense and justice\nfrom men in general; and thirdly, towards one\u2019s self, by not following\nthe flesh and the devil. Whoever makes himself right in these three\nmatters is a good-natured man. This which I have mentioned agrees with a\nstory told of `\u00c1\u00b4isha the veracious (_\u1e63iddiqa_)\u2014may God be well-pleased\nwith her! She was asked concerning the nature of the Apostle. \u201cRead from\nthe Koran,\u201d she replied, \u201cfor God has given information in the place\nwhere He says: \u2018_Use_ _indulgence and order what is good and turn away\nfrom the ignorant_\u2019 (Kor. vii, 198).\u201d And Murta`ish also says: _H\u00e1dh\u00e1\nmadhhab^{un} kulluhu jidd^{un} fa-l\u00e1 takhli\u1e6d\u00fahu bi-shay\u00b4^{in} min\nal-hazl_, \u201cThis religion of \u1e62\u00fafiism is wholly earnest, therefore do not\nmix jest with it, and do not take the conduct of formalists\n(_mutarassim\u00e1n_) as a model, and shun those who blindly imitate them.\u201d\nWhen the people see these formalists among the aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism in\nour time, and become aware of their dancing and singing and visiting the\ncourt of sultans and quarrelling for the sake of a pittance or a\nmouthful of food, their belief in the whole body of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds is corrupted,\nand they say: \u201cThese are the principles of \u1e62\u00fafiism, and the tenets of\nthe ancient \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds were just the same.\u201d They do not recognize that this\nis an age of weakness and an epoch of affliction. Consequently, since\ngreed incites the sultan to acts of tyranny, and lust incites the savant\nto commit adultery and fornication, and ostentation incites the ascetic\nto hypocrisy, and vanity incites the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed also to dance and sing\u2014you\nmust know that the evil lies in the men who hold the doctrines, not in\nthe principles on which the doctrines are based; and that if some\nscoffers disguise their folly in the earnestness of true mystics\n(_a\u1e25r\u00e1r_), the earnestness of the latter is not thereby turned to folly.\nAnd Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Qarm\u00edni[40] says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf huwa \u00b4l-akhl\u00e1q al-ra\u1e0diyyat_,\n\u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is good morals.\u201d Approved actions are such that the creature in\nall circumstances approves of God, and is content and satisfied. Abu \u00b4l\n\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed says: _Al-ta\u1e63awwuf huwa \u00b4l-\u1e25urriyyat wa-\u00b4l-futuwwat wa-tark\nal-takl\u00edf wa-\u00b4l-sakh\u00e1 wa-badhl al-duny\u00e1_, \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is liberty, so that a\nman is freed from the bonds of desire; and generosity,\u201d i.e. he is\npurged from the conceit of generosity; \u201cand abandonment of useless\ntrouble,\u201d i.e. he does not strive after appurtenances and rewards; \u201cand\nmunificence,\u201d i.e. he leaves this world to the people of this world.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  IJ. Qazw\u00edn\u00ed. B. Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Kirm\u00e1nsh\u00e1h\u00ed Quraysh\u00ed. The Shaykh in question\n  is probably Mu\u1e95affar Kirm\u00e1nsh\u00e1h\u00ed Qarm\u00edn\u00ed (_Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 270).\n\nAnd Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan F\u00fashanja[41]\u2014may God have mercy on him!\u2014says:\n_Al-ta\u1e63awwuf al-yawma \u00b4sm^{un} wa-l\u00e1 \u1e25aq\u00edqat^{un} wa-qad k\u00e1na\n\u1e25aq\u00edqat^{an} wa-la \u00b4sm^{an}_, \u201cTo-day \u1e62\u00fafiism is a name without a\nreality, but formerly it was a reality without a name,\u201d i.e. in the time\nof the Companions and the Ancients\u2014may God have mercy on them!\u2014this name\ndid not exist, but the reality thereof was in everyone; now the name\nexists, but not the reality. That is to say, formerly the practice was\nknown and the pretence unknown, but nowadays the pretence is known and\nthe practice unknown.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Generally written \u201cF\u00fashanj\u00ed\u201d. See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 279.\n\nI have brought together and examined in this chapter on \u1e62\u00fafiism a number\nof the sayings of the Shaykhs, in order that this Path may become clear\nto you\u2014God grant you felicity!\u2014and that you may say to the sceptics:\n\u201cWhat do you mean by denying the truth of \u1e62\u00fafiism?\u201d If they deny only\nthe name it is no matter, since ideas are unrelated to things which bear\nnames; and if they deny the essential ideas, this amounts to a denial of\nthe whole Sacred Law of the Apostle and his praised qualities. And I\nenjoin you in this book\u2014God grant you the felicity with which He has\nblessed His Saints!\u2014to hold these ideas in due regard and satisfy their\njust claims, so that you may refrain from idle pretensions and have an\nexcellent belief in the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds themselves. It is God that gives success.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n            ON THE WEARING OF PATCHED FROCKS (_Muraqqa`\u00e1t_).\n\n\nKnow that the wearing of a _muraqqa`a_ (patched frock) is the badge of\naspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism. The wearing of these garments is a _Sunna_ (custom\nof the Prophet), for the Apostle said: _`Alaykum bi-labs al-\u1e63\u00faf tajid\u00fana\n\u1e25al\u00e1wat al-\u00edm\u00e1n f\u00ed qul\u00fabikum._ And, further, one of the Companions says:\n_K\u00e1na \u00b4l-nab\u00ed salla \u00b4ll\u00e1h `alayhi wa-sallama yalbasu \u00b4l-\u1e63\u00faf wa-yarkabu\n\u00b4l-\u1e25im\u00e1r._ And, moreover, the Apostle said to `\u00c1\u00b4isha: _L\u00e1 tu\u1e0dayyi`i\n\u00b4l-thawb \u1e25att\u00e1 turaqqi`\u00edhi._ He said: \u201cSee that ye wear woollen raiment,\nthat ye may feel the sweetness of faith.\u201d And it is related that the\nApostle wore a garment of wool and rode on an ass, and that he said to\n`\u00c1\u00b4isha: \u201cO `\u00c1\u00b4isha, do not let the garment be destroyed, but patch it.\u201d\n`Umar, the son of Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b, wore, it is said, a _muraqqa`a_ with thirty\npatches inserted on it. Of `Umar, too, we are told that he said: \u201cThe\nbest garment is that which gives the least trouble\u201d (_ki ma\u00b4\u00fanat-i \u00e1n\nsabuktar buvad_). It is related of the Commander of the Faithful, `Al\u00ed,\nthat he had a shirt of which the sleeves were level with his fingers,\nand if at any time he wore a longer shirt he used to tear off the ends\nof its sleeves. The Apostle also was commanded by God to shorten his\ngarments, for God said: \u201c_And purify thy garments_\u201d (Kor. lxxiv, 4),\ni.e. shorten them. And \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra says: \u201cI saw seventy comrades who\nfought at Badr: all of them had woollen garments; and the greatest\n_\u1e62idd\u00edq_ (Ab\u00fa Bakr) wore a garment of wool in his detachment from the\nworld\u201d (_tajr\u00edd_). \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra says further: \u201cI saw Salm\u00e1n\n(al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed) wearing a woollen frock (_gil\u00edm_) with patches.\u201d The\nCommander of the Faithful, `Umar b. al-Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b, and the Commander of the\nFaithful, `Al\u00ed, and Harim b. \u1e24ayy\u00e1n relate that they saw Uways Qaran\u00ed\nwith a woollen garment on which patches were inserted. \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra\nand M\u00e1lik D\u00edn\u00e1r and Sufy\u00e1n Thawr\u00ed were owners of woollen patched frocks.\nAnd it is related of the Im\u00e1m Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa of K\u00fafa\u2014this is written in the\nHistory of the Shaykhs composed by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed \u1e24ak\u00edm Tirmidh\u00ed\u2014that\nhe at first clothed himself in wool and was on the point of retiring\nfrom the world, when he saw in a dream the Apostle, who said: \u201cIt\nbehoves thee to live amidst the people, because thou art the means\nwhereby my _Sunna_ will be revived.\u201d Then Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa refrained from\nsolitude, but he never put on a garment of any value. And D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed,\nwho was one of the veritable adepts among the aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism\n(_yak\u00ed az mu\u1e25aqqiq\u00e1n-i muta\u1e63awwifa_), enjoined the wearing of wool. And\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm the son of Adham came to visit the most venerable Im\u00e1m Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24an\u00edfa, clad in a garment of wool. The latter\u2019s disciples looked at him\nwith contempt and disparagement, until Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa said: \u201cOur lord\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham has come.\u201d The disciples said: \u201cThe Im\u00e1m utters no\njests: how has he gained this lordship?\u201d Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa replied: \u201cBy\ncontinual devotion. He has been occupied in serving God while we have\nbeen engaged in serving our own bodies. Thus he has become our lord.\u201d\n\nIt may well be the case that at the present day some persons wear\npatched frocks and religious habits (_muraqqa`\u00e1t \u00fa khiraq_) for the sake\nof public honour and reputation, and that their hearts belie their\nexternal garb; for there may be but one champion in a host, and in every\nsect the genuine adepts are few. People, however, reckon as \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds all\nwho resemble the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds even in a single rule. The Apostle said: _Man\ntashabbaha bi-qawm^{in} fa-huwa minhum_, \u201cHe that makes himself akin to\na party either in conduct or in belief, is one of that party.\u201d But while\nsome regard only the outward forms of their practice, others direct\nattention to their spirit of inward purity.\n\nThose who wish to associate with aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism fall into four\nclasses: (1) He whose purity, enlightenment, subtlety, even balance of\ntemperament, and soundness of character give him insight into the hearts\nof the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, so that he perceives the nearness of their spiritual\nadepts to God and the loftiness of their eminent men. He joins himself\nto them in hope of attaining to the same degree, and the beginning of\nhis novitiate is marked by revelation of \u201cstates\u201d (_kashf-i a\u1e25w\u00e1l_), and\npurgation from desire, and renunciation of self. (2) He whose health of\nbody and continence of heart and quiet peace of mind enable him to see\ntheir outward practice, so that he fixes his gaze on their observance of\nthe holy law and of the different sorts of discipline, and on the\nexcellence of their conduct: consequently he seeks to associate with\nthem and give himself up to the practice of piety, and the beginning of\nhis novitiate is marked by self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_) and good\nconduct. (3) He whose humanity and custom of social intercourse and\ngoodness of disposition cause him to consider their actions and to see\nthe virtue of their outward life: how they treat their superiors with\nrespect and their inferiors with generosity and their equals as\ncomrades, and how untroubled they are by thoughts of worldly gain and\ncontented with what they have; he seeks their society, and renders easy\nto himself the hard path of worldly ambition, and makes himself at\nleisure one of the good. (4) He whose stupidity and feebleness of\nsoul\u2014his love of power without merit and of distinction without\nknowledge\u2014lead him to suppose that the outward actions of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are\neverything. When he enters their company they treat him kindly and\nindulgently, although they are convinced that he is entirely ignorant of\nGod and that he has never striven to advance upon the mystic path.\nTherefore he is honoured by the people as if he were a real adept and is\nvenerated as if he were one of God\u2019s saints, but his object is only to\nassume their dress and hide his deformity under their piety. He is like\nan ass laden with books (Kor. lxxii, 5). In this age the majority are\nimpostors such as have been described. Accordingly, it behoves you not\nto seem to be anything except what you really are. It is inward glow\n(_\u1e25urqat_) that makes the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed, not the religious habit (_khirqat_). To\nthe true mystic there is no difference between the mantle (_`ab\u00e1_) worn\nby dervishes, and the coat (_qab\u00e1_) worn by ordinary people. An eminent\nShaykh was asked why he did not wear a patched frock (_muraqqa`a_). He\nreplied: \u201cIt is hypocrisy to wear the garb of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and not to bear\nthe burdens which \u1e62\u00fafiism entails.\u201d If, by wearing this garb, you wish\nto make known to God that you are one of the elect, God knows that\nalready; and if you wish to show to the people that you belong to God,\nshould your claim be true, you are guilty of ostentation; and should it\nbe false, of hypocrisy. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are too great to need a special\ngarment for this purpose. Purity (_\u1e63af\u00e1_) is a gift from God, whereas\nwool (_\u1e63\u00faf_) is the clothing of animals. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs enjoined their\ndisciples to wear patched frocks, and did the same themselves, in order\nthat they might be marked men, and that all the people might keep watch\nover them: thus if they committed a transgression, every tongue would\nrebuke them, and if they wished to sin while clad in this garment, they\nwould be held back by shame. In short, the _muraqqa`a_ is the garb of\nGod\u2019s saints. The vulgar use it merely as a means of gaining worldly\nreputation and fortune, but the elect prefer contumely to honour, and\naffliction to prosperity. Hence it is said \u201cthe _muraqqa`a_ is a garb of\nhappiness for the vulgar, but a mail-coat (_jawshan_) of affliction for\nthe elect.\u201d You must seek what is spiritual, and shun what is external.\nThe Divine is veiled by the human, and that veil is annihilated only by\npassing through the \u201cstates\u201d and \u201cstages\u201d of the mystic Way. Purity\n(_\u1e63af\u00e1_) is the name given to such annihilation. How can he who has\ngained it choose one garment rather than another, or take pains to adorn\nhimself at all? How should he care whether people call him a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed or by\nsome other name?\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\n_Muraqqa`as_ should be made with a view to ease and lightness, and when\nthe original cloth is torn a patch should be inserted. There are two\nopinions of the Shaykhs as to this matter. Some hold that it is improper\nto sew the patch on neatly and accurately, and that the needle should be\ndrawn through the cloth at random,[42] and that no trouble should be\ntaken. Others again hold that the stitches should be straight and\nregular, and that it is part of the practice of the dervishes to keep\nthe stitches straight and to take pains therein; for sound practice\nindicates sound principles.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Literally, \u201cin whatever place it raises its head.\u201d\n\nNow I, who am `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, asked the Grand Shaykh, Abu\n\u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed at \u1e6c\u00fas, saying: \u201cWhat is the least thing necessary for\na dervish in order that he may become worthy of poverty?\u201d He replied: \u201cA\ndervish must not have less than three things: first, he must know how to\nsew on a patch rightly; second, he must know how to listen rightly;\nthird, he must know how to set his foot on the ground rightly.\u201d A number\nof dervishes were present with me when he said this. As soon as we came\nto the door each one began to apply this saying to his own case, and\nsome ignorant fellows fastened on it with avidity. \u201cThis,\u201d they cried,\n\u201cis poverty indeed,\u201d and most of them were hastening to sew patches on\nnicely and to set their feet on the ground correctly; and everyone of\nthem imagined that he knew how to listen to sayings on \u1e62\u00fafiism.\nWherefore, since my heart was devoted to that Sayyid, and I was\nunwilling that his words should fall to the ground, I said: \u201cCome, let\neach of us say something upon this subject.\u201d So everyone stated his\nviews, and when my turn came I said: \u201cA right patch is one that is\nstitched for poverty, not for show; if it is stitched for poverty, it is\nright, even though it be stitched wrong. And a right word is one that is\nheard esoterically (_ba-\u1e25\u00e1l_), not wilfully (_ba-munyat_), and is\napplied earnestly, not frivolously, and is apprehended by life, not by\nreason. And a right foot is one that is put on the ground with true\nrapture, not playfully and formally.\u201d Some of my remarks were reported\nto the Sayyid (Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed), who said: \u201c`Al\u00ed has spoken\nwell\u2014God reward him!\u201d The aim of this sect in wearing patched frocks is\nto alleviate the burden of this world and to be sincere in poverty\ntowards God. It is related in the genuine Traditions that Jesus, son of\nMary\u2014God bless him!\u2014was wearing a _muraqqa`a_ when he was taken up to\nheaven. A certain Shaykh said: \u201cI dreamed that I saw him clad in a\nwoollen patched frock, and light was shining from every patch. I said:\n\u2018O Messiah, what are these lights on thy garment?\u2019 He answered: \u2018The\nlights of necessary grace; for I sewed on each of those patches through\nnecessity, and God Almighty hath turned into a light every tribulation\nwhich He inflicted on my heart.\u2019\u201d\n\nI saw in Transoxania an old man who belonged to the sect of Mal\u00e1mat\u00eds.\nHe neither ate nor wore anything in which human beings had a hand. His\nfood consisted of things thrown away by men, such as putrid vegetables,\nsour gourds, rotten carrots, and the like. His clothes were made of rags\nwhich he had picked up from the road and washed: of these he had made a\n_muraqqa`a_. And I have heard that among the mystics of recent times\nthere was an old man of flourishing condition (_qaw\u00ed \u1e25\u00e1l_) and of\nexcellent character, living at Marv al-R\u00fad, who had sewn so many\npatches, without taking pains, on his prayer-rug and cap, that scorpions\nbrought forth their young in them. And my Shaykh\u2014may God be well pleased\nwith him!\u2014wore for fifty-one years a single cloak (_jubba_), on which he\nused to sew pieces of cloth without taking any pains. I have found the\nfollowing tale among the anecdotes of the (holy) men of `Ir\u00e1q. There\nwere two dervishes, one a votary of the contemplative life (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib\nmush\u00e1hadat_), and the other a votary of the purgative life (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib\nmuj\u00e1hadat_). The former never clothed himself except in the pieces of\ncloth which were torn off by dervishes in a state of ecstasy (_sam\u00e1`_)\nfrom their own garments, while the other used for the same purpose only\nthe pieces torn off by dervishes who were asking forgiveness: thus the\noutward garb of each was in harmony with his inward disposition. This is\nobservance of the \u201cstate\u201d (_p\u00e1s d\u00e1shtan-i \u1e25\u00e1l_). Shaykh Mu\u1e25ammad b.\nKhaf\u00edf wore a coarse woollen frock (_pal\u00e1s_) for twenty years, and every\nyear he used to undergo four fasts of forty days\u2019 duration (_chilla_),\nand every forty days he would compose a work on the mysteries of the\nSciences of the Divine Verities. In his time there was an old man,[43]\none of the adepts learned in the Way (_\u1e6car\u00edqat_) and the Truth\n(_\u1e24aq\u00edqat_), who resided at Parg[44] in F\u00e1rs and was called Mu\u1e25ammad b.\nZakariyy\u00e1.[45] He had never worn a _muraqqa`a_. Now Shaykh Mu\u1e25ammad b.\nKhaf\u00edf was asked: \u201cWhat is involved in wearing a _muraqqa`a_, and who is\npermitted to do so?\u201d He replied: \u201cIt involves those obligations which\nare fulfilled by Mu\u1e25ammad b. Zakariyy\u00e1 in his white shirt, and the\nwearing of such a frock is permitted to him.\u201d\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  This story is related in _`A\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1r\u2019s Tadhkirat al-Awliy\u00e1_ (pt. ii, p.\n  125, l. 17 sqq.), where it is expressly said that the old man was\n  _not_ \u201clearned in the Way\u201d.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  I. in margin has Park. The _Nuzhat al-Quh\u00fab_ gives the name as \u0628\u0631\u06a9\n  (Bark), and refers it to a village in the district of Kirm\u00e1n.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  B., I., and J. have Dhakariyy\u00e1 (Zakariyya), L. \u0630\u0643\u0631\u0649. The MSS. of the\n  _Tadhkirat al-Awliy\u00e1_ vary between Dhak\u00edr\u00ed and \u0630\u0643\u0631\u0649.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nIt is not the way of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds to abandon their customs. If they seldom\nwear garments of wool at the present day, there are two reasons for this\nfact: (1) that wools have deteriorated (_pashmh\u00e1 sh\u00far\u00edda shuda ast_) and\nthe animals (which produce wool) have been carried off from one place to\nanother by raiders; and (2) that a sect of heretics has adopted the\nwoollen garment as a badge (_shi`\u00e1r_). And it is praiseworthy to depart\nfrom the badge of heretics, even although one departs at the same time\nfrom a traditional practice (_sunna_).\n\nTo take pains (_takalluf_) in sewing _muraqqa`as_ is considered\nallowable by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds because they have gained a high reputation among\nthe people; and since many imitate them and wear _muraqqa`as_, and are\nguilty of improper acts, and since the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds dislike the society of\nothers than themselves\u2014for these reasons they have invented a garb which\nnone but themselves can sew, and have made it a mark of mutual\nacquaintance and a badge. So much so that when a certain dervish came to\none of the Shaykhs wearing a garment on which the patch had been sewn\nwith too wide stitches (_kha\u1e6d\u1e6d ba-pahn\u00e1 \u00e1warda b\u00fad_) the Shaykh banished\nhim from his presence. The argument is that purity (_\u1e63af\u00e1_) is founded\non delicacy of nature and fineness of temperament, and undoubtedly\ncrookedness in one\u2019s nature is not good. It is natural to disapprove of\nincorrect actions, just as it is natural to derive no pleasure from\nincorrect poetry.\n\nOthers, again, do not trouble themselves about clothes at all. They wear\neither a religious habit (_`ab\u00e1_) or an ordinary coat (_qab\u00e1_),\nwhichever God may have given them; and if He keeps them naked, they\nremain in that state. I, who am `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, approve of\nthis doctrine, and I have practised it in my journeys. It is related\nthat A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya wore a coat when he visited Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, and that\nSh\u00e1h b. Shuj\u00e1` wore a coat when he visited Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63. This was not their\nusual dress, for sometimes they wore a _muraqqa`a_ and sometimes a\nwoollen garment or a white shirt, as it might happen. The human soul is\nhabituated to things, and fond of custom, and when anything has become\nhabitual to the soul it soon grows natural, and when it has grown\nnatural it becomes a veil. Hence the Apostle said: _Khayr al-\u1e63iy\u00e1m \u1e63awm\nakh\u00ed D\u00e1wud `alayhi \u00b4l-sal\u00e1m_, \u201cThe best of fasts is that of my brother\nDavid.\u201d They said: \u201cO Apostle of God, what kind of fast is that?\u201d He\nreplied: \u201cDavid used to keep his fast one day and break it on the next\nday,\u201d in order that his soul should not become accustomed either to\nkeeping the fast or to breaking it, for fear that he might be veiled\nthereby. And, as regards this matter, Ab\u00fa \u1e24\u00e1mid D\u00fast\u00e1n[46] of Merv was\nthe most sound. His disciples used to put a garment on him, but those\nwho wanted it used to seek him out when he was at leisure and alone, and\ndivest him of it; and he would never say to the person who put it on\nhim: \u201cWhy do you put it on?\u201d nor to the person who took it off: \u201cWhy do\nyou take it off?\u201d Moreover, at the present day there is at Ghazna\u2014may\nGod protect it!\u2014an old man with the sobriquet Mu\u00b4ayyad, who has no\nchoice or discrimination with respect to his clothes; and he is sound in\nthat degree.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 350.\n\nNow, as to their garments being mostly blue (_kab\u00fad_), one of the\nreasons is that they have made wandering (_siy\u00e1\u1e25at_) and travelling the\nfoundation of their Path; and on journeys a white garment does not\nretain its original appearance, and is not easily washed, and besides,\neveryone covets it. Another cause is this, that a blue dress is the\nbadge of the bereaved and afflicted, and the apparel of mourners; and\nthis world is the abode of trouble, the pavilion of affliction, the den\nof sorrow, the house of parting, the cradle of tribulation: the (\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed)\ndisciples, seeing that their heart\u2019s desire is not to be gained in this\nworld, have clad themselves in blue and have sat down to mourn union\n(with God). Others behold in the practice (of devotion) only\nimperfection, in the heart only evil, in life only loss of time:\ntherefore they wear blue; for loss (_fawt_) is worse than death\n(_mawt_). One wears blue for the death of a dear friend, another for the\nloss of a cherished hope.\n\nA dervish was asked why he wore blue. He replied: \u201cThe Apostle left\nthree things: poverty, knowledge, and the sword. The sword was taken by\npotentates, who misused it; knowledge was chosen by savants, who were\nsatisfied with merely teaching it; poverty was chosen by dervishes, who\nmade it a means of enriching themselves. I wear blue as a sign of\nmourning for the calamity of these three classes of men.\u201d Once Murta`ish\nwas walking in one of the quarters of Baghd\u00e1d. Being thirsty, he went to\na door and asked for a drink of water. The daughter of the householder\nbrought him some water in a jug. Murta`ish was smitten with her beauty\nand would not leave the spot until the master of the house came to him.\n\u201cO sir,\u201d cried Murta`ish, \u201cshe gave me a drink of water and robbed me of\nmy heart.\u201d The householder replied: \u201cShe is my daughter, and I give her\nto you in marriage.\u201d So Murta`ish went into the house, and the wedding\nwas immediately solemnized. The bride\u2019s father, who was a wealthy man,\nsent Murta`ish to the bath, where they took off his patched frock\n(_muraqqa`a_) and clothed him in a night-dress. At nightfall he rose to\nsay his prayers and engage in solitary devotion. Suddenly he called out,\n\u201cBring my patched frock.\u201d They asked, \u201cWhat ails you?\u201d He answered, \u201cI\nheard a voice within, whispering: \u2018On account of one disobedient look We\nhave removed thy _muraqqa`a_, the garb of piety, from thy body: if thou\nlookest again We shall remove the raiment of intimacy from thy heart.\u2019\u201d\nOnly two kinds of men are fitted to wear the _muraqqa`a_: (1) those who\nare cut off from the world, and (2) those who feel a longing for the\nLord (_musht\u00e1q\u00e1n-i mawl\u00e1_).\n\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs observe the following rule. When a novice joins them,\nwith the purpose of renouncing the world, they subject him to spiritual\ndiscipline for the space of three years. If he fulfil the requirements\nof this discipline, well and good; otherwise, they declare that he\ncannot be admitted to the Path (_\u1e6car\u00edqat_). The first year is devoted to\nservice of the people, the second year to service of God, and the third\nyear to watching over his own heart. He can serve the people only when\nhe places himself in the rank of servants and all other people in the\nrank of masters, i.e. he must regard all, without any discrimination, as\nbeing better than himself, and must consider it his duty to serve all\nalike; not in such a way as to deem himself superior to those whom he\nserves, for this is manifest perdition and evident fraud, and is one of\nthe infectious cankers of the age (_az \u00e1f\u00e1t-i zam\u00e1na andar zam\u00e1na yak\u00ed\n\u00ednast_). And he can serve God Almighty only when he cuts off all his\nselfish interests relating either to this world or to the next, and\nworships God absolutely for His sake alone, inasmuch as whoever worships\nGod for any thing\u2019s sake worships himself and not God. And he can watch\nover his heart only when his thoughts are collected and cares are\ndismissed from his heart, so that in the presence of intimacy (with God)\nhe preserves his heart from the assaults of heedlessness. When these\nthree qualifications are possessed by the novice, he may wear the\n_muraqqa`a_ as a true mystic, not merely as an imitator of others.\n\nNow as to the person who invests the novice with the _muraqqa`a_, he\nmust be a man of rectitude (_mustaq\u00edm al-\u1e25\u00e1l_) who has traversed all the\nhills and dales of the Path, and tasted the rapture of \u201cstates\u201d and\nperceived the nature of actions, and experienced the severity of the\nDivine majesty and the clemency of the Divine beauty. Furthermore, he\nmust examine the state of his disciples and judge what point they will\nultimately reach: whether they will retire (_r\u00e1ji`\u00e1n_), or stand still\n(_w\u00e1qif\u00e1n_), or attain (_b\u00e1ligh\u00e1n_). If he knows that some day they will\nabandon this Path, he must forbid them to enter upon it; if they will\ncome to a stand, he must enjoin them to practise devotion; and if they\nwill reach the goal, he must give them spiritual nourishment. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nShaykhs are physicians of men\u2019s souls. When the physician is ignorant of\nthe patient\u2019s malady he kills him by his art, because he does not know\nhow to treat him and does not recognize the symptoms of danger, and\nprescribes food and drink unsuitable to his disease. The Apostle said:\n\u201cThe shaykh in his tribe is like the prophet in his nation.\u201d\nAccordingly, as the prophets showed insight in their call to the people,\nand kept everyone in his due degree, so the Shaykh likewise should show\ninsight in his call, and should give to everyone his proper spiritual\nfood, in order that the object of his call may be secured.\n\nThe adept, then, who has attained the perfection of saintship takes the\nright course when he invests the novice with the _muraqqa`a_ after a\nperiod of three years during which he has educated him in the necessary\ndiscipline. In respect of the qualifications which it demands, the\n_muraqqa`a_ is comparable to a winding-sheet (_kafan_): the wearer must\nresign all his hopes of the pleasures of life, and purge his heart of\nall sensual delights, and devote his life entirely to the service of God\nand completely renounce selfish desires. Then the Director (_P\u00edr_)\nennobles him by clothing him in that robe of honour, while he on his\npart fulfils the obligations which it involves, and strives with all his\nmight to perform them, and deems it unlawful to satisfy his own wishes.\n\nMany allegories (_ish\u00e1r\u00e1t_) have been uttered concerning the\n_muraqqa`a_. Shaykh Ab\u00fa Ma`mar of I\u1e63fah\u00e1n has written a book on the\nsubject, and the generality of aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism display much\nextravagance (_ghuluww_) in this matter. My aim, however, in the present\nwork is not to relate sayings, but to elucidate the difficulties of\n\u1e62\u00fafiism. The best allegory concerning the _muraqqa`a_ is this, that its\ncollar (_qabba_) is patience, its two sleeves fear and hope, its two\ngussets (_tir\u00edz_) contraction and dilation, its belt self-abnegation,\nits hem (_kurs\u00ed_)[47] soundness in faith, its fringe (_far\u00e1w\u00edz_)\nsincerity. Better still is the following: \u201cIts collar is annihilation of\nintercourse (with men), its two sleeves are observance (_\u1e25if\u1e95_) and\ncontinence (_`i\u1e63mat_), its two gussets are poverty and purity, its belt\nis persistence in contemplation, its hem (_kurs\u00ed_) is tranquillity in\n(God\u2019s) presence, and its fringe is settlement in the abode of union.\u201d\nWhen you have made a _muraqqa`a_ like this for your spiritual self it\nbehoves you to make one for your exterior also. I have composed a\nseparate book on this subject, entitled \u201cThe Mysteries of Patched Frocks\nand Means of Livelihood\u201d (_Asr\u00e1r al-khiraq wa-\u00b4l-ma\u00b4\u00fan\u00e1t_), of which the\nnovice should get a copy.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  This conjectural translation of _kurs\u00ed_ was suggested to me by Colonel\n  Ranking. The dictionaries give no explanation of the word as it is\n  used here.\n\nIf the novice, having donned the _muraqqa`a_, should be forced to tear\nit under compulsion of the temporal authority, this is permissible and\nexcusable; but should he tear it of free will and deliberately, then\naccording to the law of the sect he is not allowed to wear a _muraqqa`a_\nin future, and if he do so, he stands on the same footing as those in\nour time who are content to wear _muraqqa`as_ for outward show, with no\nspiritual meaning. As regards the rending of garments the true doctrine\nis this, that when \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds pass from one stage to another they immediately\nchange their dress in thankfulness for having gained a higher stage; but\nwhereas every other garment is the dress of a single stage, the\n_muraqqa`a_ is a dress which comprises all the stages of the Path of\npoverty and purity, and therefore to discard it is equivalent to\nrenouncing the whole Path. I have made a slight allusion to this\nquestion, although this is not the proper place for it, in order to\nsettle the particular point at issue; but, please God, I will give a\ndetailed explanation of the principle in the chapter on rending\n(_kharq_), and in the revelation of the mystery of \u201caudition\u201d (_sam\u00e1`_).\nFurthermore, it has been said that one who invests a novice with the\n_muraqqa`a_ should possess such sovereign mystical powers that any\nstranger on whom he looks kindly should become a friend, and any sinner\nwhom he clothes in this garment should become a saint.\n\nOnce I was travelling with my Shaykh in \u00c1dharb\u00e1yaj\u00e1n, and we saw two or\nthree persons wearing _muraqqa`as_, who were standing beside a\nwheat-barn and holding up their skirts in the hope that the farmer would\nthrow them some wheat. On seeing this the Shaykh exclaimed: \u201c_Those are\nthey who have purchased error at the price of true guidance, but their\ntraffic has not been profitable_\u201d (Kor. ii, 15). I asked him how they\nhad fallen into this calamity and disgrace. He said: \u201cTheir spiritual\ndirectors were greedy to gather disciples, and they themselves are\ngreedy to collect worldly goods.\u201d It is related of Junayd that he saw at\nthe B\u00e1b al-\u1e6c\u00e1q[48] a beautiful Christian youth and said: \u201cO Lord, pardon\nhim for my sake, for Thou hast created him exceeding fair.\u201d After a\nwhile the youth came to Junayd and made profession of Islam and was\nenrolled among the saints. Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Siy\u00e1h was asked: \u201cWho is permitted\nto invest novices with the _muraqqa`a_?\u201d He replied: \u201cThat one who\noversees the whole kingdom of God, so that nothing happens in the world\nwithout his knowledge.\u201d\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  A gate in the eastern quarter of Baghd\u00e1d.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n     ON THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS HELD CONCERNING POVERTY AND PURITY.\n\n\nThe Doctors of the Mystic Path are not agreed as to the respective\nmerits of Poverty (_faqr_) and Purity (_\u1e63afwat_). Some hold that Poverty\nis more perfect than Purity. Poverty, they say, is complete annihilation\nin which every thought ceases to exist, and Purity is one of the\n\u201cstations\u201d (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) of Poverty: when annihilation is gained, all\n\u201cstations\u201d vanish into nothing. This is ultimately the same question as\nthat touching Poverty and Wealth, which has already been discussed.\nThose who set Purity above Poverty say that Poverty is an existent thing\n(_shay ast mawj\u00fad_) and is capable of being named, whereas Purity is the\nbeing pure (_\u1e63af\u00e1_) from all existing things: _\u1e63af\u00e1_ is the essence of\nannihilation (_fan\u00e1_), and Poverty is the essence of subsistence\n(_baq\u00e1_): therefore Poverty is one of the names of \u201cstations\u201d, but\nPurity is one of the names of perfection. This matter has been disputed\nat great length in the present age, and both parties have resorted to\nfar-fetched and amazing verbal subtleties; but it will be allowed on all\nsides that Poverty and Purity are not mere words and nothing else. The\ndisputants have made up a doctrine out of words and have neglected to\napprehend meanings: they have abandoned discussion of the Truth.\nNegation of arbitrary will they call negation of essence, and\naffirmation of desire they regard as affirmation of essence. The Mystic\nPath is far removed from such idle fictions. In short, the Saints of God\nattain to a place where place no longer exists, where all degrees and\n\u201cstations\u201d disappear, and where outward expressions fall off from the\nunderlying realities, so that neither \u201cspiritual delight\u201d (_shurb_) is\nleft, nor \u201ctaste\u201d (_dhawq_), nor \u201csobriety\u201d (_\u1e63a\u1e25w_), nor \u201ceffacement\u201d\n(_ma\u1e25w_). These controversialists, however, seek a forced name with\nwhich to cloak ideas that do not admit of being named or of being used\nas attributes; and everyone applies to them whatever name he thinks most\nestimable. Now, in dealing with the ideas themselves, the question of\nsuperiority does not arise, but when names are given to them, one will\nnecessarily be preferred to another. Accordingly, to some people the\nname of Poverty seemed to be superior and of greater worth because it is\nconnected with renunciation and humility, while others preferred Purity,\nand held it the more honourable because it comes nearer to the notion of\ndiscarding all that contaminates and annihilating all that has a taint\nof the world. They adopted these two names as symbols of an\ninexpressible idea, in order that they might converse with each other on\nthat subject and make their own state fully known; and there is no\ndifference of opinion in this sect (the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds), although some use the\nterm \u201cPoverty\u201d and others the term \u201cPurity\u201d to express the same idea.\nWith the verbalists (_ahl-i `ib\u00e1rat_), on the contrary, who are ignorant\nof the true meaning of these ideas, the whole question is an affair of\nwords. To conclude, whoever has made that idea his own and fixed his\nheart upon it, heeds not whether they call him \u201cPoor\u201d (_faq\u00edr_) or\n\u201cPure\u201d (_\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed_), since both these appellations are forced names for an\nidea that cannot be brought under any name.\n\nThis controversy dates from the time of Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan Sumn\u00fan. He, on\noccasions when he was in a state of revelation (_kashf_) akin to\nsubsistence (_baq\u00e1_), used to set Poverty above Purity; and on being\nasked by spiritualists (_arb\u00e1b-i ma`\u00e1n\u00ed_) why he did so, he replied:\n\u201cInasmuch as I naturally delight in annihilation and abasement, and no\nless in subsistence and exaltation, I prefer Purity to Poverty when I am\nin a state akin to annihilation, and Poverty to Purity when I am in a\nstate akin to subsistence; for Poverty is the name of subsistence and\nPurity that of annihilation. In the latter state I annihilate from\nmyself the sight (consciousness) of subsistence, and in the former state\nI annihilate from myself the sight of annihilation, so that my nature\nbecomes dead both to annihilation and to subsistence.\u201d Now this,\nregarded as an explanation (_`ib\u00e1rat_), is an excellent saying, but\nneither annihilation nor subsistence can be annihilated: every\nsubsistent thing that suffers annihilation is annihilated from itself,\nand every annihilated thing that becomes subsistent is subsistent from\nitself. Annihilation is a term of which it is impossible to speak\nhyperbolically. If a person says that annihilation is annihilated, he\ncan only be expressing hyperbolically the non-existence of any vestige\nof the idea of annihilation; but so long as any vestige of existence\nremains, annihilation has not yet come to pass; and when it has been\nattained, the \u201cannihilation\u201d thereof is nothing but self-conceit\nflattered by meaningless phrases. In the vanity and rashness of youth I\ncomposed a discourse of this kind, entitled the \u201cBook of Annihilation\nand Subsistence\u201d (_Kit\u00e1b-i Fan\u00e1 \u00fa Baq\u00e1_), but in the present work I will\nset forth the whole matter with caution, please God the Almighty and\nGlorious.\n\nThis is the distinction between Purity and Poverty in the spiritual\nsense. It is otherwise when Purity and Poverty are considered in their\npractical aspect, namely, the denuding one\u2019s self of worldly things\n(_tajr\u00edd_) and the casting away of all one\u2019s possessions. Here the real\npoint is the difference between Poverty (_faqr_) and Lowliness\n(_maskanat_). Some Shaykhs assert that the Poor (_faq\u00edr_) are superior\nto the Lowly (_misk\u00edn_), because God has said, \u201c_the poor who are\nstraitened in the way of Allah, unable to go to and fro on the earth_\u201d\n(Kor. ii, 274): the Lowly possess means of livelihood, which the Poor\nrenounce: therefore Poverty is honour and Lowliness abasement, for,\naccording to the rule of the Mystic Path, he who possesses the means of\nlivelihood is base, as the Apostle said: \u201cWoe befall those who worship\nthe d\u00edn\u00e1r and the dirhem, woe befall those who worship garments with a\nnap!\u201d He who renounces the means of livelihood is honoured, inasmuch as\nhe depends on God, while he who has means depends on them. Others,\nagain, declare the Lowly to be superior, because the Apostle said: \u201cLet\nme live lowly, and let me die lowly, and raise me from the dead among\nthe lowly!\u201d whereas, speaking of Poverty, he said, \u201cPoverty is near to\nbeing unbelief.\u201d On this account the Poor are dependent on a means, but\nthe Lowly are independent. In the domain of Sacred Law, some divines\nhold that the Poor are those who have a sufficiency ([_s.]\u00e1\u1e25ib bulgha_),\nand the Lowly those who are free from worldly cares (_mujarrad_); but\nother divines hold the converse of this view. Hence the name \u201c\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u201d is\ngiven to the Lowly by followers of the Path (_ahl-i maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) who adopt\nthe former opinion: they prefer Purity (_\u1e63afwat_) to Poverty. Those\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds who accept the latter view prefer Poverty to Purity, for a similar\nreason.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n                         ON BLAME (_Mal\u00e1mat_).\n\n\nThe path of Blame has been trodden by some of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs. Blame\nhas a great effect in making love sincere. The followers of the Truth\n(_ahl-i \u1e25aqq_) are distinguished by their being the objects of vulgar\nblame, especially the eminent ones of this community. The Apostle, who\nis the exemplar and leader of the adherents of the Truth, and who\nmarches at the head of the lovers (of God), was honoured and held in\ngood repute by all until the evidence of the Truth was revealed to him\nand inspiration came upon him. Then the people loosed their tongues to\nblame him. Some said, \u201cHe is a soothsayer;\u201d others, \u201cHe is a poet;\u201d\nothers, \u201cHe is a madman;\u201d others, \u201cHe is a liar;\u201d and so forth. And God\nsays, describing the true believers: \u201c_They fear not the blame of\nanyone; that is the grace of God which He bestows on whomsoever He\npleases; God is bounteous and wise_\u201d (Kor. v, 59). Such is the ordinance\nof God, that He causes those who discourse of Him to be blamed by the\nwhole world, but preserves their hearts from being preoccupied by the\nworld\u2019s blame. This He does in His jealousy: He guards His lovers from\nglancing aside to \u201cother\u201d (_ghayr_), lest the eye of any stranger should\nbehold the beauty of their state; and He guards them also from seeing\nthemselves, lest they should regard their own beauty and fall into\nself-conceit and arrogance. Therefore He hath set the vulgar over them\nto loose the tongues of blame against them, and hath made the \u201cblaming\nsoul\u201d (_nafs-i laww\u00e1ma_) part of their composition, in order that they\nmay be blamed by others for whatever they do, and by themselves for\ndoing evil or for doing good imperfectly.\n\nNow this is a firm principle in the Way to God, for in this Path there\nis no taint or veil more difficult to remove than self-conceit. God in\nHis kindness hath barred the way of error against His friends. Their\nactions, however good, are not approved by the vulgar, who do not see\nthem as they really are; and they themselves do not regard their works\nof mortification, however numerous, as proceeding from their own\nstrength and power: consequently they are not pleased with themselves\nand are protected from self-conceit. Whoever is approved by God is\ndisapproved by the vulgar, and whoever is elected by himself is not\namong the elect of God. Thus Ibl\u00eds was approved by mankind and accepted\nby the angels, and he was pleased with himself; but since God was not\npleased with him, their approval only brought a curse upon him. Adam, on\nthe other hand, was disapproved by the angels, who said: \u201c_Wilt Thou\nplace there_ [on the earth] _one who will do evil therein?_\u201d (Kor. ii,\n28), and was not pleased with himself, for he said: \u201c_O Lord, we have\ndone ourselves a wrong_\u201d (Kor. vii, 22); but since God was pleased with\nhim, the disapproval of the angels and his own displeasure bore the\nfruit of mercy. Let all men, therefore, know that those accepted by us\nare rejected by the people, and that those accepted by the people are\nrejected by us. Hence the blame of mankind is the food of the friends of\nGod, because it is a token of Divine approval; it is the delight of the\nsaints of God, because it is a sign of nearness to Him: they rejoice in\nit even as other men rejoice in popularity. There is a Tradition, which\nthe Apostle received from Gabriel, that God said: \u201cMy friends (saints)\nare under My cloak: save Me, none knoweth them except My friends.\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nNow blame (_mal\u00e1mat_) is of three kinds: it may result (1) from\nfollowing the right way (_mal\u00e1mat-i r\u00e1st raftan_), or (2) from an\nintentional act (_mal\u00e1mat-i qa\u1e63d kardan_), or (3) from abandonment of\nthe law (_mal\u00e1mat-i tark kardan_). In the first case, a man is blamed\nwho minds his own business and performs his religious duties and does\nnot omit any practice of devotion: he is entirely indifferent to the\nbehaviour of the people towards him. In the second case a man is greatly\nhonoured by the people and pointed out among them: his heart inclines to\nthe honour in which he is held, and becomes attached to those by whom it\nis bestowed: he wishes to make himself independent of them and devote\nhimself wholly to God; therefore he purposely incurs their blame by\ncommitting some act which is offensive to them but which is no violation\nof the law: in consequence of his behaviour they wash their hands of\nhim. In the third case, a man is driven by his natural infidelity and\nerroneous beliefs to abandon the sacred law and abjure its observances,\nand say to himself, \u201cI am treading the path of blame:\u201d in this case his\nbehaviour depends on himself alone.\n\nHe who follows the right way and refuses to act hypocritically, and\nrefrains from ostentation, pays no heed to the blame of the vulgar, but\ninvariably takes his own course: it is all one to him what name they\ncall him by. I find among the anecdotes (of holy men) that one day\nShaykh Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1hir \u1e24aram\u00ed was seen in the bazaar, riding a donkey and\nattended by one of his disciples. Some person cried out, \u201cHere comes\nthat old freethinker!\u201d The indignant disciple rushed at the speaker,\ntrying to strike him, and the whole bazaar was filled with tumult. The\nShaykh said to his disciple: \u201cIf you will be quiet, I will show you\nsomething that will save you from trouble of this sort.\u201d When they\nreturned home, he bade the disciple bring a certain box, which contained\nletters, and told him to look at them. \u201cObserve,\u201d he said, \u201chow the\nwriters address me. One calls me \u2018the Shaykh of Islam\u2019, another \u2018the\npure Shaykh\u2019, another \u2018the ascetic Shaykh\u2019, another \u2018the Shaykh of the\ntwo Sanctuaries\u2019, and so on. They are all titles, there is no mention of\nmy name. I am none of these things, but every person gives me the title\nwhich accords with his belief concerning me. If that poor fellow did the\nsame just now, why should you quarrel with him?\u201d\n\nHe who incurs blame purposely and resigns honour and withdraws from\nauthority is like the Caliph `Uthm\u00e1n who, although he possessed four\nhundred slaves, one day came forth from his plantation of date-palms\ncarrying a bundle of firewood on his head. On being asked why he did\nthis, he answered: \u201cI wish to make trial of myself.\u201d He would not let\nthe dignity which he enjoyed hinder him from any work. A similar tale\nrelated of the Im\u00e1m Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa will be found in this treatise. And a\nstory is told about Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, that, when he was entering Rayy on his\nway from the \u1e24ij\u00e1z, the people of that city ran to meet him in order\nthat they might show him honour. Their attentions distracted him and\nturned his thoughts away from God. When he came to the bazaar, he took a\nloaf from his sleeve and began to eat. They all departed, for it was the\nmonth of Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n. He said to a disciple who was travelling with him:\n\u201cYou see! as soon as I perform a single article of the law,[49] they all\nreject me.\u201d In those days it was necessary, for incurring blame, to do\nsomething disapproved or extraordinary; but in our time, if anyone\ndesires blame, he need only lengthen a little his voluntary prayers or\nfulfil the religious practices which are prescribed: at once everybody\nwill call him a hypocrite and impostor.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, being at that time on a journey, was not legally bound to\n  observe the fast.\n\nHe who abandons the law and commits an irreligious act, and says that he\nis following the rule of \u201cblame\u201d, is guilty of manifest wrong and\nwickedness and self-indulgence. There are many in the present age who\nseek popularity by this means, forgetting that one must already have\ngained popularity before deliberately acting in such a way as to make\nthe people reject him; otherwise, his making himself unpopular is a mere\npretext for winning popularity. On a certain occasion I was in the\ncompany of one of these vain pretenders. He committed a wicked act and\nexcused himself by saying that he did it for the sake of blame. One of\nthe party said, \u201cThat is nonsense.\u201d He heaved a sigh. I said to him: \u201cIf\nyou claim to be a Mal\u00e1mat\u00ed and are firm in your belief, this gentleman\u2019s\ndisapproval of what you have done ought to encourage you to persevere;\nand since he is seconding you in your chosen course, why are you so\nunfriendly and angry with him? Your behaviour is more like pretence than\npursuit of blame. Whoever claims to be guided by the Truth must give\nsome proof of his assertion, and the proof consists in observing the\n_Sunna_ (Ordinances of the Prophet). You make this claim, and yet I see\nthat you have failed to perform an obligatory religious duty. Your\nconduct puts you outside the pale of Islam.\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThe doctrine of Blame was spread abroad in this sect by the Shaykh of\nhis age, \u1e24amd\u00fan Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r. He has many fine sayings on the subject. It is\nrecorded that he said: _Al-mal\u00e1mat tark al-sal\u00e1mat_, \u201cBlame is the\nabandonment of welfare.\u201d If anyone purposely abandons his own welfare\nand girds himself to endure misfortune, and renounces his pleasures and\nfamiliar ties, in hope that the glory of God will be revealed to him,\nthe more he is separated from mankind the more he is united to God.\nAccordingly, the votaries of Blame turn their backs on that thing,\nnamely welfare (_sal\u00e1mat_), to which the people of this world turn their\nfaces, for the aspirations of the former are Unitarian (_wa\u1e25d\u00e1n\u00ed_).\nA\u1e25mad b. F\u00e1tik relates that \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far, in reply to the question\n\u201cWho is the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed?\u201d said: \u201cHe who is single in essence\u201d (_wa\u1e25d\u00e1n\u00ed\nal-dh\u00e1t_). \u1e24amd\u00fan also said concerning Blame: \u201cIt is a hard way for the\nvulgar to follow, but I will tell one part thereof: the Mal\u00e1mat\u00ed is\ncharacterized by the hope of the Murjites and the fear of the\nQadarites.\u201d This saying has a hidden meaning which demands explanation.\nIt is the nature of man to be deterred by popularity more than any other\nthing from seeking access to God. Consequently he who fears this danger\nis always striving to avoid it, and there are two perils which confront\nhim: firstly, the fear that he may be veiled from God by the favour of\nhis fellow-creatures; and secondly, the fear of committing some act for\nwhich the people will blame him and thereby fall into sin. Accordingly,\nthe Mal\u00e1mat\u00ed must, in the first instance, take care to have no quarrel\nwith the people for what they say of him, either in this world or the\nnext, and for the sake of his own salvation he must commit some act\nwhich, legally, is neither a great sin (_kab\u00edra_) nor a trivial offence\n(_\u1e63agh\u00edra_), in order that the people may reject him. Hence his fear in\nmatters of conduct is like the fear of the Qadarites, and his hope in\ndealing with those who blame him is like the hope of the Murjites. In\ntrue love there is nothing sweeter than blame, because blame of the\nBeloved makes no impression on the lover\u2019s heart: he heeds not what\nstrangers say, for his heart is ever faithful to the object of his love.\n\n            \u201c_\u2019Tis sweet to be reviled for passion\u2019s sake._\u201d\n\nThis sect (the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds) are distinguished above all creatures in the\nuniverse by choosing to be blamed in the body on account of the welfare\nof their souls; and this high degree is not attained by the Cherubim or\nany spiritual beings, nor has it been reached by the ascetics, devotees,\nand seekers of God belonging to the nations of antiquity, but it is\nreserved for those of this nation who journey on the path of entire\nseverance from the things of the world.\n\nIn my opinion, to seek Blame is mere ostentation, and ostentation is\nmere hypocrisy. The ostentatious man purposely acts in such a way as to\nwin popularity, while the Mal\u00e1mat\u00ed purposely acts in such a way that the\npeople reject him. Both have their thoughts fixed on mankind and do not\npass beyond that sphere. The dervish, on the contrary, never even thinks\nof mankind, and when his heart has been broken away from them he is as\nindifferent to their reprobation as to their favour: he moves unfettered\nand free. I once said to a Mal\u00e1mat\u00ed of Transoxania, with whom I had\nassociated long enough to feel at my ease: \u201cO brother, what is your\nobject in these perverse actions?\u201d He replied: \u201cTo make the people\nnon-existent in regard to myself.\u201d \u201cThe people,\u201d I said, \u201care many, and\nduring a lifetime you will not be able to make them non-existent in\nregard to yourself; rather make yourself non-existent in regard to the\npeople, so that you may be saved from all this trouble. Some who are\noccupied with the people imagine that the people are occupied with them.\nIf you wish no one to see you, do not see yourself. Since all your evils\narise from seeing yourself, what business have you with others? If a\nsick man whose remedy lies in abstinence seeks to indulge his appetite,\nhe is a fool.\u201d Others, again, practise the method of Blame from an\nascetic motive: they wish to be despised by the people in order that\nthey may mortify themselves, and it is their greatest delight to find\nthemselves wretched and abased. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham was asked, \u201cHave you\never attained your desire?\u201d He answered: \u201cYes, twice; on one occasion I\nwas in a ship where nobody knew me. I was clad in common clothes and my\nhair was long, and my guise was such that all the people in the ship\nmocked and laughed at me. Among them was a buffoon, who was always\ncoming and pulling my hair and tearing it out, and treating me with\ncontumely after the manner of his kind. At that time I felt entirely\nsatisfied, and I rejoiced in my garb. My joy reached its highest pitch\none day when the buffoon rose from his place and _super me minxit_. On\nthe second occasion I arrived at a village in heavy rain, which had\nsoaked the patched frock on my body, and I was overcome by the wintry\ncold. I went to a mosque, but was refused admittance. The same thing\nhappened at three other mosques where I sought shelter. In despair, as\nthe cold strengthened its grip on my heart, I entered a bathhouse and\ndrew my skirt close up to the stove. The smoke enveloped me and\nblackened my clothes and my face. Then also I felt entirely satisfied.\u201d\n\nOnce I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, found myself in a difficulty. After\nmany devotional exercises undertaken in the hope of clearing it away, I\nrepaired\u2014as I had done with success on a former occasion\u2014to the tomb of\nAb\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, and stayed beside it for a space of three months, performing\nevery day three ablutions and thirty purifications in the hope that my\ndifficulty might be removed. It was not, however; so I departed and\njourneyed towards Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. One night I arrived at a village in that\ncountry where there was a convent (_kh\u00e1naq\u00e1h_) inhabited by a number of\naspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism. I was wearing a dark-blue frock (_muraqqa`-i\nkhishan_), such as is prescribed by the _Sunna_;[50] but I had with me\nnothing of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u2019s regular equipment (_\u00e1lat-i ahl-i rasm_) except a\nstaff and a leathern water-bottle (_rakwa_). I appeared very\ncontemptible in the eyes of these \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, who did not know me. They\nregarded only my external habit and said to one another, \u201cThis fellow is\nnot one of us.\u201d And so in truth it was: I was not one of them, but I had\nto pass the night in that place. They lodged me on a roof, while they\nthemselves went up to a roof above mine, and set before me dry bread\nwhich had turned green, while I was drawing into my nostrils the savour\nof the viands with which they regaled themselves. All the time they were\naddressing derisive remarks to me from the roof. When they finished the\nfood, they began to pelt me with the skins of the melons which they had\neaten, by way of showing how pleased they were with themselves and how\nlightly they thought of me. I said in my heart: \u201cO Lord God, were it not\nthat they are wearing the dress of Thy friends, I would not have borne\nthis from them.\u201d And the more they scoffed at me the more glad became my\nheart, so that the endurance of this burden was the means of delivering\nme from that difficulty which I have mentioned; and forthwith I\nperceived why the Shaykhs have always given fools leave to associate\nwith them and for what reason they submit to their annoyance.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  I. adds in margin \u201cfor travellers\u201d.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n         CONCERNING THEIR IM\u00c1MS WHO BELONGED TO THE COMPANIONS.\n\n\n1. THE CALIPH AB\u00da BAKR, THE VERACIOUS (_al-\u1e62idd\u00edq_).\n\nHe is placed by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs at the head of those who have adopted\nthe contemplative life (_mush\u00e1hadat_), on account of the fewness of the\nstories and traditions which he related; while `Umar is placed at the\nhead of those who have adopted the purgative life (_muj\u00e1hadat_), because\nof his rigour and assiduity in devotion. It is written among the genuine\nTraditions, and is well known to scholars, that when Ab\u00fa Bakr prayed at\nnight he used to recite the Koran in a low voice, whereas `Umar used to\nrecite in a loud voice. The Apostle asked Ab\u00fa Bakr why he did this. Ab\u00fa\nBakr replied: \u201cHe with whom I converse will hear.\u201d `Umar, in his turn,\nreplied: \u201cI wake the drowsy and drive away the Devil.\u201d The one gave a\ntoken of contemplation, the other of purgation. Now purgation, compared\nwith contemplation, is like a drop of water in a sea, and for this\nreason the Apostle said that `Umar, the glory of Islam, was only\n(equivalent to) a single one of the good deeds of Ab\u00fa Bakr (_hal anta\nill\u00e1 \u1e25asanat^{un} min \u1e25asan\u00e1ti Ab\u00ed Bakr_). It is recorded that Ab\u00fa Bakr\nsaid: \u201cOur abode is transitory, our life therein is but a loan, our\nbreaths are numbered, and our indolence is manifest.\u201d By this he\nsignified that the world is too worthless to engage our thoughts; for\nwhenever you occupy yourself with what is perishable, you are made blind\nto that which is eternal: the friends of God turn their backs on the\nworld and the flesh which veil them from Him, and they decline to act as\nif they were owners of a thing that is really the property of another.\nAnd he said: \u201cO God, give me plenty of the world and make me desirous of\nrenouncing it!\u201d This saying has a hidden sense, viz.: \u201cFirst bestow on\nme worldly goods that I may give thanks for them, and then help me to\nabstain from them for Thy sake, so that I may have the treble merit of\nthanksgiving and liberality and abstinence, and that my poverty may be\nvoluntary, not compulsory.\u201d These words refute the Director of mystical\npractice, who said: \u201cHe whose poverty is compulsory is more perfect than\nhe whose poverty is voluntary; for if it be compulsory, he is the\ncreature (_\u1e63an`at_) of poverty, and if it be voluntary, poverty is his\ncreature; and it is better that his actions should be free from any\nattempt to gain poverty for himself than that he should seek to acquire\nit by his own effort.\u201d I say in answer to this: The creature of poverty\nis most evidently that person who, while enjoying independence, is\npossessed by the desire for poverty, and labours to recover it from the\nclutches of the world; not that person who, in the state of poverty, is\npossessed by the desire for independence and has to go to the houses of\nevildoers and the courts of governors for the sake of earning money. The\ncreature of poverty is he who falls from independence to poverty, not he\nwho, being poor, seeks to become powerful. Ab\u00fa Bakr is the foremost of\nall mankind after the prophets, and it is not permissible that anyone\nshould take precedence of him, for he set voluntary poverty above\ncompulsory poverty. This doctrine is held by all the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs except\nthe spiritual Director whom we have mentioned.\n\nZuhr\u00ed relates that, when Ab\u00fa Bakr received the oaths of allegiance as\nCaliph, he mounted the pulpit and pronounced an oration, in the course\nof which he said: \u201cBy God, I never coveted the command nor desired it\neven for a day or a night, nor ever asked God for it openly or in\nsecret, nor do I take any pleasure in having it.\u201d Now, when God causes\nanyone to attain perfect sincerity and exalts him to the rank of fixity\n(_tamk\u00edn_) he waits for Divine inspiration, that it may guide him; and\naccording as he is bidden, he will be either a beggar or a prince,\nwithout exercising his own choice and will. Thus Ab\u00fa Bakr, the\nVeracious, resigned himself to the will of God from first to last. Hence\nthe whole sect of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds have made him their pattern in stripping\nthemselves of worldly things, in fixity (_tamk\u00edn_), in eager desire for\npoverty, and in longing to renounce authority. He is the Im\u00e1m of the\nMoslems in general, and of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in particular.\n\n\n                   2.THE CALIPH `UMAR B. AL-KHA\u1e6c\u1e6c\u00c1B.\n\nHe was specially distinguished by sagacity and resolution, and is the\nauthor of many fine sayings on \u1e62\u00fafiism. The Apostle said: \u201cThe Truth\nspeaks by the tongue of `Umar;\u201d and again, \u201cThere have been inspired\nrelaters (_mu\u1e25addath^{un}_) in the peoples of antiquity, and if there be\nany such in my people, it is `Umar.\u201d `Umar said: \u201cRetirement (_`uzlat_)\nis a means of relieving one\u2019s self of bad company.\u201d Retirement is of two\nsorts: firstly, turning one\u2019s back on mankind (_i`r\u00e1\u1e0d az khalq_), and\nsecondly, entire severance from them (_inqi\u1e6d\u00e1` az \u00edsh\u00e1n_). Turning one\u2019s\nback on mankind consists in choosing a solitary retreat, and in\nrenouncing the society of one\u2019s fellow-creatures externally, and in\nquiet contemplation of the faults in one\u2019s own conduct, and in seeking\nrelease for one\u2019s self from intercourse with men, and in making all\npeople secure from one\u2019s evil actions. But severance from mankind is a\nspiritual state, which is not connected with anything external. When a\nperson is severed from mankind in spirit, he knows nothing of created\nbeings and no thought thereof can take possession of his mind. Such a\nperson, although he is living among the people, is isolated from them,\nand his spirit dwells apart from them. This is a very exalted station.\n`Umar followed the right path herein, for externally he lived among the\npeople as their Commander and Caliph. His words show clearly that\nalthough spiritualists may outwardly mix with mankind, their hearts\nalways cling to God and return to Him in all circumstances. They regard\nany intercourse they may have with men as an affliction sent by God; and\nthat intercourse does not divert them from God, since the world never\nbecomes pure in the eyes of those whom God loves. `Umar said: \u201cAn abode\nwhich is founded upon affliction cannot possibly be without affliction.\u201d\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds make him their model in wearing a patched frock (_muraqqa`a_)\nand rigorously performing the duties of religion.\n\n\n                    3. THE CALIPH `UTHM\u00c1N B. `AFF\u00c1N.\n\nIt is related by `Abdall\u00e1h b. Rab\u00e1\u1e25 and Ab\u00fa Qat\u00e1da as follows: \u201cWe were\nwith the Commander of the Faithful, `Uthm\u00e1n, on the day when his house\nwas attacked. His slaves, seeing the crowd of rebels gathered at the\ndoor, took up arms. `Uthm\u00e1n said: \u2018Whoever of you does not take up arms\nis a free man.\u2019 We went forth from the house in fear of our lives. \u1e24asan\nb. `Al\u00ed met us on the way, and we returned with him to `Uthm\u00e1n, that we\nmight know on what business he was going. After he had saluted `Uthm\u00e1n\nand condoled with him he said: \u2018O Prince of the Faithful, I dare not\ndraw sword against Moslems without thy command. Thou art the true Im\u00e1m.\nGive the order and I will defend thee.\u2019 `Uthm\u00e1n replied: \u2018O my cousin,\ngo back to thy house and sit there until God shall bring His decree to\npass. We do not wish to shed blood.\u2019\u201d\n\nThese words betoken resignation in the hour of calamity, and show that\nthe speaker had attained the rank of friendship with God (_khullat_).\nSimilarly, when Nimrod lit a fire and put Abraham in the sling\n(_pala_)[51] of a catapult, Gabriel came to Abraham and said, \u201cDost thou\nwant anything?\u201d He answered, \u201cFrom thee, no.\u201d Gabriel said, \u201cThen ask\nGod.\u201d He answered, \u201cSince He knows in what plight I am I need not ask\nHim.\u201d Here `Uthm\u00e1n was in the position of the Friend (Khal\u00edl)[52] in the\ncatapult, and the seditious mob was in the place of the fire, and \u1e24asan\nwas in the place of Gabriel; but Abraham was saved, while `Uthm\u00e1n\nperished. Salvation (_naj\u00e1t_) is connected with subsistence (_baq\u00e1_) and\ndestruction (_hal\u00e1k_) with annihilation (_fan\u00e1_): on this topic\nsomething has been said above. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds take `Uthm\u00e1n as their exemplar\nin sacrificing life and property, in resigning their affairs to God, and\nin sincere devotion.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Arabic _kiffat_. See Dozy, _Suppl\u00e9ment_, ii, 476.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Abraham is called by Moslems \u201cthe Friend of God\u201d (_al-Khal\u00edl_).\n\n\n                    4. THE CALIPH `AL\u00cd B. AB\u00cd \u1e6c\u00c1LIB.\n\nHis renown and rank in this Path (of \u1e62\u00fafiism) were very high. He\nexplained the principles (_u\u1e63\u00fal_) of Divine truth with exceeding\nsubtlety, so that Junayd said: \u201c`Al\u00ed is our Shaykh as regards the\nprinciples and as regards the endurance of affliction,\u201d i.e. in the\ntheory and practice of \u1e62\u00fafiism; for \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds call the theory of this Path\n\u201cprinciples\u201d (_u\u1e63\u00fal_), and its practice consists entirely in the\nendurance of affliction. It is related that some one begged `Al\u00ed to give\nhim a precept (_wa\u1e63iyyat_). `Al\u00ed replied: \u201cDo not let your wife and\nchildren be your chief cares; for if they be friends of God, God will\nlook after His friends, and if they are enemies of God, why should you\ntake care of God\u2019s enemies?\u201d This question is connected with the\nseverance of the heart from all things save God, who keeps His servants\nin whatever state He willeth. Thus Moses left the daughter of\nShu`ayb[53] in a most miserable plight and committed her to God; and\nAbraham took Hagar and Ishmael and brought them to a barren valley and\ncommitted them to God. Both these prophets, instead of making wife and\nchild their chief care, fixed their hearts on God. This saying resembles\nthe answer which `Al\u00ed gave to one who asked what is the purest thing\nthat can be acquired. He said: \u201cIt is that which belongs to a heart made\nrich by God\u201d (_ghan\u00e1 al-qalb bill\u00e1h_). The heart that is so enriched is\nnot made poor by having no worldly goods nor glad by having them. This\nsubject really turns on the theory regarding poverty and purity, which\nhas been already discussed. `Al\u00ed is a model for the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in respect to\nthe truths of outward expressions and the subtleties of inward meanings,\nthe stripping one\u2019s self of all property either of this world or of the\nnext, and consideration of the Divine providence.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Moses is said to have married one of the daughters of Shu`ayb. See\n  Kor. xxviii, 22-8, where Shu`ayb, however, is not mentioned by name.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\n    CONCERNING THEIR IM\u00c1MS WHO BELONGED TO THE HOUSE OF THE PROPHET.\n\n\n                           1. \u1e24ASAN B. `AL\u00cd.\n\nHe was profoundly versed in \u1e62\u00fafiism. He said, by way of precept: \u201cSee\nthat ye guard your hearts, for God knows your secret thoughts.\u201d\n\u201cGuarding the heart\u201d consists in not turning to others (than God) and in\nkeeping one\u2019s secret thoughts from disobedience to the Almighty. When\nthe Qadarites got the upper hand, and the doctrine of Rationalism became\nwidely spread, \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra wrote to \u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed begging for\nguidance, and asking him to state his opinion on the perplexing subject\nof predestination and on the dispute whether men have any power to act\n(_isti\u1e6d\u00e1`at_). \u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed replied that in his opinion those who did\nnot believe in the determination (_qadar_) of men\u2019s good and evil\nactions by God were infidels, and that those who imputed their sins to\nGod were miscreants, i.e. the Qadarites deny the Divine providence, and\nthe Jabarites impute their sins to God; hence men are free to acquire\ntheir actions according to the power given them by God, and thus our\nreligion takes the middle course between free-will and predestination. I\nhave read in the Anecdotes that when \u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed was seated at the\ndoor of his house in K\u00fafa, a Bedouin came up and reviled him and his\nfather and his mother. \u1e24asan rose and said: \u201cO Bedouin, perhaps you are\nhungry or thirsty, or what ails you?\u201d The Bedouin took no heed, but\ncontinued to abuse him. \u1e24asan ordered his slave to bring a purse of\nsilver, and gave it to the fellow, saying: \u201cO Bedouin, excuse me, for\nthere is nothing else in the house; had there been more, I should not\nhave grudged it to you.\u201d On hearing this, the Bedouin exclaimed: \u201cI bear\nwitness that thou art the grandson of the Apostle of God. I came hither\nto make trial of thy mildness.\u201d Such are the true saints and Shaykhs who\ncare not whether they are praised or blamed, and listen calmly to abuse.\n\n                           2. \u1e24USAYN B. `AL\u00cd\n\nHe is the martyr of Karbal\u00e1, and all \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are agreed that he was in the\nright. So long as the Truth was apparent, he followed it; but when it\nwas lost he drew the sword and never rested until he sacrificed his dear\nlife for God\u2019s sake. The Apostle distinguished him by many tokens of\nfavour. Thus `Umar b. al-Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b relates that one day he saw the Apostle\ncrawling on his knees, while \u1e24usayn rode on his back holding a string,\nof which the other end was in the Apostle\u2019s mouth. `Umar said: \u201cWhat an\nexcellent camel thou hast, O father of `Abdall\u00e1h!\u201d The Apostle replied:\n\u201cWhat an excellent rider is he, O `Umar!\u201d It is recorded that \u1e24usayn\nsaid: \u201cThy religion is the kindest of brethren towards thee,\u201d because a\nman\u2019s salvation consists in following religion, and his perdition in\ndisobeying it.\n\n\n           3. `AL\u00cd B. \u1e24USAYN B. `AL\u00cd, CALLED ZAYN AL-`\u00c1BID\u00cdN.\n\nHe said that the most blessed man in this world and in the next is he\nwho, when he is pleased, is not led by his pleasure into wrong, and when\nhe is angry, is not carried by his anger beyond the bounds of right.\nThis is the character of those who have attained perfect rectitude\n(_kam\u00e1l-i mustaq\u00edm\u00e1n_). \u1e24usayn used to call him `Al\u00ed the Younger (`Al\u00ed\nA\u1e63ghar). When \u1e24usayn and his children were killed at Karbal\u00e1, there was\nnone left except `Al\u00ed to take care of the women; and he was ill. The\nwomen were brought unveiled on camels to Yaz\u00edd b. Mu`\u00e1wiya\u2014may God curse\nhim, but not his father!\u2014at Damascus. Some one said to `Al\u00ed: \u201cHow are ye\nthis morning, O `Al\u00ed and O members of the House of Mercy?\u201d `Al\u00ed replied:\n\u201cWe are in the same position among our people as the people of Moses\namong Pharaoh\u2019s folk, who slaughtered their sons and took their women\nalive; we do not know morning from evening on account of the reality of\nour affliction.\u201d\n\n  [The author then relates the well-known story of Hish\u00e1m b. `Abd\n  al-Malik\u2019s encounter with `Al\u00ed b. \u1e24usayn at Mecca\u2014how the Caliph, who\n  desired to kiss the Black Stone but was unable to reach it, saw the\n  crowd immediately make way for `Al\u00ed and retire to a respectful\n  distance; how a man of Syria asked the Caliph to tell him the name of\n  this person who was held in so great veneration; how Hish\u00e1m feigned\n  ignorance, for fear that his partisans should be shaken in allegiance\n  to himself; and how the poet Farazdaq stepped forward and recited the\n  splendid encomium beginning\u2014[54]\n\n  \u201c_This is he whose footprint is known to the valley of Mecca,\n  He whom the Temple knows, and the unhallowed territory and the holy\n     ground.\n  This is the son of the best of all the servants of God,\n  This is the pious, the elect, the pure, the eminent._\u201d\n\n  Hish\u00e1m was enraged and threw Farazdaq into prison. `Al\u00ed sent to him a\n  purse containing 12,000 dirhems; but the poet returned it, with the\n  message that he had uttered many lies in the panegyrics on princes and\n  governors which he was accustomed to compose for money, and that he\n  had addressed these verses to `Al\u00ed as a partial expiation for his sins\n  in that respect, and as a proof of his affection towards the House of\n  the Prophet. `Al\u00ed, however, begged to be excused from taking back what\n  he had already given away; and Farazdaq at last consented to receive\n  the money.]\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Twenty-five verses are quoted.\n\n\n           4. AB\u00da JA`FAR MU\u1e24AMMAD B. `AL\u00cd B. \u1e24USAYN AL-B\u00c1QIR.\n\nSome say that his \u201cname of honour\u201d was Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h. His nickname was\nB\u00e1qir. He was distinguished for his knowledge of the abstruse sciences\nand for his subtle indications as to the meaning of the Koran. It is\nrelated that on one occasion a king, who wished to destroy him, summoned\nhim to his presence. When B\u00e1qir appeared, the king begged his pardon,\nbestowed gifts upon him, and dismissed him courteously. On being asked\nwhy he had acted in this manner, the king replied: \u201cWhen he came in, I\nsaw two lions, one on his right hand and one on his left, who threatened\nto destroy me if I should attempt to do him any harm.\u201d In his\nexplanation of the verse, \u201c_Whosoever believes in the_ \u1e6d\u00e1gh\u00fat _and\nbelieves in God_\u201d (Kor. ii, 257), B\u00e1qir said: \u201cAnything that diverts\nthee from contemplation of the Truth is thy _\u1e6d\u00e1gh\u00fat_.\u201d One of his\nintimate friends relates that when a portion of the night had passed and\nB\u00e1qir had finished his litanies, he used to cry aloud to God: \u201cO my God\nand my Lord, night has come, and the power of monarchs has ceased, and\nthe stars are shining in the sky, and all mankind are asleep and silent,\nand the Ban\u00fa Umayya have gone to rest and shut their doors and set\nguards to watch over them; and those who desired anything from them have\nforgotten their business. Thou, O God, art the Living, the Lasting, the\nSeeing, the Knowing. Sleep and slumber cannot overtake Thee. He who does\nnot acknowledge that Thou art such as I have described is unworthy of\nThy bounty. O Thou whom no thing withholds from any other thing, whose\neternity is not impaired by Day and Night, whose doors of Mercy are open\nto all who call upon Thee, and whose entire treasures are lavished on\nthose who praise Thee: Thou dost never turn away the beggar, and no\ncreature in earth or heaven can prevent the true believer who implores\nThee from gaining access to Thy court. O Lord, when I remember death and\nthe grave and the reckoning, how can I take joy in this world?\nTherefore, since I acknowledge Thee to be One, I beseech Thee to give me\npeace in the hour of death, without torment, and pleasure in the hour of\nreckoning, without punishment.\u201d\n\n\n               5. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD JA`FAR B. MU\u1e24AMMAD \u1e62\u00c1DIQ.\n\nHe is celebrated among the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs for the subtlety of his\ndiscourse and his acquaintance with spiritual truths, and he has written\nfamous books in explanation of \u1e62\u00fafiism. It is related that he said:\n\u201cWhoever knows God turns his back on all else.\u201d The gnostic (_`\u00e1rif_)\nturns his back on \u201cother\u201d (than God) and is cut off from worldly things,\nbecause his knowledge (_ma`rifat_) is pure nescience (_nakirat_),\ninasmuch as nescience forms part of his knowledge, and knowledge forms\npart of his nescience. Therefore the gnostic is separated from mankind\nand from thought of them, and he is joined to God. \u201cOther\u201d has no place\nin his heart, that he should pay any heed to them, and their existence\nhas no worth for him, that he should fix the remembrance of them in his\nmind. And it is related that he said: \u201cThere is no right service without\nrepentance, because God hath put repentance before service, and hath\nsaid, _Those who repent and serve_\u201d (Kor. ix, 113). Repentance\n(_tawbat_) is the first of the \u201cstations\u201d in this Path, and service\n(_`ib\u00e1dat_) is the last. When God mentioned the disobedient He called\nthem to repentance and said, \u201c_Repent unto God together_\u201d (Kor. xxiv,\n31); but when He mentioned the Apostle He referred to his \u201cservantship\u201d\n(_`ub\u00fadiyyat_), and said, \u201c_He revealed to His servant that which He\nrevealed_\u201d (Kor. liii, 10). I have read in the Anecdotes that D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed\ncame to Ja`far \u1e62\u00e1diq and said: \u201cO son of the Apostle of God, counsel me,\nfor my mind is darkened.\u201d Ja`far replied: \u201cO Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n, thou art the\nascetic of thy time: what need hast thou of counsel from me?\u201d He\nanswered: \u201cO son of the Apostle, thy family are superior to all mankind,\nand it is incumbent on thee to give counsel to all.\u201d \u201cO Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n,\u201d\ncried Ja`far, \u201cI am afraid that at the Resurrection my grandsire will\nlay hold on me, saying, \u2018Why didst not thou fulfil the obligation to\nfollow in my steps?\u2019 This is not a matter that depends on authentic and\nsure affinity (to Mu\u1e25ammad), but on good conduct in the presence of the\nTruth.\u201d D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed began to weep and exclaimed: \u201cO Lord God, if one\nwhose clay is moulded with the water of Prophecy, whose grandsire is the\nApostle, and whose mother is F\u00e1\u1e6dima (_Bat\u00fal_)\u2014if such a one is\ndistracted by doubts, who am I that I should be pleased with my dealings\n(towards God)?\u201d One day Ja`far said to his clients: \u201cCome, let us take a\npledge that whoever amongst us shall gain deliverance on the Day of\nResurrection shall intercede for all the rest.\u201d They said: \u201cO son of the\nApostle, how canst thou have need of our intercession since thy\ngrandsire intercedes for all mankind?\u201d Ja`far replied: \u201cMy actions are\nsuch that I shall be ashamed to look my grandsire in the face on the\nLast Day.\u201d To see one\u2019s faults is a quality of perfection, and is\ncharacteristic of those who are established in the Divine presence,\nwhether they be prophets, saints, or apostles. The Apostle said: \u201cWhen\nGod wishes a man well, He gives him insight into his faults.\u201d Whoever\nbows his head with humility, like a servant, God will exalt his state in\nboth worlds.\n\nNow I shall mention briefly the People of the Veranda (_Ahl-i \u1e62uffa_).\nIn a book entitled \u201cThe Highway of Religion\u201d (_Minh\u00e1j al-D\u00edn_), which I\ncomposed before the present work, I have given a detailed account of\neach of them, but here it will suffice to mention their names and \u201cnames\nof honour\u201d.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n         CONCERNING THE PEOPLE OF THE VERANDA (_Ahl-i \u1e62uffa_).\n\n\nKnow that all Moslems are agreed that the Apostle had a number of\nCompanions, who abode in his Mosque and engaged in devotion, renouncing\nthe world and refusing to seek a livelihood. God reproached the Apostle\non their account and said: \u201c_Do not drive away those who call unto their\nLord at morn and eve, desiring His face_\u201d (Kor. vi, 52). Their merits\nare proclaimed by the Book of God, and in many traditions of the Apostle\nwhich have come down to us. It is related by Ibn `Abb\u00e1s that the Apostle\npassed by the People of the Veranda, and saw their poverty and their\nself-mortification and said: \u201cRejoice! for whoever of my community\nperseveres in the state in which ye are, and is satisfied with his\ncondition, he shall be one of my comrades in Paradise.\u201d Among the _Ahl-i\n\u1e62uffa_[55] were Bil\u00e1l b. Rab\u00e1\u1e25, Salm\u00e1n al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed, Ab\u00fa `Ubayda b.\nal-Jarr\u00e1\u1e25, Abu \u00b4l-Yaq\u1e95\u00e1n `Amm\u00e1r b. Y\u00e1sir, `Abdall\u00e1h b. Mas`\u00fad\nal-Hudhal\u00ed, his brother `Utba b. Mas`\u00fad, Miqd\u00e1d b. al-Aswad, Khabb\u00e1b b.\nal-Aratt, \u1e62uhayb b. Sin\u00e1n, `Utba b. Ghazw\u00e1n, Zayd b. al-Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b, brother\nof the Caliph `Umar; Ab\u00fa Kabsha, the Apostle\u2019s client; Abu \u00b4l-Marthad\nKin\u00e1na b. al-\u1e24usayn al-`Adaw\u00ed; S\u00e1lim, client of Hudhayfa al-Yam\u00e1n\u00ed;\n`Ukk\u00e1sha b. Mi\u1e25\u1e63an; Mas`\u00fad b. Rab\u00ed` al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed; Ab\u00fa Dharr Jundab b.\nJun\u00e1da al-Ghif\u00e1r\u00ed; `Abdall\u00e1h b. `Umar; \u1e62afw\u00e1n b. Bay\u1e0d\u00e1; Ab\u00fa Dard\u00e1 `Uwaym\nb. `\u00c1m\u00edr; Ab\u00fa Lub\u00e1ba b. `Abd al-Mundhir; and `Abdall\u00e1h b. Badr\nal-Juhan\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  I have corrected many of the following names, which are erroneously\n  written in the Persian text, by reference to various Arabic works.\n\nShaykh Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24usayn al-Sulam\u00ed,[56] the\ntraditionist (_naqq\u00e1l_) of \u1e62\u00fafiism and transmitter of the sayings of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, has written a separate history of the _Ahl-i \u1e62uffa_, in\nwhich he has recorded their virtues and merits and names and \u201cnames of\nhonour\u201d. He has included among them Mis\u1e6da\u1e25 b. Uth\u00e1tha b. `Abb\u00e1d, whom I\ndislike because he began the slanders about `\u00c1\u00b4isha, the Mother of the\nBelievers. Ab\u00fa Hurayra, and Thawb\u00e1n, and Mu`\u00e1dh b. al-\u1e24\u00e1rith, and S\u00e1\u00b4ib\nb. Khall\u00e1d, and Th\u00e1bit b. Wad\u00ed`at, and Ab\u00fa `\u00cds\u00e1 `Uwaym b. S\u00e1`ida, and\nS\u00e1lim b. `Umayr b. Th\u00e1bit, and Abu \u00b4l-Yasar Ka`b b. `Amr, and Wahb b.\nMa`qal, and `Abdall\u00e1h b. Unays, and \u1e24ajj\u00e1j b. `Umar al-Aslam\u00ed belonged\nto the _Ahl-i \u1e62uffa_. Now and then they had recourse to some means of\nlivelihood (_ta`alluq ba-sabab\u00ed kardand\u00ed_), but all of them were in one\nand the same degree (of dignity). Verily, the generation of the\nCompanions was the best of all generations; and they were the best and\nmost excellent of mankind, since God bestowed on them companionship with\nthe Apostle and preserved their hearts from blemish.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  See Brockelmann, i, 200.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n  CONCERNING THEIR IM\u00c1MS WHO BELONGED TO THE FOLLOWERS (_al-T\u00e1bi`\u00fan_).\n\n\n                          1. UWAYS AL-QARAN\u00cd.\n\nHe lived in the time of the Apostle, but was prevented from seeing him,\nfirstly by the ecstasy which overmastered him, and secondly by duty to\nhis mother. The Apostle said to the Companions: \u201cThere is a man at\nQaran, called Uways, who at the Resurrection will intercede for a\nmultitude of my people, as many as the sheep of Rab\u00ed`a and Mu\u1e0dar.\u201d Then\nturning to `Umar and `Al\u00ed, he said: \u201cYou will see him. He is a lowly\nman, of middle height, and hairy; on his left side there is a white\nspot, as large as a dirhem, which is not from leprosy (_p\u00edst\u00ed_), and he\nhas a similar spot on the palm of his hand. When you see him, give him\nmy greeting, and bid him pray for my people.\u201d After the Apostle\u2019s death\n`Umar came to Mecca, and cried out in the course of a sermon: \u201cO men of\nNajd, are there any natives of Qaran amongst you?\u201d They answered, \u201cYes\u201d;\nwhereupon `Umar sent for them and asked them about Uways. They said: \u201cHe\nis a madman who dwells in solitude and associates with no one. He does\nnot eat what men eat, and he feels no joy or sorrow. When others smile\nhe weeps, and when others weep he smiles.\u201d `Umar said: \u201cI wish to see\nhim.\u201d They replied: \u201cHe lives in a desert, far from our camels.\u201d `Umar\nand `Al\u00ed set out in quest of him. They found him praying, and waited\nuntil he was finished. He saluted them and showed them the marks on his\nside and the palm of his hand. They asked his blessing and gave him the\nApostle\u2019s greeting, and enjoined him to pray for the Moslem people.\nAfter they had stayed with him for a while, he said: \u201cYou have taken\ntrouble (to see me); now return, for the Resurrection is near, when we\nshall see each other without having to say farewell. At present I am\nengaged in preparing for the Resurrection.\u201d When the men of Qaran came\nhome, they exhibited great respect for Uways. He left his native place\nand came to K\u00fafa. One day he was seen by Harim b. \u1e24ayy\u00e1n, but after that\nnobody saw him until the period of civil war. He fought for `Al\u00ed, and\nfell a martyr at the battle of \u1e62iff\u00edn.\n\nIt is related that he said: \u201cSafety lies in solitude,\u201d because the heart\nof the solitary is free from thought of \u201cother\u201d, and in no circumstances\ndoes he hope for anything from mankind. Let none imagine, however, that\nsolitude (_wa\u1e25dat_) merely consists in living alone. So long as the\nDevil associates with a man\u2019s heart, and sensual passion holds sway in\nhis breast, and any thought of this world or the next occurs to him in\nsuch a way as to make him conscious of mankind, he is not truly in\nsolitude; since it is all one whether he takes pleasure in the thing\nitself or in the thought of it. Accordingly, the true solitary is not\ndisturbed by society, but he who is preoccupied seeks in vain to acquire\nfreedom from thought by secluding himself. In order to be cut off from\nmankind one must become intimate with God, and those who have become\nintimate with God are not hurt by intercourse with mankind.\n\n\n                          2. HARIM B. \u1e24AYY\u00c1N.\n\nHe went to visit Uways Qaran\u00ed, but on arriving at Qaran he found that\nUways was no longer there. Deeply disappointed, he returned to Mecca,\nwhere he learned that Uways was living at K\u00fafa. He repaired thither, but\ncould not discover him for a long time. At last he set out for Ba\u1e63ra and\non the way he saw Uways, clad in a patched frock, performing an ablution\non the banks of the Euphrates. As soon as he came up from the shore of\nthe river and combed his beard, Harim advanced to meet him and saluted\nhim. Uways said: \u201cPeace be with thee, O Harim b. \u1e24ayy\u00e1n!\u201d Harim cried:\n\u201cHow did you know that I am Harim?\u201d Uways answered: \u201cMy spirit knew thy\nspirit.\u201d He said to Harim: \u201cKeep watch over thy heart\u201d (_`alayka\nbi-qalbika_), i.e. \u201cGuard thy heart from thoughts of \u2018other\u2019\u201d. This\nsaying has two meanings: (1) \u201cMake thy heart obedient to God by\nself-mortification\u201d, and (2) \u201cMake thyself obedient to thy heart\u201d. These\nare two sound principles. It is the business of novices (_mur\u00edd\u00e1n_) to\nmake their hearts obedient to God in order to purge them from\nfamiliarity with vain desires and passions, and sever them from unseemly\nthoughts, and fix them on the method of gaining spiritual health, on the\nkeeping of the commandments, and on contemplation of the signs of God,\nso that their hearts may become the shrine of Love. To make one\u2019s self\nobedient to one\u2019s heart is the business of adepts (_k\u00e1mil\u00e1n_), whose\nhearts God has illumined with the light of Beauty, and delivered from\nall causes and means, and invested with the robe of proximity (_qurb_),\nand thereby has revealed to them His bounties and has chosen them to\ncontemplate Him and to be near Him: hence He has made their bodies\naccordant with their hearts. The former class are masters of their\nhearts (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib al-qul\u00fab_), the latter are under the dominion of their\nhearts (_maghl\u00fab al-qul\u00fab_); the former retain their attributes (_b\u00e1qi\n\u00b4l-\u1e63ifat_), the latter have lost their attributes (_f\u00e1ni \u00b4l-\u1e63ifat_). The\ntruth of this matter goes back to the words of God: _Ill\u00e1 `\u00edb\u00e1daka\nminhumu \u00b4l-mukhla\u1e63\u00edna_, \u201cExcept such of them as are Thy purified\n(chosen) servants\u201d (Kor. xv, 40). Here some read _mukhli\u1e63\u00edna_ instead of\n_mukhla\u1e63\u00edna_. The _mukhli\u1e63_ (purifying one\u2019s self) is active, and\nretains his attributes, but the _mukhla\u1e63_ (purified) is passive, and has\nlost his attributes. I will explain this question more fully elsewhere.\nThe latter class, who make their bodies accordant with their hearts, and\nwhose hearts abide in contemplation of God, are of higher rank than\nthose who by their own effort make their hearts comply with the Divine\ncommandments. This subject has its foundation in the principles of\nsobriety (_\u1e63ahw_) and intoxication (_sukr_), and in those of\ncontemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_) and self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_).\n\n                           3. \u1e24ASAN OF BA\u1e62RA.\n\nHis \u201cname of honour\u201d was Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed; according to others, Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad or\nAb\u00fa Sa`\u00edd. He is held in high regard and esteem by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. He gave\nsubtle directions relating to the science of practical religion (_`ilm-i\nmu`\u00e1malat_). I have read in the Anecdotes that a Bedouin came to him and\nasked him about patience (_\u1e63abr_). \u1e24asan replied: \u201cPatience is of two\nsorts: firstly, patience in misfortune and affliction; and secondly,\npatience to refrain from the things which God has commanded us to\nrenounce and has forbidden us to pursue.\u201d The Bedouin said: \u201cThou art an\nascetic; I never saw anyone more ascetic than thou art.\u201d \u201cO Bedouin!\u201d\ncried \u1e24asan, \u201cmy asceticism is nothing but desire, and my patience is\nnothing but lack of fortitude.\u201d The Bedouin begged him to explain this\nsaying, \u201cfor [said he] thou hast shaken my belief.\u201d \u1e24asan replied: \u201cMy\npatience in misfortune and my submission proclaim my fear of Hell-fire,\nand this is lack of fortitude (_jaza`_); and my asceticism in this world\nis desire for the next world, and this is the quintessence of desire.\nHow excellent is he who takes no thought of his own interest! so that\nhis patience is for God\u2019s sake, not for the saving of himself from Hell;\nand his asceticism is for God\u2019s sake, not for the purpose of bringing\nhimself into Paradise. This is the mark of true sincerity.\u201d And it is\nrelated that he said: \u201cAssociation with the wicked produces suspicion of\nthe good.\u201d This saying is very apt and suitable to the people of the\npresent age, who all disbelieve in the honoured friends of God. The\nreason of their disbelief is that they associate with pretenders to\n\u1e62\u00fafiism, who have only its external forms; and perceiving their actions\nto be perfidious, their tongues false, their ears listening to idle\nquatrains, their eyes following pleasure and lust, and their hearts set\non amassing unlawful or dubious lucre, they fancy that aspirants to\n\u1e62\u00fafiism behave in the same manner, or that this is the doctrine of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds themselves, whereas, on the contrary, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds act in obedience\nto God, and speak the word of God, and keep the love of God in their\nhearts and the voice (_sam\u00e1`_) of God in their ears, and the beauty of\nDivine contemplation in their eyes, and all their thoughts are fixed on\nthe gaining of holy mysteries in the place where Vision is vouchsafed to\nthem. If evildoers have appeared among them and have adopted their\npractices, the evil must be referred to those who commit it. Anyone who\nassociates with the wicked members of a community does so through his\nown wickedness, for he would associate with the good if there were any\ngood in him.\n\n                        4. SA`\u00cdD B. AL-MUSAYYIB.\n\nIt is said that he was a man of devout nature who made a show of\nhypocrisy, not a hypocrite who pretended to be devout. This way of\nacting is approved in \u1e62\u00fafiism and is held laudable by all the Shaykhs.\nHe said: \u201cBe content with a little of this world while thy religion is\nsafe, even as some are content with much thereof while their religion is\nlost,\u201d i.e. poverty without injury to religion is better than riches\nwith heedlessness. It is related that when he was at Mecca a man came to\nhim and said: \u201cTell me a lawful thing in which there is nothing\nunlawful.\u201d He replied: \u201cPraise (_dhikr_) of God is a lawful thing in\nwhich there is nothing unlawful, and praise of aught else is an unlawful\nthing in which there is nothing lawful,\u201d because your salvation lies in\nthe former and your perdition in the latter.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XI.\n     CONCERNING THEIR IM\u00c1MS WHO LIVED SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE FOLLOWERS\n                    (_al-T\u00e1bi`\u00fan_) DOWN TO OUR DAY.\n\n                          1. \u1e24AB\u00cdB AL-`AJAM\u00cd.\n\nHis conversion (_tawbat_) was begun by \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra. At first he was a\nusurer and committed all sorts of wickedness, but God gave him a sincere\nrepentance, and he learned from \u1e24asan something of the theory and\npractice of religion. His native tongue was Persian (_`ajam\u00ed_), and he\ncould not speak Arabic correctly. One evening \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra passed by\nthe door of his cell. \u1e24ab\u00edb had uttered the call to prayer and was\nstanding, engaged in devotion. \u1e24asan came in, but would not pray under\nhis leadership, because \u1e24ab\u00edb was unable to speak Arabic fluently or\nrecite the Koran correctly. The same night, \u1e24asan dreamed that he saw\nGod and said to Him: \u201cO Lord, wherein does Thy good pleasure consist?\u201d\nand that God answered: \u201cO \u1e24asan, you found My good pleasure, but did not\nknow its value: if yesternight you had said your prayers after \u1e24ab\u00edb,\nand if the rightness of his intention had restrained you from taking\noffence at his pronunciation, I should have been well pleased with you.\u201d\nIt is common knowledge among \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds that when \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra fled from\n\u1e24ajj\u00e1j he entered the cell of \u1e24ab\u00edb. The soldiers came and said to\n\u1e24ab\u00edb: \u201cHave you seen \u1e24asan anywhere?\u201d \u1e24ab\u00edb said: \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cWhere is he?\u201d\n\u201cHe is in my cell.\u201d They went into the cell, but saw no one there.\nThinking that \u1e24ab\u00edb was making fun of them, they abused him and called\nhim a liar. He swore that he had spoken the truth. They returned twice\nand thrice, but found no one, and at last departed. \u1e24asan immediately\ncame out and said to \u1e24ab\u00edb: \u201cI know it was owing to thy benedictions\nthat God did not discover me to these wicked men, but why didst thou\ntell them I was here?\u201d \u1e24ab\u00edb replied: \u201cO Master, it was not on account\nof my benedictions that they failed to see thee, but through the\nblessedness of my speaking the truth. Had I told a lie, we both should\nhave been shamed.\u201d \u1e24ab\u00edb was asked: \u201cWith what thing is God pleased?\u201d He\nanswered: \u201cWith a heart which is not sullied by hypocrisy,\u201d because\nhypocrisy (_nif\u00e1q_) is the opposite of concord (_wif\u00e1q_), and the state\nof being well pleased (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) is the essence of concord. There is no\nconnexion between hypocrisy and love, and love subsists in the state of\nbeing well pleased (with whatever is decreed by God). Therefore\nacquiescence (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) is a characteristic of God\u2019s friends, while\nhypocrisy is a characteristic of His enemies. This is a very important\nmatter. I will explain it in another place.\n\n                           2. M\u00c1LIK B. D\u00cdN\u00c1R.\n\nHe was a companion of \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra. D\u00edn\u00e1r was a slave, and M\u00e1lik was\nborn before his father\u2019s emancipation. His conversion began as follows.\nOne evening he had been enjoying himself with a party of friends. When\nthey were all asleep a voice came from a lute which they had been\nplaying: \u201cO M\u00e1lik! why dost thou not repent?\u201d M\u00e1lik abandoned his evil\nways and went to \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra, and showed himself steadfast in\nrepentance. He attained to such a high degree that once when he was in a\nship, and was suspected of stealing a jewel, he no sooner lifted his\neyes to heaven than all the fishes in the sea came to the surface, every\none carrying a jewel in its mouth. M\u00e1lik took one of the jewels, and\ngave it to the man whose jewel was missing; then he set foot on the sea\nand walked until he reached the shore. It is related that he said: \u201cThe\ndeed that I love best is sincerity in doing,\u201d because an action only\nbecomes an action in virtue of its sincerity. Sincerity bears the same\nrelation to an action as the spirit to the body: as the body without the\nspirit is a lifeless thing, so an action without sincerity is utterly\nunsubstantial. Sincerity belongs to the class of internal actions,\nwhereas acts of devotion belong to the class of external actions: the\nlatter are completed by the former, while the former derive their value\nfrom the latter. Although a man should keep his heart sincere for a\nthousand years, it is not sincerity until his sincerity is combined with\naction; and although he should perform external actions for a thousand\nyears, his actions do not become acts of devotion until they are\ncombined with sincerity.\n\n                3. AB\u00da \u1e24AL\u00cdM \u1e24AB\u00cdB B. SAL\u00cdM[57] AL-R\u00c1`\u00cd.\n\nHe was a companion of Salm\u00e1n F\u00e1ris\u00ed. He related that the Apostle said:\n\u201cThe believer\u2019s intentions are better than his acts.\u201d He had flocks of\nsheep, and his home was on the bank of the Euphrates. His religious Path\n(_\u1e6dar\u00edq_) was retirement from the world. A certain Shaykh relates as\nfollows: \u201cOnce I passed by him and found him praying, while a wolf\nlooked after his sheep. I resolved to pay him a visit, since he appeared\nto me to have the marks of greatness. When we had exchanged greetings, I\nsaid: \u2018O Shaykh! I see the wolf in accord with the sheep.\u2019 He replied:\n\u2018That is because the shepherd is in accord with God.\u2019 With those words\nhe held a wooden bowl under a rock, and two fountains gushed from the\nrock, one of milk and one of honey. \u2018O Shaykh!\u2019 I cried, as he bade me\ndrink, \u2018how hast thou attained to this degree?\u2019 He answered: \u2018By\nobedience to Mu\u1e25ammad, the Apostle of God. O my son! the rock gave water\nto the people of Moses,[58] although they disobeyed him, and although\nMoses is not equal in rank to Mu\u1e25ammad: why should not the rock give\nmilk and honey to me, inasmuch as I am obedient to Mu\u1e25ammad, who is\nsuperior to Moses?\u2019 I said: \u2018Give me a word of counsel.\u2019 He said: \u2018Do\nnot make your heart a coffer of covetousness and your belly a vessel of\nunlawful things.\u2019\u201d\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  L. Aslam.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Kor. vii, 160.\n\nMy Shaykh had further traditions concerning him, but I could not\npossibly set down more than this (_andar waqt-i man \u1e0d\u00edq\u00ed b\u00fad \u00fa b\u00edsh az\n\u00edn mumkin na-shud_), my books having been left at Ghazna\u2014may God guard\nit!\u2014while I myself had become a captive among uncongenial folk (_dar\nmiy\u00e1n-i n\u00e1jins\u00e1n_) in the district of Lah\u00e1wur, which is a dependency of\nM\u00falt\u00e1n. God be praised both in joy and sorrow!\n\n                        4. AB\u00da \u1e24\u00c1ZIM AL-MADAN\u00cd.\n\nHe was steadfast in poverty, and thoroughly versed in different kinds of\nself-mortification. `Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Makk\u00ed, who shows great zeal on\nhis behalf (_andar amr-i way ba-jidd b\u00e1shad_), relates that on being\nasked what he possessed he answered: \u201cSatisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) with God and\nindependence of mankind.\u201d A certain Shaykh went to see him and found him\nasleep. When he awoke he said: \u201cI dreamed just now that the Apostle gave\nme a message to thee, and bade me inform thee that it is better to\nfulfil the duty which is owed to one\u2019s mother than to make the\npilgrimage. Return, therefore, and try to please her.\u201d The person who\ntells the story turned back and did not go to Mecca. This is all that I\nhave heard about Ab\u00fa \u1e24\u00e1zim.\n\n                         5. MU\u1e24AMMAD B. W\u00c1SI`.\n\nHe associated with many of the Followers and with some of the ancient\nShaykhs, and had a perfect knowledge of \u1e62\u00fafiism. It is related that he\nsaid: \u201cI never saw anything without seeing God therein.\u201d This is an\nadvanced stage (_maq\u00e1m_) of Contemplation. When a man is overcome with\nlove for the Agent, he attains to such a degree that in looking at His\nact he does not see the act but the Agent only and entirely, just as\nwhen one looks at a picture and sees only the painter. The true meaning\nof these words is the same as in the saying of Abraham, the Friend of\nGod (_Khal\u00edl_) and the Apostle, who said to the sun and moon and stars:\n\u201c_This is my Lord_\u201d (Kor. vi, 76-8), for he was then overcome with\nlonging (_shawq_), so that the qualities of his beloved appeared to him\nin everything that he saw. The friends of God perceive that the universe\nis subject to His might and captive to His dominion, and that the\nexistence of all created things is as nothing in comparison with the\npower of the Agent thereof. When they look thereon with longing, they do\nnot see what is subject and passive and created, but only the\nOmnipotent, the Agent, the Creator. I shall treat of this in the chapter\non Contemplation. Some persons have fallen into error, and have alleged\nthat the words of Mu\u1e25ammad b. W\u00e1si`, \u201cI saw God therein,\u201d involve a\nplace of division and descent (_mak\u00e1n-i tajziya \u00fa \u1e25ul\u00fal_), which is\nsheer infidelity, because place is homogeneous with that which is\ncontained in it, and if anyone supposes that place is created the\ncontained object must also be created; or if the latter be eternal the\nformer also must be eternal: hence this assertion entails two evil\nconsequences, both of which are infidelity, viz., either that created\nthings are eternal (_qad\u00edm_) or that the Creator is non-eternal\n(_mu\u1e25dath_). Accordingly, when Mu\u1e25ammad b. W\u00e1si` said that he saw God in\nthings, he meant, as I have explained above, that he saw in those things\nthe signs and evidences and proofs of God.\n\nI shall discuss in the proper place some subtle points connected with\nthis question.\n\n               6. AB\u00da \u1e24AN\u00cdFA NU`M\u00c1N B. TH\u00c1BIT AL-KHARR\u00c1Z.\n\nHe is the Im\u00e1m of Im\u00e1ms and the exemplar of the Sunnites. He was firmly\ngrounded in works of mortification and devotion, and was a great\nauthority on the principles of \u1e62\u00fafiism. At first he wished to go into\nseclusion and abandon the society of mankind, for he had made his heart\nfree from every thought of human power and pomp. One night, however, he\ndreamed that he was collecting the bones of the Apostle from the tomb,\nand choosing some and discarding others. He awoke in terror and asked\none of the pupils of Mu\u1e25ammad b. S\u00edr\u00edn[59] (to interpret the dream).\nThis man said to him: \u201cYou will attain a high rank in knowledge of the\nApostle and in preserving his ordinances (_sunnat_), so that you will\nsift what is genuine from what is spurious.\u201d Another time Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa\ndreamed that the Apostle said to him: \u201cYou have been created for the\npurpose of reviving my ordinances.\u201d He was the master of many Shaykhs,\ne.g. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham and Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d and D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed and Bishr \u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  A well-known divine, who died in 110 A.H. See Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 576.\n  An extant work on the interpretation of dreams is attributed to him\n  (Brockelmann, i, 66).\n\nIn the reign of the Caliph Man\u1e63\u00far a plan was formed to appoint to the\noffice of Cadi one of the following persons: Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa, Sufy\u00e1n Thawr\u00ed,\nMis`ar b. Kid\u00e1m, and Shuray\u1e25. While they were journeying together to\nvisit Man\u1e63\u00far, who had summoned them to his presence, Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa said to\nhis companions: \u201cI will reject this office by means of a certain trick,\nMis`ar will feign to be mad, Sufy\u00e1n will run away, and Shuray\u1e25 will be\nmade Cadi.\u201d Sufy\u00e1n fled and embarked in a ship, imploring the captain to\nconceal him and save him from execution. The others were ushered into\nthe presence of the Caliph. Man\u1e63\u00far said to Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa: \u201cYou must act as\nCadi.\u201d Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa replied: \u201cO Commander of the Faithful, I am not an\nArab, but one of their clients; and the chiefs of the Arabs will not\naccept my decisions.\u201d Man\u1e63\u00far said: \u201cThis matter has nothing to do with\nlineage: it demands learning, and you are the most eminent doctor of the\nday.\u201d Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa persisted that he was unfit to hold the office. \u201cWhat I\nhave just said shows it,\u201d he exclaimed; \u201cfor if I have spoken the truth\nI am disqualified, and if I have told a falsehood it is not right that a\nliar should be judge over Moslems, and that you should entrust him with\nthe lives, property, and honour of your subjects.\u201d He escaped in this\nway. Then Mis`ar came forward and seized the Caliph\u2019s hand and said:\n\u201cHow are you, and your children, and your beasts of burden?\u201d \u201cAway with\nhim,\u201d cried Man\u1e63\u00far, \u201che is mad!\u201d Finally, Shuray\u1e25 was told that he must\nfill the vacant office. \u201cI am melancholic,\u201d said he, \u201cand light-witted,\u201d\nwhereupon Man\u1e63\u00far advised him to drink ptisanes and potions (_`a\u1e63\u00eddah\u00e1-yi\nmuw\u00e1fiq \u00fa nab\u00eddhh\u00e1-yi muthallath_) until his intellect was fully\nrestored. So Shuray\u1e25 was made Cadi, and Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa never spoke a word to\nhim again. This story illustrates not only the sagacity of Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa,\nbut also his adherence to the path of righteousness and salvation, and\nhis determination not to let himself be deluded by seeking popularity\nand worldly renown. It shows, moreover, the soundness of blame\n(_mal\u00e1mat_), since all these three venerable men resorted to some trick\nin order to avoid popularity. Very different are the doctors of the\npresent age, who make the palaces of princes their _qibla_ and the\nhouses of evildoers their temple.\n\nOnce a doctor of Ghazna, who claimed to be a learned divine and a\nreligious leader, declared it heresy to wear a patched frock\n(_muraqqa`a_). I said to him: \u201cYou do not call it heretical to wear\nrobes of brocade,[60] which are made entirely of silk and, besides being\nin themselves unlawful for men to wear, have been begged with\nimportunity, which is unlawful, from evildoers whose property is\nabsolutely unlawful. Why, then, is it heretical to wear a lawful\ngarment, procured from a lawful place, and purchased with lawful money?\nIf you were not ruled by inborn conceit and by the error of your soul,\nyou would express a more judicious opinion. Women may wear a dress of\nsilk lawfully, but it is unlawful for men, and only permissible\n(_mub\u00e1\u1e25_) for lunatics. If you acknowledge the truth of both these\nstatements you are excused (for condemning the patched frock). God save\nus from lack of fairness!\u201d\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  The text has _j\u00e1ma-i \u1e25ash\u00edsh\u00ed \u00fa d\u00edbaq\u00ed_. Apparently the former word\n  should be written \u201c_khash\u00edsh\u00ed_\u201d. It is described in Vullers\u2019s Persian\n  Dictionary as \u201ca kind of garment\u201d.\n\nYa\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed relates as follows: \u201cI dreamed that I said to\nthe Apostle, \u2018O Apostle of God, where shall I seek thee?\u2019 He answered:\n\u2018In the science of Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa.\u2019\u201d\n\nOnce, when I was in Syria, I fell asleep at the tomb of Bil\u00e1l the\nMuezzin,[61] and dreamed that I was at Mecca, and that the Apostle came\nin through the gate of the Ban\u00fa Shayba, tenderly clasping an old man to\nhis bosom in the same fashion as people are wont to carry children; and\nthat I ran to him and kissed the back of his foot, and stood marvelling\nwho the old man might be; and that the Apostle was miraculously aware of\nmy secret thought and said to me, \u201cThis is thy Im\u00e1m and the Im\u00e1m of thy\ncountryman,\u201d meaning Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa. In consequence of this dream I have\ngreat hopes for myself and also for the people of my country. It has\nconvinced me, moreover, that Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa was one of those who, having\nannihilated their natural qualities, continue to perform the ordinances\nof the sacred law, as appears from the fact that he was carried by the\nApostle. If he had walked by himself, his attributes must have been\nsubsistent, and such a one may either miss or hit the mark; but inasmuch\nas he was carried by the Apostle, his attributes must have been\nnon-existent while he was sustained by the living attributes of the\nApostle. The Apostle cannot err, and it is equally impossible that one\nwho is sustained by the Apostle should fall into error.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Bil\u00e1l b. Rab\u00e1\u1e25, the Prophet\u2019s Muezzin, was buried at Damascus.\n\nWhen D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed had acquired learning and become a famous authority, he\nwent to Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa and said to him: \u201cWhat shall I do now?\u201d Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa\nreplied: \u201cPractise what you have learned, for theory without practice is\nlike a body without a spirit.\u201d He who is content with learning alone is\nnot learned, and the truly learned man is not content with learning\nalone.\n\nSimilarly, Divine guidance (_hid\u00e1yat_) involves self-mortification\n(_muj\u00e1hadat_), without which contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_) is\nunattainable. There is no knowledge without action, since knowledge is\nthe product of action, and is brought forth and developed and made\nprofitable by the blessings of action. The two things cannot be divorced\nin any way, just as the light of the sun cannot be separated from the\nsun itself.\n\n                  7. `ABDALL\u00c1H B. MUB\u00c1RAK AL-MARWAZ\u00cd.\n\nHe was the Im\u00e1m of his time and consorted with many eminent Shaykhs. He\nis the author of celebrated works and famous miracles. The occasion of\nhis conversion is related as follows: He was in love with a girl, and\none night in winter he stationed himself at the foot of the wall of her\nhouse, while she came on to the roof, and they both stayed gazing at\neach other until daybreak. When `Abdall\u00e1h heard the call to morning\nprayers he thought it was time for evening prayers; and only when the\nsun began to shine did he discover that he had spent the whole night in\nrapturous contemplation of his beloved. He took warning by this, and\nsaid to himself: \u201cShame on thee, O son of Mub\u00e1rak! Dost thou stand on\nfoot all night for thine own pleasure, and yet become furious when the\nIm\u00e1m reads a long chapter of the Koran?\u201d He repented and devoted himself\nto study, and entered upon a life of asceticism, in which he attained\nsuch a high degree that once his mother found him asleep in the garden,\nwhile a great snake was driving the gnats away from him with a spray of\nbasil which it held in its mouth. Then he left Merv and lived for some\ntime in Baghd\u00e1d, associating with the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, and also resided for\nsome time at Mecca. When he returned to Merv, the people of the town\nreceived him with friendship and founded for him a professorial chair\nand a lecture hall (_dars \u00fa majlis nih\u00e1dand_). At that epoch half the\npopulation of Merv were followers of Tradition and the other half\nadherents of Opinion, just as at the present day. They called him _Ra\u1e0d\u00ed\nal-far\u00edqayn_ because of his agreement with both sides, and each party\nclaimed him as one of themselves. He built two convents (_rib\u00e1\u1e6d_) at\nMerv\u2014one for the followers of Tradition and one for the followers of\nOpinion\u2014which have retained their original constitution down to the\npresent day. Afterwards he went back to the \u1e24ij\u00e1z and settled at Mecca.\nOn being asked what wonders he had seen, he replied: \u201cI saw a Christian\nmonk (_r\u00e1hib_), who was emaciated by self-mortification and bent double\nby fear of God. I asked him to tell me the way to God. He answered, \u2018If\nyou knew God, you would know the way to Him.\u2019 Then he said, \u2018I worship\nHim although I do not know him, whereas you disobey Him although you\nknow Him,\u2019 i.e. \u2018knowledge entails fear, yet I see that you are\nconfident; and infidelity entails ignorance, yet I feel fear within\nmyself.\u2019 I laid this to heart, and it restrained me from many ill\ndeeds.\u201d It is related that `Abdall\u00e1h b. Mub\u00e1rak said: \u201cTranquillity is\nunlawful to the hearts of the Saints of God,\u201d for they are agitated in\nthis world by seeking God (_\u1e6dalab_) and in the next world by rapture\n(_\u1e6darab_); they are not permitted to rest here, while they are absent\nfrom God, nor there, while they enjoy the presence, manifestation, and\nvision of God. Hence this world is even as the next world in their eyes,\nand the next world even as this world, because tranquillity of heart\ndemands two things, either attainment of one\u2019s aim or indifference to\nthe object of one\u2019s desire. Since He is not to be attained in this world\nor the next, the heart can never have rest from the palpitation of love;\nand since indifference is unlawful to those who love Him, the heart can\nnever have rest from the agitations of seeking Him. This is a firm\nprinciple in the path of spiritual adepts.\n\n                    8. AB\u00da `AL\u00cd AL-FU\u1e0cAYL B. `IY\u00c1\u1e0c.\n\nHe is one of the paupers (_\u1e63a`\u00e1l\u00edk_) of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and one of their most\neminent and celebrated men. At first he used to practise brigandage\nbetween Merv and B\u00e1ward, but he was always inclined to piety, and\ninvariably showed a generous and magnanimous disposition, so that he\nwould not attack a caravan in which there was any woman, or take the\nproperty of anyone whose stock was small; and he let the travellers keep\na portion of their property, according to the means of each. One day a\nmerchant set out from Merv. His friends advised him to take an escort,\nbut he said to them: \u201cI have heard that Fu\u1e0dayl is a God-fearing man;\u201d\nand instead of doing as they wished he hired a Koran-reader and mounted\nhim on a camel in order that he might read the Koran aloud day and night\nduring the journey. When they reached the place where Fu\u1e0dayl was lying\nin ambush, the reader happened to be reciting: \u201c_Is not the time yet\ncome unto those who believe, that their hearts should humbly submit to\nthe admonition of God?_\u201d (Kor. lvii, 15). Fu\u1e0dayl\u2019s heart was softened.\nHe repented of the business in which he was engaged, and having a\nwritten list of those whom he had robbed he satisfied all their claims\nupon him. Then he went to Mecca and resided there for some time and\nbecame acquainted with certain saints of God. Afterwards he returned to\nK\u00fafa, where he associated with Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa. He has handed down relations\nwhich are held in high esteem by Traditionists, and he is the author of\nlofty sayings concerning the verities of \u1e62\u00fafiism and Divine Knowledge.\nIt is recorded that he said: \u201cWhoever knows God as He ought to be known\nworships Him with all his might,\u201d because everyone who knows God\nacknowledges His bounty and beneficence and mercy, and therefore loves\nHim; and since he loves Him he obeys Him so far as he has the power, for\nit is not difficult to obey those whom one loves. Accordingly, the more\none loves, the more one is obedient, and love is increased by true\nknowledge.[62] It is related that he said: \u201cThe world is a madhouse, and\nthe people therein are madmen, wearing shackles and chains.\u201d Lust is our\nshackle and sin is our chain.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Here the author relates two anecdotes illustrating the devotion of\n  Mu\u1e25ammad.\n\nFa\u1e0dl b. Rab\u00ed` relates as follows: \u201cI accompanied H\u00e1r\u00fan al-Rash\u00edd to\nMecca. When we had performed the pilgrimage, he said to me, \u2018Is there\nany man of God here that I may visit him?\u2019 I replied, \u2018Yes, there is\n`Abd al-Razz\u00e1q \u1e62an`\u00e1n\u00ed.\u2019[63] We went to his house and talked with him\nfor a while. When we were about to leave, H\u00e1r\u00fan bade me ask him whether\nhe had any debts. He said, \u2018Yes,\u2019 and H\u00e1r\u00fan gave orders that they should\nbe paid. On coming out, H\u00e1r\u00fan said to me, \u2018O Fa\u1e0dl, my heart still\ndesires to see a man greater than this one.\u2019 I conducted him to Sufy\u00e1n\nb. `Uyayna.[64] Our visit ended in the same way. H\u00e1r\u00fan gave orders to\npay his debts and departed. Then he said to me, \u2018I recollect that Fu\u1e0dayl\nb. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d is here; let us go and see him.\u2019 We found him in an upper\nchamber, reciting a verse of the Koran. When we knocked at the door, he\ncried, \u2018Who is there?\u2019 I replied, \u2018The Commander of the Faithful.\u2019 \u2018What\nhave I to do with the Commander of the Faithful?\u2019 said he. I said, \u2018Is\nthere not an Apostolic Tradition to the effect that no one shall seek to\nabase himself in devotion to God?\u2019 He answered, \u2018Yes, but acquiescence\nin God\u2019s will (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) is everlasting glory in the opinion of quietists:\nyou see my abasement, but I see my exaltation.\u2019 Then he came down and\nopened the door, and extinguished the lamp and stood in a corner. H\u00e1r\u00fan\nwent in and tried to find him. Their hands met. Fu\u1e0dayl exclaimed, \u2018Alas!\nnever have I felt a softer hand: \u2019t will be very wonderful if it escape\nfrom the Divine torment.\u2019 H\u00e1r\u00fan began to weep, and wept so violently\nthat he swooned. When he came to himself, he said, \u2018O Fu\u1e0dayl, give me a\nword of counsel.\u2019 Fu\u1e0dayl said: \u2018O Commander of the Faithful, thy\nancestor (`Abb\u00e1s) was the uncle of Mu\u1e63\u1e6daf\u00e1. He asked the Prophet to give\nhim dominion over men. The Prophet answered, \u201cO my uncle, I will give\nthee dominion for one moment over thyself,\u201d i.e. one moment of thy\nobedience to God is better than a thousand years of men\u2019s obedience to\nthee, since dominion brings repentance on the Day of Resurrection\u2019\n(_al-im\u00e1rat yawm al-qiy\u00e1mat nad\u00e1mat_). H\u00e1r\u00fan said, \u2018Counsel me further.\u2019\nFu\u1e0dayl continued: \u2018When `Umar b. `Abd al-`Az\u00edz was appointed Caliph, he\nsummoned S\u00e1lim b. `Abdall\u00e1h and Raj\u00e1 b. \u1e24ay\u00e1t, and Mu\u1e25ammad b. Ka`b\nal-Qura\u1e95\u00ed, and said to them, \u201cWhat am I to do in this affliction? for I\ncount it an affliction, although people in general consider it to be a\nblessing.\u201d One of them replied: \u201cIf thou wouldst be saved to-morrow from\nthe Divine punishment, regard the elders of the Moslems as thy fathers,\nand their young men as thy brothers, and their children as thy children.\nThe whole territory of Islam is thy house, and its people are thy\nfamily. Visit thy father, and honour thy brother, and deal kindly with\nthy children.\u201c\u2019 Then Fu\u1e0dayl said: \u2018O Commander of the Faithful, I fear\nlest that handsome face of thine fall into Hell-fire. Fear God, and\nperform thy obligations to Him better than this.\u2019 H\u00e1r\u00fan asked Fu\u1e0dayl\nwhether he had any debts. He answered, \u2018Yes, the debt which I owe to\nGod, namely, obedience to Him; woe is me, if He call me to account for\nit!\u2019 H\u00e1r\u00fan said, \u2018O Fu\u1e0dayl, I am speaking of debts to men.\u2019 He replied,\n\u2018God be praised! His bounty towards me is great, and I have no reason to\ncomplain of Him to His servants.\u2019 H\u00e1r\u00fan offered him a purse of a\nthousand dinars, saying, \u2018Use the money for some purpose of thine own.\u2019\nFu\u1e0dayl said, \u2018O Commander of the Faithful, my counsels have done thee no\ngood. Here again thou art behaving wrongly and unjustly.\u2019 H\u00e1r\u00fan\nexclaimed, \u2018How is that?\u2019 Fu\u1e0dayl said, \u2018I wish thee to be saved, but\nthou wouldst cast me into perdition: is not this unjust?\u2019 We took leave\nof him with tears in our eyes, and H\u00e1r\u00fan said to me, \u2018O Fa\u1e0dl, Fu\u1e0dayl is\na king indeed.\u2019\u201d\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  He died in 211 A.H. See Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 409.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Died in 168 A.H. See Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 266.\n\nAll this shows his hatred of the world and its people, and his contempt\nfor its gauds, and his refusal to abase himself before worldlings for\nthe sake of worldly gain.\n\n             9. ABU \u00b4L-FAY\u1e0c DHU \u00b4L-N\u00daN B. IBR\u00c1H\u00cdM AL-MI\u1e62R\u00cd.\n\nHe was the son of a Nubian, and his name was Thawb\u00e1n. He is one of the\nbest of this sect, and one of the most eminent of their hidden\nspiritualists (_`ayy\u00e1r\u00e1n_), for he trod the path of affliction and\ntravelled on the road of blame (_mal\u00e1mat_). All the people of Egypt were\nlost in doubt as to his true state, and did not believe in him until he\nwas dead. On the night of his decease seventy persons dreamed that they\nsaw the Apostle, who said: \u201cI have come to meet Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan, the friend\nof God.\u201d And after his death the following words were found inscribed on\nhis forehead: _This is the beloved of God, who died in love of God,\nslain by God_. At his funeral the birds of the air gathered above his\nbier, and wove their wings together so as to shadow it. On seeing this,\nall the Egyptians felt remorse and repented of the injustice which they\nhad done to him. He has many fine and admirable sayings on the verities\nof mystical knowledge. He says, for example: \u201cThe gnostic (_`\u00e1rif_) is\nmore lowly every day, because he is approaching nearer to his Lord every\nmoment,\u201d inasmuch as he thereby becomes aware of the awfulness of the\nDivine Omnipotence, and when the majesty of God has taken possession of\nhis heart, he sees how far he is from God and that there is no way of\nreaching Him; hence his lowliness is increased. Thus Moses said, when he\nconversed with God: \u201cO Lord, where shall I seek Thee?\u201d God answered:\n\u201cAmong those whose hearts are broken.\u201d Moses said: \u201cO Lord, no heart is\nmore broken and despairing than mine.\u201d God answered: \u201cThen I am where\nthou art.\u201d Accordingly, anyone who pretends to know God without\nlowliness and fear is an ignorant fool, not a gnostic. The sign of true\nknowledge is sincerity of will, and a sincere will cuts off all\nsecondary causes and severs all ties of relationship, so that nothing\nremains except God. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan says: \u201cSincerity (_\u1e63idq_) is the sword of\nGod on the earth: it cuts everything that it touches.\u201d Now sincerity\nregards the Causer, and does not consist in affirmation of secondary\ncauses. To affirm the latter is to destroy the principle of sincerity.\n\nAmong the stories told of Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan I have read that one day he was\nsailing with his disciples in a boat on the River Nile, as is the custom\nof the people of Egypt when they desire recreation. Another boat was\ncoming up, filled with merry\u2014makers, whose unseemly behaviour so\ndisgusted the disciples that they begged Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan to implore God to\nsink the boat. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan raised his hands and cried: \u201cO Lord, as Thou\nhast given these people a pleasant life in this world, give them a\npleasant life in the next world too!\u201d The disciples were astonished by\nhis prayer. When the boat came nearer and those in it saw Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan,\nthey began to weep and ask pardon, and broke their lutes and repented\nunto God. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan said to his disciples: \u201cA pleasant life in the next\nworld is repentance in this world. You and they are all satisfied\nwithout harm to anyone.\u201d He acted thus from his extreme affection\ntowards the Moslems, following the example of the Apostle, who,\nnotwithstanding the ill-treatment which he received from the infidels,\nnever ceased to say: \u201cO God! direct my people, for they know not.\u201d Dhu\n\u00b4l-N\u00fan relates that as he was journeying from Jerusalem to Egypt he saw\nin the distance some one advancing towards him, and felt impelled to ask\na question. When the person came near he perceived that it was an old\nwoman carrying a staff (_`ukk\u00e1za_[65]), and wearing a woollen tunic\n(_jubba_). He asked her whence she came. She answered: \u201cFrom God.\u201d \u201cAnd\nwhither goest thou?\u201d \u201cTo God.\u201d Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan drew forth a piece of gold\nwhich he had with him and offered it to her, but she shook her hand in\nhis face and cried: \u201cO Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan, the notion which thou hast formed of\nme arises from the feebleness of thy intelligence. I work for God\u2019s\nsake, and accept nothing unless from Him. I worship Him alone and take\nfrom Him alone.\u201d With these words she went on her way.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  According to a marginal gloss in I, _`ukk\u00e1za_ is a tripod on which a\n  leathern water-bottle is suspended.\n\nThe old woman\u2019s saying that she worked for God\u2019s sake is a proof of her\nsincerity in love. Men in their dealings with God fall into two classes.\nSome imagine that they work for God\u2019s sake when they are really working\nfor themselves; and though their work is not done with any worldly\nmotive, they desire a recompense in the next world. Others take no\nthought of reward or punishment in the next world, any more than of\nostentation and reputation in this world, but act solely from reverence\nfor the commandments of God. Their love of God requires them to forget\nevery selfish interest while they do His bidding. The former class fancy\nthat what they do for the sake of the next world they do for God\u2019s sake,\nand fail to recognize that the devout have a greater self-interest in\ndevotion than the wicked have in sin, because the sinner\u2019s pleasure\nlasts only for a moment, whereas devotion is a delight for ever.\nBesides, what gain accrues to God from the religious exercises of\nmankind, or what loss from their non-performance? If all the world acted\nwith the veracity of Ab\u00fa Bakr, the gain would be wholly theirs, and if\nwith the falsehood of Pharaoh, the loss would be wholly theirs, as God\nhath said: \u201c_If ye do good, it is to yourselves, and if ye do evil, it\nis to yourselves_\u201d (Kor. xvii, 7); and also: \u201c_Whoever exerts himself_\n[in religion] _does so for his_ _own advantage. Verily, God is\nindependent of created beings_\u201d (Kor. xxix, 5). They seek for themselves\nan everlasting kingdom and say, \u201cWe are working for God\u2019s sake\u201d; but to\ntread the path of love is a different thing. Lovers, in fulfilling the\nDivine commandment, regard only the accomplishment of the Beloved\u2019s\nwill, and have no eyes for anything else.\n\nA similar topic will be discussed in the chapter on Sincerity\n(_ikhl\u00e1\u1e63_).\n\n               10. AB\u00da IS\u1e24\u00c1Q IBR\u00c1H\u00cdM B. ADHAM B. MAN\u1e62\u00daR.\n\nHe was unique in his Path, and the chief of his contemporaries. He was a\ndisciple of the Apostle Khi\u1e0dr. He met a large number of the ancient \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nShaykhs, and associated with the Im\u00e1m Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa, from whom he learned\ndivinity (_`ilm_). In the earlier part of his life he was Prince of\nBalkh. One day he went to the chase, and having become separated from\nhis suite was pursuing an antelope. God caused the antelope to address\nhim in elegant language and say: \u201cWast thou created for this, or wast\nthou commanded to do this?\u201d He repented, abandoned everything, and\nentered on the path of asceticism and abstinence. He made the\nacquaintance of Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d and Sufy\u00e1n Thawr\u00ed, and consorted with\nthem. After his conversion he never ate any food except what he had\nearned by his own labour. His sayings on the verities of \u1e62\u00fafiism are\noriginal and exquisite. Junayd said: \u201cIbr\u00e1h\u00edm is the key of the\n(mystical) sciences.\u201d It is related that he said: \u201cTake God as thy\ncompanion and leave mankind alone,\u201d i.e. when anyone is rightly and\nsincerely turned towards God, the rightness of his turning towards God\nrequires that he should turn his back on mankind, inasmuch as the\nsociety of mankind has nothing to do with thoughts of God. Companionship\nwith God is sincerity in fulfilling His commands, and sincerity in\ndevotion springs from purity of love, and pure love of God proceeds from\nhatred of passion and lust. Whoever is familiar with sensual affections\nis separated from God, and whoever is separated from sensual affections\nis dwelling with God. Therefore thou art all mankind in regard to\nthyself: turn away from thyself, and thou hast turned away from all\nmankind. Thou dost wrong to turn away from mankind and towards thyself,\nand to be concerned with thyself, whereas the actions of all mankind are\ndetermined by the providence and predestination of God. The outward and\ninward rectitude (_istiq\u00e1mat_) of the seeker is founded on two things,\none of which is theoretical and the other practical. The former consists\nin regarding all good and evil as predestined by God, so that nothing in\nthe universe passes into a state of rest or motion until God has created\nrest or motion in that thing; the latter consists in performing the\ncommand of God, in rightness of action towards Him, and in keeping the\nobligations which he Has imposed. Predestination can never become an\nargument for neglecting His commands. True renunciation of mankind is\nimpossible until thou hast renounced thyself. As soon as thou hast\nrenounced thyself, all mankind are necessary for the fulfilment of the\nwill of God; and as soon as thou hast turned to God, thou art necessary\nfor the accomplishment of the decree of God. Hence it is not permissible\nto be satisfied with mankind. If thou wilt be satisfied with anything\nexcept God, at least be satisfied with another (_ghayr_) for\nsatisfaction with another is to regard unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), whereas\nsatisfaction with thyself is to affirm the nullity of the Creator\n(_ta`t\u00edl_). For this reason Shaykh Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan S\u00e1liba[66] used to say\nthat it is better for novices to be under the authority of a cat than\nunder their own authority, because companionship with another is for\nGod\u2019s sake, while companionship with one\u2019s self is calculated to foster\nthe sensual affections. This topic will be discussed in the proper\nplace. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham tells the following story: \u201cWhen I reached the\ndesert, an old man came up and said to me, \u2018O Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm, do you know what\nplace this is, and where you are journeying without provisions and on\nfoot?\u2019 I knew that he was Satan. I produced from the bosom of my shirt\nfour _d\u00e1niqs_\u2014the price of a basket which I had sold in K\u00fafa\u2014and cast\nthem away and made a vow that I would perform a prayer of four hundred\ngenuflexions for every mile that I travelled. I remained four years in\nthe desert, and God was giving me my daily bread without any exertion on\nmy part. During that time Khi\u1e0dr consorted with me and taught me the\nGreat Name of God. Then my heart became wholly empty of \u2018other\u2019\n(_ghayr_).\u201d\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 347, where he is called Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24usayn S\u00e1liba.\n\n                    11. BISHR B. AL-\u1e24\u00c1RITH AL-\u1e24\u00c1F\u00cd.\n\nHe associated with Fu\u1e0dayl and was the disciple of his own maternal\nuncle, `Al\u00ed b. Khashram. He was versed in the principal, as well as the\nderivative, sciences. His conversion began as follows. One day, when he\nwas drunk, he found on the road a piece of paper on which was written:\n\u201c_In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful._\u201d He picked it up\nwith reverence, perfumed it, and laid in a clean place. The same night\nhe dreamed that God said to him: \u201cO Bishr, as thou hast made My name\nsweet, I swear by My glory that I will make thy name sweet both in this\nworld and the next.\u201d Thereupon he repented and took to asceticism. So\nintensely was he absorbed in contemplation of God that he never put\nanything on his feet. When he was asked the reason of this, he said:\n\u201cThe Earth is His carpet, and I deem it wrong to tread on His carpet\nwhile there is anything between my foot and His carpet.\u201d This is one of\nhis peculiar practices: in the concentration of his mind on God a shoe\nseemed to him a veil (between him and God). It is related that he said:\n\u201cWhoever desires to be honoured in this world and exalted in the next\nworld, let him shun three things: let him not ask a boon of anyone, nor\nspeak ill of anyone, nor accept an invitation to eat with anyone.\u201d No\nman who knows the way to God will ask a boon of human beings, since to\ndo so is a proof of his ignorance of God: if he knew the Giver of all\nboons, he would not ask a boon from a fellow-creature. Again, the man\nwho speaks ill of anyone is criticizing the decree of God, inasmuch as\nboth the individual himself and his actions are created by God; and on\nwhom can the blame for an action be thrown except on the agent? This\ndoes not apply, however, to the blame which God has commanded us to\nbestow upon infidels. Thirdly, as to his saying, \u201cDo not eat of men\u2019s\nfood,\u201d the reason is that God is the Provider. If He makes a creature\nthe means of giving you daily bread, do not regard that creature, but\nconsider that the daily bread which God has caused to come to you does\nnot belong to him but to God. If he thinks that it is his, and that he\nis thereby conferring a favour on you, do not accept it. In the matter\nof daily bread one person does not confer on another any favour at all,\nbecause, according to the opinion of the orthodox, daily bread is food\n(_ghidh\u00e1_), although the Mu`tazilites hold it to be property (_milk_);\nand God, not any created being, nourishes mankind with food. This saying\nmay be explained otherwise, if it be taken in a profane sense (_maj\u00e1z_).\n\n                12. AB\u00da YAZ\u00cdD \u1e6cAYF\u00daR B. `\u00cdS\u00c1 AL-BIS\u1e6c\u00c1M\u00cd.\n\nHe is the greatest of the Shaykhs in state and dignity, so that Junayd\nsaid: \u201cAb\u00fa Yaz\u00edd holds the same rank among us as Gabriel among the\nangels.\u201d His grandfather was a Magian, and his father was one of the\nnotables of Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m. He is the author of many trustworthy relations\nconcerning the Traditions of the Apostle, and he is one of the ten\ncelebrated Im\u00e1ms of \u1e62\u00fafiism. No one before him penetrated so deeply into\nthe arcana of this science. In all circumstances he was a lover of\ntheology and a venerator of the sacred law, notwithstanding the spurious\ndoctrine which has been foisted on him by some persons with the object\nof supporting their own heresies. From the first, his life was based on\nself-mortification and the practice of devotion. It is recorded that he\nsaid: \u201cFor thirty years I was active in self-mortification, and I found\nnothing harder than to learn divinity and follow its precepts. But for\nthe disagreement of divines I should have utterly failed in my\nendeavour. The disagreement of divines is a mercy save on the point of\nUnification.\u201d This is true indeed, for human nature is more prone to\nignorance than to knowledge, and while many things can be done easily\nwith ignorance, not a single step can be made easily with knowledge. The\nbridge of the sacred law is much narrower and more dangerous than the\nBridge (_\u1e62ir\u00e1\u1e6d_) in the next world. Therefore it behoves thee so to act\nin all circumstances that, if thou shouldst not attain a high degree and\nan eminent station, thou mayst at any rate fall within the pale of the\nsacred law. Even if thou lose all else, thy practices of devotion will\nremain with thee. Neglect of those is the worst mischief that can happen\nto a novice.\n\nIt is related that Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cParadise hath no value in the eyes\nof lovers, and lovers are veiled (from God) by their love,\u201d i.e.\nParadise is created, whereas love is an uncreated attribute of God.\nWhoever is detained by a created thing from that which is uncreated, is\nwithout worth and value. Created things are worthless in the eyes of\nlovers. Lovers are veiled by love, because the existence of love\ninvolves duality, which is incompatible with unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_). The\nway of lovers is from oneness to oneness, but there is in love this\ndefect, that it needs a desirer (_mur\u00edd_) and an object of desire\n(_mur\u00e1d_). Either God must be the desirer and Man the desired, or _vice\nvers\u00e2_. In the former case, Man\u2019s being is fixed in God\u2019s desire, but if\nMan is the desirer and God the object of desire, the creature\u2019s search\nand desire can find no way unto Him: in either case the canker of being\nremains in the lover. Accordingly, the annihilation of the lover in the\neverlastingness of love is more perfect than his subsistence through the\neverlastingness of love.\n\nIt is related that Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cI went to Mecca and saw a House\nstanding apart. I said, \u2018My pilgrimage is not accepted, for I have seen\nmany stones of this sort.\u2019 I went again, and saw the House and also the\nLord of the House. I said, \u2018This is not yet real unification.\u2019 I went a\nthird time, and saw only the Lord of the House. A voice in my heart\nwhispered, \u2018O B\u00e1yaz\u00edd, if thou didst not see thyself, thou wouldst not\nbe a polytheist (_mushrik_) though thou sawest the whole universe; and\nsince thou seest thyself, thou art a polytheist though blind to the\nwhole universe.\u2019 Thereupon I repented, and once more I repented of my\nrepentance, and yet once more I repented of seeing my own existence.\u201d\n\nThis is a subtle tale concerning the soundness of his state, and gives\nan excellent indication to spiritualists.\n\n            13. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H AL-\u1e24\u00c1RITH B. ASAD AL-MU\u1e24\u00c1SIB\u00cd.\n\nHe was learned in the principal and derivative sciences, and his\nauthority was recognized by all the theologians of his day. He wrote a\nbook, entitled _Ri`\u00e1yat_,[67] on the principles of \u1e62\u00fafiism, as well as\nmany other works. In every branch of learning he was a man of lofty\nsentiment and noble mind. He was the chief Shaykh of Baghd\u00e1d in his\ntime. It is related that he said: _Al-`ilm bi-\u1e25arak\u00e1t al-qul\u00fab f\u00ed\nmu\u1e6d\u00e1la`at al-ghuy\u00fab ashraf min al-`amal bi-\u1e25arak\u00e1t al-jaw\u00e1ri\u1e25_, i.e. he\nwho is acquainted with the secret motions of the heart is better than he\nwho acts with the motions of the limbs. The meaning is that knowledge is\nthe place of perfection, whereas ignorance is the place of search, and\nknowledge at the shrine is better than ignorance at the door: knowledge\nbrings a man to perfection, but ignorance does not even allow him to\nenter (on the way to perfection). In reality knowledge is greater than\naction, because it is possible to know God by means of knowledge, but\nimpossible to attain to Him by means of action. If He could be found by\naction without knowledge, the Christians and the monks in their\nausterities would behold Him face to face and sinful believers would\nhave no vision of Him. Therefore knowledge is a Divine attribute and\naction a human attribute. Some relaters of this saying have fallen into\nerror by reading _al-`amal bi-\u1e25arak\u00e1t al-qul\u00fab_,[68] which is absurd,\nsince human actions have nothing to do with the motions of the heart. If\nthe author uses this expression to denote reflection and contemplation\nof the inward feelings, it is not strange, for the Apostle said: \u201cA\nmoment\u2019s reflection is better than sixty years of devotion,\u201d and\nspiritual actions are in truth more excellent than bodily actions, and\nthe effect produced by inward feelings and actions is really more\ncomplete than the effect produced by outward actions. Hence it is said:\n\u201cThe sleep of the sage is an act of devotion and the wakefulness of the\nfool is a sin,\u201d because the sage\u2019s heart is controlled (by God) whether\nhe sleeps or wakes, and when the heart is controlled the body also is\ncontrolled. Accordingly, the heart that is controlled by the sway of God\nis better than the sensual part of Man which controls his outward\nmotions and acts of self-mortification. It is related that \u1e24\u00e1rith said\none day to a dervish, _Kun lill\u00e1h wa-ill\u00e1 l\u00e1 takun_, \u201cBe God\u2019s or be\nnothing,\u201d i.e. either be subsistent through God or perish to thine own\nexistence; either be united with Purity (_\u1e63afwat_) or separated by\nPoverty (_faqr_); either in the state described by the words \u201cBow ye\ndown to Adam\u201d (Kor. ii, 32) or in the state described by the words \u201c_Did\nthere not come over Man a time when he was not anything worthy of\nmention?_\u201d (Kor. lxxvi, 1). If thou wilt give thyself to God of thy own\nfree choice, thy resurrection will be through thyself, but if thou wilt\nnot, then thy resurrection will be through God.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Its full title is _Ri`\u00e1yat li-\u1e25uq\u00faq Allah_, \u201cThe observance of what is\n  due to God.\u201d\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  This reading is given in the _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-\u1e62\u00fafiyya_ of Ab\u00fa `Abd\n  al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed (British Museum MS., Add. 18,520, f. 13_a_).\n\n\n               14. AB\u00da SULAYM\u00c1N D\u00c1WUD B. NU\u1e62AYR AL-\u1e6c\u00c1\u00b4\u00cd.\n\nHe was a pupil of Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa and a contemporary of Fu\u1e0dayl and Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b.\nAdham. In \u1e62\u00fafiism he was a disciple of \u1e24ab\u00edb R\u00e1`\u00ed. He was deeply versed\nin all the sciences and unrivalled in jurisprudence (_fiqh_); but he\nwent into seclusion and turned his back on authority, and took the path\nof asceticism and piety. It is related that he said to one of his\ndisciples: \u201cIf thou desirest welfare, bid farewell to this world, and if\nthou desirest grace (_kar\u00e1mat_), pronounce the _takb\u00edr_[69] over the\nnext world,\u201d i.e. both these are places of veiling (places which prevent\nthee from seeing God). Every kind of tranquillity (_far\u00e1ghat_) depends\non these two counsels. Whoever would be tranquil in body, let him turn\nhis back on this world; and whoever would be tranquil in heart, let him\nclear his heart of all desire for the next world. It is a well-known\nstory that D\u00e1wud used constantly to associate with Mu\u1e25ammad b.\nal-\u1e24asan,[70] but would never receive the Cadi Ab\u00fa Y\u00fasuf. On being asked\nwhy he honoured one of these eminent divines but refused to admit the\nother to his presence, he replied that Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan had become a\ntheologian after being rich and wealthy, and theology was the cause of\nhis religious advancement and worldly abasement, whereas Ab\u00fa Y\u00fasuf had\nbecome a theologian after being poor and despised, and had made theology\nthe means of gaining wealth and power. It is related that Ma`r\u00faf Karkh\u00ed\nsaid: \u201cI never saw anyone who held worldly goods in less account than\nD\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed; the world and its people had no value whatsoever in his\neyes, and he used to regard dervishes (_fuqar\u00e1_) as perfect although\nthey were corrupt.\u201d\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  The _takb\u00edr_, i.e. the words _Allah akbar_, \u201cGod is most great,\u201d is\n  pronounced four times in Moslem funeral prayers.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan and Ab\u00fa Y\u00fasuf were celebrated lawyers of the\n  \u1e24anafite school. See Brockelmann, i, 171.\n\n\n             15. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN SAR\u00cd B. MUGHALLIS AL-SAQA\u1e6c\u00cd.\n\nHe was the maternal uncle of Junayd. He was well versed in all the\nsciences and eminent in \u1e62\u00fafiism, and he was the first of those who have\ndevoted their attention to the arrangement of \u201cstations\u201d (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) and\nto the explanation of spiritual \u201cstates\u201d (_a\u1e25w\u00e1l_). Most of the Shaykhs\nof `Ir\u00e1q are his pupils. He had seen \u1e24ab\u00edb R\u00e1`\u00ed and associated with him.\nHe was a disciple of Ma`r\u00faf Karkh\u00ed. He used to carry on the business of\na huckster (_saqa\u1e6d-fir\u00fash_) in the bazaar at Baghd\u00e1d. When the bazaar\ncaught fire, he was told that his shop was burnt. He replied: \u201cThen I am\nfreed from the care of it.\u201d Afterwards it was discovered that his shop\nhad not been burnt, although all the shops surrounding it were\ndestroyed. On seeing this, Sar\u00ed gave all that he possessed to the poor\nand took the path of \u1e62\u00fafiism. He was asked how the change in him began.\nHe answered: \u201cOne day \u1e24ab\u00edb R\u00e1`\u00ed passed my shop, and I gave him a crust\nof bread, telling him to give it to the poor. He said to me, \u2018May God\nreward thee!\u2019 From the day when I heard this prayer my worldly affairs\nnever prospered again.\u201d It is related that Sar\u00ed said: \u201cO God, whatever\npunishment Thou mayst inflict upon me, do not punish me with the\nhumiliation of being veiled from Thee,\u201d because, if I am not veiled from\nThee, my torment and affliction will be lightened by the remembrance and\ncontemplation of Thee; but if I am veiled from Thee, even Thy bounty\nwill be deadly to me. There is no punishment in Hell more painful and\nhard to bear than that of being veiled. If God were revealed in Hell to\nthe people of Hell, sinful believers would never think of Paradise,\nsince the sight of God would so fill them with joy that they would not\nfeel bodily pain. And in Paradise there is no pleasure more perfect than\nunveiledness (_kashf_). If the people there enjoyed all the pleasures of\nthat place and other pleasures a hundredfold, but were veiled from God,\ntheir hearts would be utterly broken. Therefore it is the custom of God\nto let the hearts of those who love Him have vision of Him always, in\norder that the delight thereof may enable them to endure every\ntribulation; and they say in their orisons: \u201cWe deem all torments more\ndesirable than to be veiled from Thee. When Thy beauty is revealed to\nour hearts, we take no thought of affliction.\u201d\n\n\n                16. AB\u00da `AL\u00cd SHAQ\u00cdQ B. IBR\u00c1H\u00cdM AL-AZD\u00cd.\n\nHe was versed in all the sciences\u2014legal, practical, and theoretical\u2014and\ncomposed many works on various branches of \u1e62\u00fafiism. He consorted with\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham and many other Shaykhs. It is related that he said:\n\u201cGod hath made the pious living in their death, and hath made the wicked\ndead during their lives,\u201d i.e., the pious, though they be dead, yet\nlive, since the angels utter blessings on their piety until they are\nmade immortal by the recompense which they receive at the Resurrection.\nHence, in the annihilation wrought by death they subsist through the\neverlastingness of retribution. Once an old man came to Shaq\u00edq and said\nto him: \u201cO Shaykh, I have sinned much and now wish to repent.\u201d Shaq\u00edq\nsaid: \u201cThou hast come late.\u201d The old man answered: \u201cNo, I have come\nsoon. Whoever comes before he is dead comes soon, though he may have\nbeen long in coming.\u201d It is said that the occasion of Shaq\u00edq\u2019s\nconversion was this, that one year there was a famine at Balkh, and the\npeople were eating one another\u2019s flesh. While all the Moslems were\nbitterly distressed, Shaq\u00edq saw a youth laughing and making merry in the\nbazaar. The people said: \u201cWhy do you laugh? Are not you ashamed to\nrejoice when everyone else is mourning?\u201d The youth said: \u201cI have no\nsorrow. I am the servant of a man who owns a village as his private\nproperty, and he has relieved me of all care for my livelihood.\u201d Shaq\u00edq\nexclaimed: \u201cO Lord God, this youth rejoices so much in having a master\nwho owns a single village, but Thou art the King of kings, and Thou hast\npromised to give us our daily bread; and nevertheless we have filled our\nhearts with all this sorrow because we are engrossed with worldly\nthings.\u201d He turned to God and began to walk in the way of the Truth, and\nnever troubled himself again about his daily bread. Afterwards he used\nto say: \u201cI am the pupil of a youth; all that I have learned I learned\nfrom him.\u201d His humility led him to say this.\n\n          17. AB\u00da SULAYM\u00c1N `ABD AL-RA\u1e24M\u00c1N B.`ATIYYA AL-D\u00c1R\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe was held in honour by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and was (called) the sweet basil of\nhearts (_ray\u1e25\u00e1n-i dilh\u00e1_). He is distinguished by his severe austerities\nand acts of self-mortification. He was versed in the science of \u201ctime\u201d\n(_`ilm-i waqt_)[71] and in knowledge of the cankers of the soul, and had\na keen eye for its hidden snares. He spoke in subtle terms concerning\nthe practice of devotion, and the watch that should be kept over the\nheart and the limbs. It is related that he said: \u201cWhen hope predominates\nover fear, one\u2019s \u2018time\u2019 is spoilt,\u201d because \u201ctime\u201d is the preservation\nof one\u2019s \u201cstate\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1l_), which is preserved only so long as one is\npossessed by fear. If, on the other hand, fear predominates over hope,\nbelief in Unity (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_) is lost, inasmuch as excessive fear springs\nfrom despair, and despair of God is polytheism (_shirk_). Accordingly,\nthe maintenance of belief in Unity consists in right hope, and the\nmaintenance of \u201ctime\u201d in right fear, and both are maintained when hope\nand fear are equal. Maintenance of belief in Unity makes one a believer\n(_mu\u00b4min_), while maintenance of \u201ctime\u201d makes one pious (_mu\u1e6d\u00ed`_). Hope\nis connected entirely with contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_), in which is\ninvolved a firm conviction (_i`tiq\u00e1d_); and fear is connected entirely\nwith purgation (_muj\u00e1hadat_), in which is involved an anxious\nuncertainty (_i\u1e0d\u1e6dir\u00e1b_). Contemplation is the fruit of purgation, or, to\nexpress the same idea differently, every hope is produced by despair.\nWhenever a man, on account of his actions, despairs of his future\nwelfare, that despair shows him the way to salvation and welfare and\nDivine mercy, and opens to him the door of gladness, and clears away\nsensual corruptions from his heart, and reveals to it the Divine\nmysteries.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  See note on p. 13.\n\nA\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed relates that one night, when he was praying in\nprivate, he felt great pleasure. Next day he told Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n, who\nreplied: \u201cThou art a weak man, for thou still hast mankind in view, so\nthat thou art one thing in private and another in public.\u201d There is\nnothing in the two worlds that is sufficiently important to hold man\nback from God. When a bride is unveiled to the people, the reason is\nthat everyone may see her and that she may be honoured the more through\nbeing seen, but it is not proper that she should see anyone except the\nbridegroom, since she is disgraced by seeing anyone else. If all mankind\nshould see the glory of a pious man\u2019s piety, he would suffer no harm,\nbut if he sees the excellence of his own piety he is lost.\n\n               18. AB\u00da MA\u1e24F\u00da\u1e94 MA`R\u00daF B. F\u00cdR\u00daZ AL-KARKH\u00cd.\n\nHe is one of the ancient and principal Shaykhs, and was famed for his\ngenerosity and devoutness. This notice of him should have come earlier\nin the book, but I have placed it here in accordance with two venerable\npersons who wrote before me, one of them a relater of traditions and the\nother an independent authority (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib ta\u1e63arruf_)\u2014I mean Shaykh Ab\u00fa `Abd\nal-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed, who in his work adopts the arrangement which I have\nfollowed, and the Master and Im\u00e1m Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1simal-Qushayr\u00ed, who has put\nthe notice of Ma`r\u00faf in the same order in the introductory portion of\nhis book.[72] I have chosen this arrangement because Ma`r\u00faf was the\nmaster of Sar\u00ed Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed and the disciple of D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed. At first Ma`r\u00faf\nwas a non-Moslem (_b\u00e9g\u00e1na_), but he made profession of Islam to `Al\u00ed b.\nM\u00fas\u00e1 al-Ri\u1e0d\u00e1, who held him in the highest esteem. It is related that he\nsaid: \u201cThere are three signs of generosity\u2014to keep faith without\nresistance, to praise without being incited thereto by liberality, and\nto give without being asked.\u201d In men all these qualities are merely\nborrowed, and in reality they belong to God, who acts thus towards His\nservants. God keeps unresisting faith with those who love Him, and\nalthough they show resistance in keeping faith with Him, He only\nincreases His kindness towards them. The sign of God\u2019s keeping faith is\nthis, that in eternity past He called His servant to His presence\nwithout any good action on the part of His servant, and that to-day He\ndoes not banish His servant on account of an evil action. He alone\npraises without the incitement of liberality, for He has no need of His\nservant\u2019s actions, and nevertheless extols him for a little thing that\nhe has done. He alone gives without being asked, for He is generous and\nknows the state of everyone and fulfils his desire unasked. Accordingly,\nwhen God gives a man grace and makes him noble, and distinguishes him by\nHis favour, and acts towards him in the three ways mentioned above, and\nwhen that man, as far as lies in his power, acts in the same way towards\nhis fellow-creatures, then he is called generous and gets a reputation\nfor generosity. Abraham the Apostle possessed these three qualities in\nvery truth, as I shall explain in the proper place.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  This statement is not accurate. The notice of Ma`r\u00faf Karkh\u00ed is the\n  fourth in Qushayr\u00ed\u2019s list of biographies at the beginning of his\n  treatise on \u1e62\u00fafiism, and stands between the notices of Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d\n  and Sar\u00ed Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed. In the _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-\u1e62\u00fafiyya_, by Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n\n  al-Sulam\u00ed, the notice of Ma`r\u00faf comes tenth in order, but occupies the\n  same position as it does here in so far as it is preceded by the\n  article on Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed and is followed by the article on \u1e24\u00e1tim\n  al-A\u1e63amm. It appears from the next sentence that al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed intended\n  to place the life of Ma`r\u00faf between those of D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed and Sar\u00ed\n  Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed (Nos. 14 and 15), but neither of the two above-mentioned\n  authorities has adopted this arrangement.\n\n          19. AB\u00da `ABD AL-RA\u1e24M\u00c1N \u1e24\u00c1TIM B. `ULW\u00c1N[73] AL-A\u1e62AMM.\n\nHe was one of the great men of Balkh and one of the ancient Shaykhs of\nKhur\u00e1s\u00e1n, a disciple of Shaq\u00edq and the teacher of A\u1e25mad Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya. In all\nhis circumstances, from beginning to end, he never once acted\nuntruthfully, so that Junayd said: \u201c\u1e24\u00e1tim al-A\u1e63amm is the veracious one\n(_\u1e63idd\u00edq_) of our time.\u201d He has lofty sayings on the subtleties of\ndiscerning the cankers of the soul and the weaknesses of human nature,\nand is the author of famous works on ethics (_`ilm-i mu`\u00e1mal\u00e1t_). It is\nrelated that he said: \u201cLust is of three kinds\u2014lust in eating, lust in\nspeaking, and lust in looking. Guard thy food by trust in God, thy\ntongue by telling the truth, and thine eye by taking example\n(_`ibrat_).\u201d Real trust in God proceeds from right knowledge, for those\nwho know Him aright have confidence that He will give them their daily\nbread, and they speak and look with right knowledge, so that their food\nand drink is only love, and their speech is only ecstasy, and their\nlooking is only contemplation. Accordingly, when they know aright they\neat what is lawful, and when they speak aright they utter praise (of\nGod), and when they look aright they behold Him, because no food is\nlawful except what He has given and permits to be eaten, and no praise\nis rightly offered to anyone in the eighteen thousand worlds except to\nHim, and it is not allowable to look on anything in the universe except\nHis beauty and majesty. It is not lust when thou receivest food from Him\nand eatest by His leave, or when thou speakest of Him by His leave, or\nwhen thou seest His actions by His leave. On the other hand, it _is_\nlust when of thy own will thou eatest even lawful food, or of thy own\nwill thou speakest even praise of Him, or of thy own will thou lookest\neven for the purpose of seeking guidance.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  LIJ. have \u0639\u0646\u0648\u0627\u0646 [**Arabic] \u0639\u0644\u0648\u0627\u0646.\n\n\n            20. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H MU\u1e24AMMAD B. IDR\u00cdS AL-SH\u00c1FI`\u00cd.\n\nWhile he was at Med\u00edna he was a pupil of the Im\u00e1m M\u00e1lik, and when he\ncame to `Ir\u00e1q he associated with Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan. He always had a\nnatural desire for seclusion, and used to seek an intimate comprehension\nof this way of life, until a party gathered round him and followed his\nauthority. One of them was A\u1e25mad b. \u1e24anbal. Then Sh\u00e1fi`\u00ed became occupied\nwith seeking position and exercising his authority as Im\u00e1m, and was\nunable to retire from the world. At first he was not favourably disposed\ntowards aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism, but after seeing Sulaym\u00e1n R\u00e1`\u00ed and\nobtaining admission to his society, he continued to seek the truth\nwherever he went. It is related that he said: \u201cWhen you see a divine\nbusying himself with indulgences (_rukha\u1e63_) no good thing will come from\nhim,\u201d i.e. divines are the leaders of all classes of men, and no one may\ntake precedence of them in any matter, and the way of God cannot be\ntraversed without precaution and the utmost self-mortification, and to\nseek indulgences in divinity is the act of one who flees from\nself-mortification and prefers an alleviation for himself. Ordinary\npeople seek indulgences to keep themselves within the pale of the sacred\nlaw, but the elect practise self-mortification to feel the fruit thereof\nin their hearts. Divines are among the elect, and when one of them is\nsatisfied with behaving like ordinary people, nothing good will come\nfrom him. Moreover, to seek indulgences is to think lightly of God\u2019s\ncommandment, and divines love God: a lover does not think lightly of the\ncommand of his beloved.\n\nA certain Shaykh relates that one night he dreamed of the Prophet and\nsaid to him: \u201cO Apostle of God, a tradition has come down to me from\nthee that God hath upon the earth saints of diverse rank (_awt\u00e1d \u00fa\nawliy\u00e1 \u00fa abr\u00e1r_).\u201d The Apostle said that the relater of the tradition\nhad transmitted it correctly, and in answer to the Shaykh\u2019s request that\nhe might see one of these holy men, he said: \u201cMu\u1e25ammad b. Idr\u00eds is one\nof them.\u201d\n\n                     21. THE IM\u00c1M A\u1e24MAD B. \u1e24ANBAL.\n\nHe was distinguished by devoutness and piety, and was the guardian of\nthe Traditions of the Apostle. \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds of all sects regard him as blessed.\nHe associated with great Shaykhs, such as Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan of Egypt, Bishr\nal-\u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed, Sar\u00ed al-Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed, Ma`r\u00faf al-Karkh\u00ed, and others. His miracles were\nmanifest and his intelligence sound. The doctrines attributed to him\nto-day by certain Anthropomorphists are inventions and forgeries; he is\nto be acquitted of all notions of that sort. He had a firm belief in the\nprinciples of religion, and his creed was approved by all the divines.\nWhen the Mu`tazilites came into power at Baghd\u00e1d, they wished to extort\nfrom him a confession that the Koran was created, and though he was a\nfeeble old man they put him to the rack and gave him a thousand lashes.\nIn spite of all this he would not say that the Koran was created. While\nhe was undergoing punishment his _iz\u00e1r_ became untied. His own hands\nwere fettered, but another hand appeared and tied it. Seeing this\nevidence, they let him go. He died, however, of the wounds inflicted on\nthat occasion. Shortly before his death some persons visited him and\nasked what he had to say about those who flogged him. He answered: \u201cWhat\nshould I have to say? They flogged me for God\u2019s sake, thinking that I\nwas wrong and that they were right. I will not claim redress from them\nat the Resurrection for mere blows.\u201d He is the author of lofty sayings\non ethics. When questioned on any point relating to practice he used to\nanswer the question himself, but if it was a point of mystical theory\n(_\u1e25aq\u00e1\u00b4iq_) he would refer the questioner to Bishr \u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed. One day a man\nasked him: \u201cWhat is sincerity (_ikhl\u00e1\u1e63_)?\u201d He replied: \u201cTo escape from\nthe cankers of one\u2019s actions,\u201d i.e. let thy actions be free from\nostentation and hypocrisy and self-interest. The questioner then asked:\n\u201cWhat is trust (_tawakkul_)?\u201d Ahmad replied: \u201cConfidence in God, that He\nwill provide thy daily bread.\u201d The man asked: \u201cWhat is acquiescence\n(_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_)?\u201d He replied: \u201cTo commit thy affairs to God.\u201d \u201cAnd what is love\n(_ma\u1e25abbat_)?\u201d Ahmad said: \u201cAsk this question of Bishr \u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed, for I will\nnot answer it while he is alive.\u201d A\u1e25mad b. \u1e24anbal was constantly exposed\nto persecution: during his life by the attacks of the Mu`tazilites, and\nafter his death by the suspicion of sharing the views of the\nAnthropomorphists. Consequently the orthodox Moslems are ignorant of his\ntrue state and hold him suspect. But he is clear of all that is alleged\nagainst him.\n\n                22. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN A\u1e24MAD B. ABI \u00b4L-\u1e24AW\u00c1R\u00cd.\n\nHe was one of the most eminent of the Syrian Shaykhs and is praised by\nall the leading \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. Junayd said: \u201cA\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed is the sweet\nbasil of Syria (_ray\u1e25\u00e1nat al-Sh\u00e1m_).\u201d He was the pupil of Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n\nD\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed, and associated with Sufy\u00e1n b. `Uyayna and Marw\u00e1n b. Mu`\u00e1wiya the\nKoran-reader (_al-Q\u00e1r\u00ed_).[74] He had been a wandering devotee\n(_sayy\u00e1\u1e25_). It is related that he said: \u201cThis world is a dunghill and a\nplace where dogs gather; and one who lingers there is less than a dog,\nfor a dog takes what he wants from it and goes, but the lover of the\nworld never departs from it or leaves it at any time,\u201d At first he was a\nstudent and attained the rank of the Im\u00e1ms, but afterwards he threw all\nhis books into the sea, and said: \u201cYe were excellent guides, but it is\nimpossible to occupy one\u2019s self with a guide after one has reached the\ngoal,\u201d because a guide is needed only so long as the disciple is on the\nroad: when the shrine comes into sight the road and the gate are\nworthless. The Shaykhs have said that A\u1e25mad did this in the state of\nintoxication (_sukr_). In the mystic Path he who says \u201cI have arrived\u201d\nhas gone astray. Since arriving is non-accomplishment, occupation is\n(superfluous) trouble, and freedom from occupation is idleness, and in\neither case the principle of union (_wu\u1e63\u00fal_) is non-existence, for both\noccupation and its opposite are human qualities. Union and separation\nalike depend on the eternal will and providence of God. Hence it is\nimpossible to attain to union with Him. The terms \u201cnearness\u201d and\n\u201cneighbourhood\u201d are not applicable to God. A man is united to God when\nGod holds him in honour, and separated from God when God holds him in\ncontempt. I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, say that possibly that eminent\nShaykh in using the word \u201cunion\u201d (_wu\u1e63\u00fal_) may have meant \u201cdiscovery of\nthe way to God\u201d, for the way to God is not found in books; and when the\nroad lies plain before one no explanation is necessary. Those who have\nattained true knowledge have no use for speech, and even less for books.\nOther Shaykhs have done the same thing as A\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed, for\nexample the Grand Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Fa\u1e0dlall\u00e1h b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Mayhan\u00ed, and\nthey have been imitated by a number of formalists whose only object is\nto gratify their indolence and ignorance. It would seem that those noble\nShaykhs acted as they did from the desire of severing all worldly ties\nand making their hearts empty of all save God. This, however, is proper\nonly in the intoxication of commencement (_ibtid\u00e1_) and in the fervour\nof youth. Those who have become fixed (_mutamakkin_) are not veiled\n(from God) by the whole universe: how, then, by a sheet of paper? It may\nbe said that the destruction of a book signifies the impossibility of\nexpressing the real meaning (of an idea). In that case the same\nimpossibility should be predicated of the tongue, because spoken words\nare no better than written ones. I imagine that A\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed,\nfinding no listener in his fit of ecstasy, wrote down an explanation of\nhis feelings on pieces of paper, and having amassed a large quantity,\ndid not regard them as suitable to be divulged and accordingly cast them\ninto the water. It is also possible that he had collected many books,\nwhich diverted him from his devotional practices, and that he got rid of\nthem for this reason.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  Marw\u00e1n b. Mu`\u00e1wiya al-Faz\u00e1r\u00ed of K\u00fafa died in 193 A.H. See Dhahab\u00ed\u2019s\n  _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-\u1e24uff\u00e1\u1e95_, ed. by W\u00fcstenfeld, p. 63, No. 44. Al-Q\u00e1r\u00ed is\n  probably a mistranscription of al-Faz\u00e1r\u00ed.\n\n\n               23. AB\u00da \u1e24\u00c1MID A\u1e24MAD B. KHA\u1e0cR\u00daYA AL-BALKH\u00cd.\n\nHe adopted the path of blame (_mal\u00e1mat_) and wore a soldier\u2019s dress. His\nwife, F\u00e1\u1e6dima, daughter of the Am\u00edr of Balkh, was renowned as a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed.\nWhen she desired to repent (of her former life), she sent a message to\nA\u1e25mad bidding him ask her in marriage of her father. A\u1e25mad refused,\nwhereupon she sent another message in the following terms: \u201cO A\u1e25mad, I\nthought you would have been too manly to attack those who travel on the\nway to God. Be a guide (_r\u00e1hbar_), not a brigand (_r\u00e1hbur_).\u201d A\u1e25mad\nasked her in marriage of her father, who gave her to him in the hope of\nreceiving his blessing. F\u00e1\u1e6dima renounced all traffic with the world and\nlived in seclusion with her husband. When A\u1e25mad went to visit B\u00e1yaz\u00edd\nshe accompanied him, and on seeing B\u00e1yaz\u00edd she removed her veil and\ntalked to him without embarrassment. A\u1e25mad became jealous and said to\nher: \u201cWhy dost thou take this freedom with B\u00e1yaz\u00edd?\u201d She replied:\n\u201cBecause you are my natural spouse, but he is my religious consort;\nthrough you I come to my desire, but through him to God. The proof is\nthat he has no need of my society, whereas to you it is necessary.\u201d She\ncontinued to treat B\u00e1yaz\u00edd with the same boldness, until one day he\nobserved that her hand was stained with henna and asked her why. She\nanswered: \u201cO B\u00e1yaz\u00edd, so long as you did not see my hand and the henna I\nwas at my ease with you, but now that your eye has fallen on me our\ncompanionship is unlawful.\u201d Then A\u1e25mad and F\u00e1\u1e6dima came to N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far and\nabode there. The people and Shaykhs of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far were well pleased with\nA\u1e25mad. When Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed passed through N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far on his way\nfrom Rayy to Balkh, A\u1e25mad wished to give him a banquet, and consulted\nwith F\u00e1\u1e6dima as to what things were required. She told him to procure so\nmany oxen and sheep, such and such a quantity of sweet herbs,\ncondiments, candles, and perfumes, and added, \u201cWe must also kill twenty\ndonkeys.\u201d A\u1e25mad said: \u201cWhat is the sense of killing donkeys?\u201d \u201cOh!\u201d said\nshe, \u201cwhen a noble comes as guest to the house of a noble the dogs of\nthe quarter have something too.\u201d B\u00e1yaz\u00edd said of her: \u201cWhoever wishes to\nsee a man disguised in women\u2019s clothes, let him look at F\u00e1\u1e6dima!\u201d And Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24af\u1e63 \u1e24add\u00e1d says: \u201cBut for A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya generosity would not have\nbeen displayed.\u201d He has lofty sayings to his credit, and faultless\nutterances (_anf\u00e1s-i muhadhdhab_), and is the author of famous works in\nevery branch of ethics and of brilliant discourses on mysticism. It is\nrelated that he said: \u201cThe way is manifest and the truth is clear, and\nthe shepherd has uttered his call; after this if anyone loses himself,\nit is through his own blindness,\u201d i.e., it is wrong to seek the way,\nsince the way to God is like the blazing sun; do thou seek thyself, for\nwhen thou hast found thyself thou art come to thy journey\u2019s end,\ninasmuch as God is too manifest to admit of His being sought. He is\nrecorded to have said: \u201cHide the glory of thy poverty,\u201d i.e., do not say\nto people, \u201cI am a dervish,\u201d lest thy secret be discovered, for it is a\ngreat grace bestowed on thee by God. It is related that he said: \u201cA\ndervish invited a rich man to a repast in the month of Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n, and\nthere was nothing in his house except a loaf of dry bread. On returning\nhome the rich man sent to him a purse of gold. He sent it back, saying,\n\u2018This serves me right for revealing my secret to one like you.\u2019 The\ngenuineness of his poverty led him to act thus.\u201d\n\n\n       24. AB\u00da TUR\u00c1B `ASKAR B. AL-\u1e24USAYN AL-NAKHSHAB\u00cd AL-NASAF\u00cd.\n\nHe was one of the chief Shaykhs of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n, and was celebrated for his\ngenerosity, asceticism, and devoutness. He performed many miracles, and\nexperienced marvellous adventures without number in the desert and\nelsewhere. He was one of the most noted travellers among the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and\nused to cross the deserts in complete disengagement from worldly things\n(_ba-tajr\u00edd_). His death took place in the desert of Ba\u1e63ra. After many\nyears had elapsed he was found standing erect with his face towards the\nKa`ba, shrivelled up, with a bucket in front of him and a staff in his\nhand; and the wild beasts had not touched him or come near him. It is\nrelated that he said: \u201cThe food of the dervish is what he finds, and his\nclothing is what covers him, and his dwelling-place is wherever he\nalights,\u201d i.e. he does not choose his own food or his own dress, or make\na home for himself. The whole world is afflicted by these three items,\nand personal initiative therein keeps us in a state of distraction\n(_mashgh\u00fal\u00ed_) while we make efforts to procure them. This is the\npractical aspect of the matter, but in a mystical sense the food of the\ndervish is ecstasy, and his clothing is piety, and his dwelling-place is\nthe Unseen, for God hath said, \u201c_If they stood firm in the right path,\nWe should water them with abundant rain_\u201d (Kor. lxxii, 16); and again,\n\u201c_and fair apparel; but the garment of piety, that is better_\u201d (Kor.\nvii, 25); and the Apostle said, \u201cPoverty is to dwell in the Unseen.\u201d\n\n               25. AB\u00da ZAKARIYY\u00c1 YA\u1e24Y\u00c1 B. MU`\u00c1DH AL-R\u00c1Z\u00cd.\n\nHe was perfectly grounded in the true theory of hope in God, so that\n\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed says: \u201cGod had two Ya\u1e25y\u00e1s, one a prophet and the other a saint.\nYa\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Zakariyy\u00e1 trod the path of fear so that all pretenders were\nfilled with fear and despaired of their salvation, while Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh\ntrod the path of hope so that he tied the hands of all pretenders to\nhope.\u201d They said to \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed: \u201cThe state of Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Zakariyy\u00e1 is well\nknown, but what was the state of Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh?\u201d He replied: \u201cI have\nbeen told that he was never in the state of ignorance (_j\u00e1hiliyyat_) and\nnever committed any of the greater sins (_kab\u00edra_).\u201d In the practice of\ndevotion he showed an intense perseverance which was beyond the power of\nanyone else. One of his disciples said to him: \u201cO Shaykh, thy station is\nthe station of hope, but thy practice is the practice of those who\nfear.\u201d Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 answered: \u201cKnow, my son, that to abandon the service of God\nis to go astray.\u201d Fear and hope are the two pillars of faith. It is\nimpossible that anyone should fall into error through practising either\nof them. Those who fear engage in devotion through fear of separation\n(from God), and those who hope engage in it through hope of union (with\nGod). Without devotion neither fear nor hope can be truly felt, but when\ndevotion is there this fear and hope are altogether metaphorical; and\nmetaphors (_`ib\u00e1rat_) are useless where devotion (_`ib\u00e1dat_) is\nrequired. Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 is the author of many books, fine sayings, and original\nprecepts. He was the first of the Shaykhs of this sect, after the\nOrthodox Caliphs, to mount the pulpit. I am very fond of his sayings,\nwhich are delicately moulded and pleasant to the ear and subtle in\nsubstance and profitable in devotion. It is related that he said: \u201cThis\nworld is an abode of troubles (_ashgh\u00e1l_) and the next world is an abode\nof terrors (_ahw\u00e1l_), and Man never ceases to be amidst troubles or\nterrors until he finds rest either in Paradise or in Hell-fire.\u201d Happy\nthe soul that has escaped from troubles and is secure from terrors, and\nhas detached its thoughts from both worlds, and has attained to God!\nYa\u1e25y\u00e1 held the doctrine that wealth is superior to poverty. Having\ncontracted many debts at Rayy, he set out for Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. When he arrived\nat Balkh the people of that city detained him for some time in order\nthat he might discourse to them, and they gave him a hundred thousand\ndirhems. On his way back to Rayy he was attacked by brigands, who seized\nthe whole sum. He came in a destitute condition to N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, where he\ndied. He was always honoured and held in respect by the people.\n\n      26. AB\u00da \u1e24AF\u1e62 `AMR B. S\u00c1LIM[75] AL-N\u00cdSH\u00c1P\u00daR\u00cd AL-\u1e24ADD\u00c1D\u00cd.[76]\n\nHe was an eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed, who is praised by all the Shaykhs. He associated\nwith Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h al-Ab\u00edward\u00ed and A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya. Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1` came\nfrom Kirm\u00e1n to visit him. He did not know Arabic, and when he went to\nBaghd\u00e1d to visit the Shaykhs there, his disciples said to one another:\n\u201cIt is a great shame that the Grand Shaykh of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n should need an\ninterpreter to make him understand what they say.\u201d However, when he met\nthe Shaykhs of Baghd\u00e1d, including Junayd, in the Sh\u00fan\u00edziyya Mosque, he\nconversed with them in elegant Arabic, so that they despaired of\nrivalling his eloquence. They asked him: \u201cWhat is generosity?\u201d He said:\n\u201cLet one of you begin and declare what it is.\u201d Junayd said: \u201cIn my\nopinion generosity consists in not regarding your generosity and in not\nreferring it to yourself.\u201d Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 replied: \u201cHow well the Shaykh has\nspoken! but in my opinion generosity consists in doing justice and in\nnot demanding justice.\u201d Junayd said to his disciples: \u201cRise! for Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24af\u1e63 has surpassed Adam and all his descendants (in generosity).\u201d His\nconversion is related as follows. He was enamoured of a girl, and on the\nadvice of his friends sought help from a certain Jew living in the city\n(_sh\u00e1rist\u00e1n_) of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far. The Jew told him that he must perform no\nprayers for forty days, and not praise God or do any good deed or form\nany good intention; he would then devise a means whereby Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 should\ngain his desire. Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 complied with these instructions, and after\nforty days the Jew made a talisman as he had promised, but it proved\nineffectual. He said: \u201cYou have undoubtedly done some good deed. Think!\u201d\nAb\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 replied that the only good thing of any sort that he had done\nwas to remove a stone which he found on the road lest some one might\nstumble on it. The Jew said to him: \u201cDo not offend that God who has not\nlet such a small act of yours be wasted though you have neglected His\ncommands for forty days.\u201d Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 repented, and the Jew became a\nMoslem.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 44, has \u201cSalama\u201d. Qushayr\u00ed calls him `Umar b. Maslama.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  So LIJ. B. has \u201cal-\u1e24add\u00e1d\u201d, which is the form generally used by his\n  biographers.\n\nAb\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 continued to ply the trade of a blacksmith until he went to\nB\u00e1ward and took the vows of discipleship to Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h B\u00e1ward\u00ed. One\nday, after his return to N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, he was sitting in his shop listening\nto a blind man who was reciting the Koran in the bazaar. He became so\nabsorbed in listening that he put his hand into the fire and, without\nusing the pincers, drew out a piece of molten iron from the furnace. On\nseeing this the apprentice fainted. When Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 came to himself he\nleft his shop and no longer earned his livelihood. It is related that he\nsaid: \u201cI left work and returned to it; then work left me and I never\nreturned to it again,\u201d because when anyone leaves a thing by one\u2019s own\nact and effort, the leaving of it is no better than the taking of it,\ninasmuch as all acquired acts (_aks\u00e1b_) are contaminated, and derive\ntheir value from the spiritual influence which flows from the Unseen\nwithout effort on our part; which influence, wherever it descends, is\nunited with the choice of Man and loses its pure spirituality. Therefore\nMan cannot properly take or leave anything; it is God who in His\nprovidence gives and takes away, and Man only takes what God has given\nor leaves what God has taken away. Though a disciple should strive a\nthousand years to win the favour of God, it would be worth less than if\nGod received him into favour for a single moment, since everlasting\nfuture happiness is involved in the favour of past eternity, and Man has\nno means of escape except by the unalloyed bounty of God. Honoured,\nthen, is he from whose state the Causer has removed all secondary\ncauses.\n\n           27. AB\u00da \u1e62\u00c1LI\u1e24 \u1e24AMD\u00daN B. A\u1e24MAD B. `UM\u00c1RA AL-QA\u1e62\u1e62\u00c1R.\n\nHe belonged to the ancient Shaykhs, and was one of those who were\nscrupulously devout. He attained the highest rank in jurisprudence and\ndivinity, in which sciences he was a follower of Thawr\u00ed.[77] In \u1e62\u00fafiism\nhe was a disciple of Ab\u00fa Tur\u00e1b Nakhshab\u00ed and `Al\u00ed Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1d\u00ed. When he\nbecame renowned as a theologian, the Im\u00e1ms and notables of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far\nurged him to mount the pulpit and preach to the people, but he refused,\nsaying: \u201cMy heart is still attached to the world, and therefore my words\nwill make no impression on the hearts of others. To speak unprofitable\nwords is to despise theology and deride the sacred law. Speech is\npermissible to him alone whose silence is injurious to religion, and\nwhose speaking would remove the injury.\u201d On being asked why the sayings\nof the early Moslems were more beneficial than those of his\ncontemporaries to men\u2019s hearts, he replied: \u201cBecause they discoursed for\nthe glory of Islam and the salvation of souls and the satisfaction of\nthe Merciful God, whereas we discourse for the glory of ourselves and\nthe quest of worldly gain and the favour of mankind.\u201d Whoever speaks in\naccordance with God\u2019s will and by Divine impulsion, his words have a\nforce and vigour that makes an impression on the wicked, but if anyone\nspeaks in accordance with his own will, his words are weak and tame and\ndo not benefit his hearers.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  The words _madhhab-i Thawr\u00ed d\u00e1sht_ may refer either to Ab\u00fa Thawr\n  Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Kh\u00e1lid, a pupil of al-Sh\u00e1fi`\u00ed, who died in 246 _A.H._, or\n  to Sufy\u00e1n al-Thawr\u00ed. See Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 143.\n\n\n                   28. ABU \u00b4L-SAR\u00cd MAN\u1e62\u00daR B. `AMM\u00c1R.\n\nHe belonged to the school of `Ir\u00e1q, but was approved by the people of\nKhur\u00e1s\u00e1n. His sermons were unequalled for beauty of language and\nelegance of exposition. He was learned in all the branches of divinity,\nin traditions, sciences, principles, and practices. Some aspirants to\n\u1e62\u00fafiism exaggerate his merits beyond measure. It is related that he\nsaid: \u201cGlory be to Him who hath made the hearts of gnostics vessels of\npraise (_dhikr_), and the hearts of ascetics vessels of trust\n(_tawakkul_), and the hearts of those who trust (_mutawakkil\u00edn_) vessels\nof acquiescence (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_), and the hearts of dervishes (_fuqar\u00e1_) vessels\nof contentment, and the hearts of worldlings vessels of covetousness!\u201d\nIt is worth while to consider that whereas God has placed in every\nmember of the body and in every sense a homogeneous quality, e.g., in\nthe hands that of seizing, in the feet that of walking, in the eye\nseeing, in the ear hearing, He has placed in each individual heart a\ndiverse quality and a different desire, so that one is the seat of\nknowledge, another of error, another of contentment, another of\ncovetousness, and so on: hence the marvels of Divine action are in\nnothing manifested more clearly than in human hearts. And it is related\nthat he said: \u201cAll mankind may be reduced to two types\u2014the man who knows\nhimself, and whose business is self-mortification and discipline, and\nthe man who knows his Lord, and whose business is to serve and worship\nand please Him.\u201d Accordingly, the worship of the former is discipline\n(_riy\u00e1\u1e0dat_), while the worship of the latter is sovereignty (_riy\u00e1sat_):\nthe former practises devotion in order that he may attain a high degree,\nbut the latter practises devotion having already attained all. What a\nvast difference between the two! One subsists in self-mortification\n(_muj\u00e1hadat_), the other in contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_). And it is\nrelated that he said: \u201cThere are two classes of men: those who have need\nof God\u2014and they hold the highest rank from the standpoint of the sacred\nlaw\u2014and those who pay no regard to their need of God, because they know\nthat God has provided for their creation and livelihood and death and\nlife and happiness and misery: they need God alone, and having him are\nindependent of all else.\u201d The former, through seeing their own need, are\nveiled from seeing the Divine providence, whereas the latter, through\nnot seeing their own need, are unveiled and independent. The former\nenjoy felicity, but the latter enjoy the Giver of felicity.\n\n              29. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H A\u1e24MAD B. `\u00c1\u1e62IM AL-IN\u1e6c\u00c1K\u00cd.\n\nHe lived to a great age and associated with the ancient Shaykhs, and was\nacquainted with those who belonged to the third generation after the\nProphet (_atb\u00e1` al-t\u00e1bi`\u00edn_). He was a contemporary of Bishr and Sar\u00ed,\nand a pupil of \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed. He had seen Fu\u1e0dayl and consorted with\nhim. It is related that he said: \u201cThe most beneficial poverty is that\nwhich you regard as honourable, and with which you are well pleased,\u201d\ni.e., the honour of the vulgar consists in affirmation of secondary\ncauses, but the honour of the dervish consists in denying secondary\ncauses and in affirming the Causer, and in referring everything to Him,\nand in being well pleased with His decrees. Poverty is the non-existence\nof secondary causes, whereas wealth is the existence of secondary\ncauses. Poverty detached from a secondary cause is with God, and wealth\nattached to a secondary cause is with itself. Therefore secondary causes\ninvolve the state of being veiled (from God), while their absence\ninvolves the state of unveiledness. This is a clear explanation of the\nsuperiority of poverty to wealth.\n\n                 30. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD `ABDALL\u00c1H B. KHUBAYQ.\n\nHe was an ascetic and scrupulously devout. He has related trustworthy\ntraditions, and in jurisprudence, as well as in the practice and theory\nof divinity, he followed the doctrine of Thawr\u00ed, with whose pupils he\nhad associated. It is recorded that he said: \u201cWhoever desires to be\nliving in his life, let him not admit covetousness to dwell in his\nheart,\u201d because the covetous man is dead in the toils of his\ncovetousness, which is like a seal on his heart; and the sealed heart is\ndead. Blessed is the heart that dies to all save God and lives through\nGod, inasmuch as God has made His praise (_dhikr_) the glory of men\u2019s\nhearts, and covetousness their disgrace; and to this effect is the\nsaying of `Abdall\u00e1h b. Khubayq: \u201cGod created men\u2019s hearts to be the\nhomes of His praise, but they have become the homes of lust; and nothing\ncan clear them of lust except an agitating fear or a restless desire.\u201d\nFear and desire (_shawq_) are the two pillars of faith. When faith is\nsettled in the heart, praise and contentment accompany it, not\ncovetousness and heedlessness. Lust and covetousness are the result of\nshunning the society of God. The heart that shuns the society of God\nknows nothing of faith, since faith is intimate with God and averse to\nassociate with aught else.\n\n    31. ABU \u00b4L-Q\u00c1SIM AL-JUNAYD B. MU\u1e24AMMAD B. AL-JUNAYD AL-BAGHD\u00c1D\u00cd.\n\nHe was approved by externalists and spiritualists alike. He was perfect\nin every branch of science, and spoke with authority on theology,\njurisprudence, and ethics. He was a follower of Thawr\u00ed. His sayings are\nlofty and his inward state perfect, so that all \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds unanimously\nacknowledge his leadership. His mother was the sister of Sar\u00ed Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed,\nand Junayd was the disciple of Sar\u00ed. One day Sar\u00ed was asked whether the\nrank of a disciple is ever higher than that of his spiritual director.\nHe replied: \u201cYes; there is manifest proof of this: the rank of Junayd is\nabove mine.\u201d It was the humility and insight of Sar\u00ed that caused him to\nsay this. As is well known, Junayd refused to discourse to his disciples\nso long as Sar\u00ed was alive, until one night he dreamed that the Apostle\nsaid to him: \u201cO Junayd, speak to the people, for God hath made thy words\nthe means of saving a multitude of mankind.\u201d When he awoke the thought\noccurred to him that his rank was superior to that of Sar\u00ed, since the\nApostle had commanded him to preach. At daybreak Sar\u00ed sent a disciple to\nJunayd with the following message: \u201cYou would not discourse to your\ndisciples when they urged you to do so, and you rejected the\nintercession of the Shaykhs of Baghd\u00e1d and my personal entreaty. Now\nthat the Apostle has commanded you, obey his orders.\u201d Junayd said: \u201cThat\nfancy went out of my head. I perceived that Sar\u00ed was acquainted with my\noutward and inward thoughts in all circumstances, and that his rank was\nhigher than mine, since he was acquainted with my secret thoughts,\nwhereas I was ignorant of his state. I went to him and begged his\npardon, and asked him how he knew that I had dreamed of the Apostle. He\nanswered: \u2018I dreamed of God, who told me that He had sent the Apostle to\nbid you preach.\u2019\u201d This anecdote contains a clear indication that\nspiritual directors are in every case acquainted with the inward\nexperiences of their disciples.\n\nIt is related that he said: \u201cThe speech of the prophets gives\ninformation concerning presence (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_), while the speech of the\nsaints (_\u1e63idd\u00edq\u00edn_) alludes to contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_).\u201d True\ninformation is derived from sight, and it is impossible to give true\ninformation of anything that one has not actually witnessed, whereas\nallusion (_ish\u00e1rat_) involves reference to another thing. Hence the\nperfection and ultimate goal of the saints is the beginning of the state\nof the prophets. The distinction between prophet (_nab\u00ed_) and saint\n(_wal\u00ed_), and the superiority of the former to the latter, is plain,\nnotwithstanding that two heretical sects declare the saints to surpass\nthe prophets in excellence. It is related that he said: \u201cI was eagerly\ndesirous of seeing Ibl\u00eds. One day, when I was standing in the mosque, an\nold man came through the door and turned his face towards me. Horror\nseized my heart. When he came near I said to him, \u2018Who art thou? for I\ncannot bear to look on thee, or think of thee.\u2019 He answered, \u2018I am he\nwhom you desired to see.\u2019 I exclaimed, \u2018O accursed one! what hindered\nthee from bowing down to Adam?\u2019 He answered, \u2018O Junayd, how can you\nimagine that I should bow down to anyone except God?\u2019 I was amazed at\nhis saying this, but a secret voice whispered: \u2018Say to him, _Thou liest.\nHadst thou been an obedient servant thou wouldst not have transgressed\nHis command._\u2019 Ibl\u00eds heard the voice in my heart. He cried out and said,\n\u2018By God, you have burnt me!\u2019 and vanished.\u201d This story shows that God\npreserves His saints in all circumstances from the guile of Satan. One\nof Junayd\u2019s disciples bore him a grudge, and after leaving him returned\none day with the intention of testing him. Junayd was aware of this and\nsaid, replying to his question: \u201cDo you want a formal or a spiritual\nanswer?\u201d The disciple said: \u201cBoth.\u201d Junayd said: \u201cThe formal answer is\nthat if you had tested yourself you would not have needed to test me.\nThe spiritual answer is that I depose you from your saintship.\u201d The\ndisciple\u2019s face immediately turned black. He cried, \u201cThe delight of\ncertainty (_yaq\u00edn_) is gone from my heart,\u201d and earnestly begged to be\nforgiven, and abandoned his foolish self-conceit. Junayd said to him:\n\u201cDid not you know that God\u2019s saints possess mysterious powers? You\ncannot endure their blows.\u201d He cast a breath at the disciple, who\nforthwith resumed his former purpose and repented of criticizing the\nShaykhs.\n\n\n              32. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN A\u1e24MAD B. MU\u1e24AMMAD AL-N\u00daR\u00cd.\n\nHe has a peculiar doctrine in \u1e62\u00fafiism and is the model of a number of\naspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism, who follow him and are called N\u00far\u00eds. The whole\nbody of aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism is composed of twelve sects, two of which\nare condemned (_mard\u00fad_), while the remaining ten are approved\n(_maqb\u00fal_). The latter are the Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00eds, the Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r\u00eds, the \u1e6cayf\u00far\u00eds,\nthe Junayd\u00eds, the N\u00far\u00eds, the Sahl\u00eds, the \u1e24ak\u00edm\u00eds, the Kharr\u00e1z\u00eds, the\nKhaf\u00edf\u00eds, and the Sayy\u00e1r\u00eds. All these assert the truth and belong to the\nmass of orthodox Moslems. The two condemned sects are, firstly, the\n\u1e24ul\u00fal\u00eds,[78] who derive their name from the doctrine of incarnation\n(_\u1e25ul\u00fal_) and incorporation (_imtiz\u00e1j_), and with whom are connected the\nS\u00e1lim\u00ed sect of anthropomorphists;[79] and secondly, the \u1e24all\u00e1j\u00eds, who\nhave abandoned the sacred law and have adopted heresy, and with whom are\nconnected the Ib\u00e1\u1e25at\u00eds[80] and the F\u00e1ris\u00eds.[81] I shall include in this\nbook a chapter on the twelve sects and shall explain their different\ndoctrines.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  B. has \u201cthe \u1e24ulm\u00e1n\u00eds\u201d, i.e. the followers of Ab\u00fa \u1e24ulm\u00e1n of Damascus.\n  See Shahrist\u00e1n\u00ed, Haarbr\u00fccker\u2019s translation, ii, 417.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  The S\u00e1lim\u00eds are described (ibid.) as \u201ca number of scholastic\n  theologians (_mutakallim\u00fan_) belonging to Ba\u1e63ra\u201d.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  \u201cIb\u00e1\u1e25at\u00ed\u201d or \u201cIb\u00e1\u1e25\u00ed\u201d signifies \u201cone who regards everything as\n  permissible\u201d.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  See the eleventh section of the fourteenth chapter.\n\nN\u00far\u00ed took a praiseworthy course in rejecting flattery and indulgence and\nin being assiduous in self-mortification. It is related that he said: \u201cI\ncame to Junayd and found him seated in the professorial chair\n(_mu\u1e63addar_). I said to him: \u2018O Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim, thou hast concealed the\ntruth from them and they have put thee in the place of honour; but I\nhave told them the truth and they have pelted me with stones,\u2019\u201d because\nflattery is compliance with one\u2019s desire and sincerity is opposition to\nit, and men hate anyone who opposes their desires and love anyone who\ncomplies with their desires. N\u00far\u00ed was the companion of Junayd and the\ndisciple of Sar\u00ed. He had associated with many Shaykhs, and had met A\u1e25mad\nb. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed. He is the author of subtle precepts and fine sayings\non various branches of the mystical science. It is related that he said:\n\u201cUnion with God is separation from all else, and separation from all\nelse is union with Him,\u201d i.e., anyone whose mind is united with God is\nseparated from all besides, and _vice vers\u00e2_: therefore union of the\nmind with God is separation from the thought of created things, and to\nbe rightly turned away from phenomena is to be rightly turned towards\nGod. I have read in the Anecdotes that once N\u00far\u00ed stood in his chamber\nfor three days and nights, never moving from his place or ceasing to\nwail. Junayd went to see him and said: \u201cO Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan, if thou knowest\nthat crying aloud to God is of any use, tell me, in order that I too may\ncry aloud; but if thou knowest that it avails naught, surrender thyself\nto acquiescence in God\u2019s will, in order that thy heart may rejoice.\u201d\nN\u00far\u00ed stopped wailing and said: \u201cThou teachest me well, O Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim!\u201d\nIt is related that he said: \u201cThe two rarest things in our time are a\nlearned man who practises what he knows and a gnostic who speaks from\nthe reality of his state,\u201d i.e., both learning and gnosis are rare,\nsince learning is not learning unless it is practised, and gnosis is not\ngnosis unless it has reality. N\u00far\u00ed referred to his own age, but these\nthings are rare at all times, and they are rare to-day. Anyone who\nshould occupy himself in seeking for learned men and gnostics would\nwaste his time and would not find them. Let him be occupied with himself\nin order that he may see learning everywhere, and let him turn from\nhimself to God in order that he may see gnosis everywhere. Let him seek\nlearning and gnosis in himself, and let him demand practice and reality\nfrom himself. It is related that N\u00far\u00ed said: \u201cThose who regard things as\ndetermined by God turn to God in everything,\u201d because they find rest in\nregarding the Creator, not created objects, whereas they would always be\nin tribulation if they considered things to be the causes of actions. To\ndo so is polytheism, for a cause is not self-subsistent, but depends on\nthe Causer. When they turn to Him they escape from trouble.\n\n\n               33. AB\u00da `UTHM\u00c1N SA`\u00cdD B. ISM\u00c1`\u00cdL AL-\u1e24\u00cdR\u00cd.\n\nHe is one of the eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds of past times. At first he associated\nwith Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh; then he consorted for a while with Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1` of\nKirm\u00e1n, and accompanied him to N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far on a visit to Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63, with\nwhom he remained to the end of his life. It is related on trustworthy\nauthority that he said: \u201cIn my childhood I was continually seeking the\nTruth, and the externalists inspired me with a feeling of abhorrence. I\nperceived that the sacred law concealed a mystery under the superficial\nforms which are followed by the vulgar. When I grew up I happened to\nhear a discourse by Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh of Rayy, and I found there the\nmystery that was the object of my search. I continued to associate with\nYa\u1e25y\u00e1 until, on hearing reports of Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1` Kirm\u00e1n\u00ed from a number of\npersons who had been in his company, I felt a longing to visit him.\nAccordingly I quitted Rayy and set out for Kirm\u00e1n. Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1`, however,\nwould not admit me to his society. \u2018You have been nursed,\u2019 said he, \u2018in\nthe doctrine of hope (_raj\u00e1_), on which Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 takes his stand. No one\nwho has imbibed this doctrine can tread the path of purgation, because a\nmechanical belief in hope produces indolence.\u2019 I besought him earnestly,\nand lamented and stayed at his door for twenty days. At length he\nadmitted me, and I remained in his society until he took me with him to\nvisit Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 at N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far. On this occasion Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1` was wearing a\ncoat (_qab\u00e1_). When Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 saw him he rose from his seat and advanced\nto meet him, saying, \u2018I have found in the coat what I sought in the\ncloak (_`ab\u00e1_).\u2019 During our residence in N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far I conceived a strong\ndesire to associate with Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63, but was restrained from devoting\nmyself to attendance on him by my respect for Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1`. Meanwhile I\nwas imploring God to make it possible for me to enjoy the society of Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24af\u1e63 without hurting the feelings of Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1`, who was a jealous man;\nand Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 was aware of my wishes. On the day of our departure I\ndressed myself for the journey, although I was leaving my heart with Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24af\u1e63. Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 said familiarly to Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1`, \u2018I am pleased with this\nyouth; let him stay here.\u2019 Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1` turned to me and said, \u2018Do as the\nShaykh bids thee.\u2019 So I remained with Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 and experienced many\nwonderful things in his company.\u201d God caused Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n to pass through\nthree \u201cstations\u201d by means of three spiritual directors, and these\n\u201cstations\u201d, which he indicated as belonging to them, he also made his\nown: the \u201cstation\u201d of hope through associating with Ya\u1e25y\u00e1, the \u201cstation\u201d\nof jealousy through associating with Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1`, and the \u201cstation\u201d of\naffection (_shafaqat_) through associating with Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63. It is\nallowable for a disciple to associate with five or six or more directors\nand to have a different \u201cstation\u201d revealed to him by each one of them,\nbut it is better that he should not confuse his own \u201cstation\u201d with\ntheirs. He should point to their perfection in that \u201cstation\u201d and say:\n\u201cI gained this by associating with them, but they were superior to it.\u201d\nThis is more in accordance with good manners, for spiritual adepts have\nnothing to do with \u201cstations\u201d and \u201cstates\u201d.\n\nTo Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n was due the divulgation of \u1e62\u00fafiism in N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far and\nKhur\u00e1s\u00e1n. He consorted with Junayd, Ruwaym, Y\u00fasuf b. al-\u1e24usayn, and\nMu\u1e25ammad b. Fa\u1e0dl al-Balkh\u00ed, and no Shaykh ever derived as much spiritual\nadvantage from his directors as he did. The people of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far set up a\npulpit that he might discourse to them on \u1e62\u00fafiism. He is the author of\nsublime treatises on various branches of this science. It is related\nthat he said: \u201cIt behoves one whom God hath honoured with gnosis not to\ndishonour himself by disobedience to God.\u201d This refers to actions\nacquired by Man and to his continual effort to keep the commandments of\nGod, because, even though you recognize that it is worthy of God not to\ndishonour by disobedience anyone whom He has honoured with gnosis, yet\ngnosis is God\u2019s gift and disobedience is Man\u2019s act. It is impossible\nthat one who is honoured with God\u2019s gift should be dishonoured by his\nown act. God honoured Adam with knowledge: He did not dishonour him on\naccount of his sin.\n\n\n               34. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H A\u1e24MAD B. YA\u1e24Y\u00c1 AL-JALL\u00c1.\n\nHe associated with Junayd and Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed and other great Shaykhs.\nIt is recorded that he said: \u201cThe mind of the gnostic is fixed on his\nLord; he does not pay attention to anything else,\u201d because the gnostic\nknows nothing except gnosis, and since gnosis is the whole capital of\nhis heart, his thoughts are entirely bent on vision (of God), for\ndistraction of thought produces cares, and cares keep one back from God.\nHe tells the following story: \u201cOne day I saw a beautiful Christian boy.\nI was amazed at his loveliness and stood still opposite him. Junayd\npassed by me. I said to him, \u2018O master, will God burn a face like this\nin Hell-fire?\u2019 He answered: \u2018O my son, this is a trick of the flesh, not\na look by which one takes warning. If you look with due consideration,\nthe same marvel is existent in every atom of the universe. You will soon\nbe punished for this want of respect.\u2019 When Junayd turned away from me I\nimmediately forgot the Koran, and it did not come back to my memory\nuntil I had for years implored God to help me and had repented of my\nsin. Now I dare not pay heed to any created object or waste my time by\nlooking at things.\u201d\n\n\n                   35. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD RUWAYM B. A\u1e24MAD.\n\nHe was an intimate friend of Junayd. In jurisprudence he followed\nD\u00e1wud.[82] and he was deeply versed in the sciences relating to the\ninterpretation and reading of the Koran. He was famed for the loftiness\nof his state and the exaltedness of his station, and for his journeys in\ndetachment from the world (_tajr\u00edd_), and for his severe austerities.\nTowards the end of his life he hid himself among the rich and gained the\nCaliph\u2019s confidence, but such was the perfection of his spiritual rank\nthat he was not thereby veiled from God. Hence Junayd said: \u201cWe are\ndevotees occupied (with the world), and Ruwaym is a man occupied (with\nthe world) who is devoted (to God).\u201d He wrote several works on \u1e62\u00fafiism,\none of which, entitled _Ghala\u1e6d al-W\u00e1jid\u00edn_,[83] deserves particular\nmention. I am exceedingly fond of it. One day he was asked, \u201cHow are\nyou?\u201d He replied: \u201cHow is he whose religion is his lust and whose\nthought is (fixed on) his worldly affairs, who is neither a pious\nGod-fearing man nor a gnostic and one of God\u2019s elect?\u201d This refers to\nthe vices of the soul that is subject to passion and regards lust as its\nreligion. Sensual men consider anyone to be devout who complies with\ntheir inclinations, even though he be a heretic, and anyone to be\nirreligious who thwarts their desires, even though he be a pietist. This\nis a widely spread disease at the present time. God save us from\nassociating with any such person! Ruwaym doubtless gave this answer in\nreference to the inward state of the questioner, which he truly\ndiagnosed, or it may be that God had temporarily allowed him to fall\ninto that condition, and that he described himself as he then was in\nreality.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  D\u00e1wud of I\u1e63fah\u00e1n, the founder of the \u1e92\u00e1hirite school (Brockelmann, i,\n  183).\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  i.e. \u201cThe Error of Ecstatic Persons\u201d.\n\n\n               36. AB\u00da YA`Q\u00daB Y\u00daSUF B. AL-\u1e24USAYN AL-R\u00c1Z\u00cd.\n\nHe was one of the ancient Shaykhs and great Im\u00e1ms of his age. He was a\ndisciple of Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian, and consorted with a large number\nof Shaykhs and performed service to them all. It is related that he\nsaid: \u201cThe meanest of mankind is the covetous dervish and he who loves\nhis beloved, and the noblest of them is the veracious (_al-\u1e63idd\u00edq_).\u201d\nCovetousness renders the dervish ignominious in both worlds, because he\nis already despicable in the eyes of worldlings, and only becomes more\ndespicable if he builds any hopes on them. Wealth with honour is far\nmore perfect than poverty with disgrace. Covetousness causes the dervish\nto incur the imputation of sheer mendacity. Again, he who loves his\nbeloved is the meanest of mankind, since the lover acknowledges himself\nto be very despicable in comparison with his beloved and abases himself\nbefore her, and this also is the result of desire. So long as Zulaykh\u00e1\ndesired Y\u00fasuf, she became every day more mean: when she cast desire\naway, God gave her beauty and youth back to her. It is a law that when\nthe lover advances, the beloved retires. If the lover is satisfied with\nlove alone, then the beloved draws near. In truth, the lover has honour\nonly while he has no desire for union. Unless his love diverts him from\nall thought of union or separation, his love is weak.\n\n\n            37. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN SUMN\u00daN B. `ABDALL\u00c1H AL-KHAWW\u00c1\u1e62.\n\nHe was held in great esteem by all the Shaykhs. They called him Sumn\u00fan\nthe Lover (_al-Mu\u1e25ibb_), but he called himself Sumn\u00fan the Liar\n(_al-Kadhdh\u00e1b_). He suffered much persecution at the hands of Ghul\u00e1m\nal-Khal\u00edl,[84] who had made himself known to the Caliph and courtiers by\nhis pretended piety and \u1e62\u00fafiism. This hypocrite spoke evil of the\nShaykhs and dervishes, hoping to bring about their banishment from Court\nand to establish his own power. Fortunate indeed were Sumn\u00fan and those\nShaykhs to have only one adversary of this sort. In the present day\nthere are a hundred Ghul\u00e1m al-Khal\u00edls for every true spiritualist, but\nwhat matter? Carrion is fit food for vultures. When Sumn\u00fan gained\neminence and popularity in Baghd\u00e1d, Ghul\u00e1m al-Khal\u00edl began to intrigue.\nA woman had fallen in love with Sumn\u00fan and made proposals to him, which\nhe refused. She went to Junayd, begging him to advise Sumn\u00fan to marry\nher. On being sent away by Junayd, she came to Ghul\u00e1m al-Khal\u00edl and\naccused Sumn\u00fan of having attempted her virtue. He listened eagerly to\nher slanders, and induced the Caliph to command that Sumn\u00fan should be\nput to death. When the Caliph was about to give the word to the\nexecutioner his tongue stuck in his throat. The same night he dreamed\nthat his empire would last no longer than Sumn\u00fan\u2019s life. Next day he\nasked his pardon and restored him to favour. Sumn\u00fan is the author of\nlofty sayings and subtle indications concerning the real nature of love.\nOn his way from the \u1e24ij\u00e1z the people of Fayd requested him to discourse\nto them about this subject. He mounted the pulpit, but while he was\nspeaking all his hearers departed. Sumn\u00fan turned to the lamps and said:\n\u201cI am speaking to you.\u201d Immediately all the lamps collapsed and broke\ninto small bits. It is related that he said: \u201cA thing can be explained\nonly by what is more subtle than itself: there is nothing subtler than\nlove: by what, then, shall love be explained?\u201d The meaning of this is\nthat love cannot be explained because explanation is an attribute of the\nexplainer. Love is an attribute of the Beloved, therefore no explanation\nof its real nature is possible.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad b. Gh\u00e1lib b. Kh\u00e1lid al-Ba\u1e63r\u00ed\n  al-B\u00e1hil\u00ed, generally known as Ghul\u00e1m Khal\u00edl, died in 275 A.H. He is\n  described by Abu \u00b4l-Ma\u1e25\u00e1sin (_Nuj\u00fam_, ii, 79, 1 ff.) as a\n  traditionist, ascetic, and saint. According to the _Tadhkirat\n  al-Awliy\u00e1_ (ii, 48, 4 ff.), he represented to the Caliph that Junayd,\n  N\u00far\u00ed, Shibl\u00ed, and other eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds were freethinkers and heretics,\n  and urged him to put them to death.\n\n\n               38. ABU \u00b4L-FAW\u00c1RIS SH\u00c1H SHUJ\u00c1` AL-KIRM\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe was of royal descent. He associated with Ab\u00fa Tur\u00e1b Nakhshab\u00ed and many\nother Shaykhs. Something has been said of him in the notice of Ab\u00fa\n`Uthm\u00e1n al-\u1e24\u00edr\u00ed. He composed a celebrated treatise on \u1e62\u00fafiism as well as\na book entitled _Mir\u00b4\u00e1t al-\u1e24ukam\u00e1_.[85] It is recorded that he said:\n\u201cThe eminent have eminence until they see it, and the saints have\nsaintship until they see it,\u201d i.e., whoever regards his eminence loses\nits reality, and whoever regards his saintship loses its reality. His\nbiographers relate that for forty years he never slept; then he fell\nasleep and dreamed of God. \u201cO Lord,\u201d he cried, \u201cI was seeking Thee in\nnightly vigils, but I have found Thee in sleep.\u201d God answered: \u201cO Sh\u00e1h,\nyou have found Me by means of those nightly vigils: if you had not\nsought Me there, you would not have found Me here.\u201d\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  i.e. \u201cThe Mirror of the Sages\u201d.\n\n\n                     39. `AMR B. `UTHM\u00c1N AL-MAKK\u00cd.\n\nHe was one of the principal \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and is the author of celebrated works\non the mystical sciences. He became a disciple of Junayd after he had\nseen Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z and had associated with Nib\u00e1j\u00ed.[86] He was the\nIm\u00e1m of his age in theology. It is related that he said: \u201cEcstasy does\nnot admit of explanation, because it is a secret between God and the\ntrue believers.\u201d Let men seek to explain it as they will, their\nexplanation is not that secret, inasmuch as all human power and effort\nis divorced from the Divine mysteries. It is said that when `Amr came to\nI\u1e63fah\u00e1n a young man associated with him against the wish of his father.\nThe young man fell into a sickness. One day the Shaykh with a number of\nfriends came to visit him. He begged the Shaykh to bid the singer\n(_qaww\u00e1l_) chant a few verses, whereupon `Amr desired the singer to\nchant\u2014\n\n                 _M\u00e1 l\u00ed mari\u1e0dtu wa-lam ya`udn\u00ed `\u00e1\u00b4id\n                 Minkum wa-yamra\u1e0du `abdukum fa-a`\u00fadu._\n\n        \u201cHow is it that when I fell ill none of you visited me,\n        Though I visit your slave when he falls ill?\u201d\n\nOn hearing this the invalid left his bed and sat down, and the violence\nof his malady was diminished. He said: \u201cGive me some more.\u201d So the\nsinger chanted\u2014\n\n                _Wa-ashaddu min mara\u1e0d\u00ed `alayya \u1e63ud\u00fadukum\n                Wa-\u1e63ud\u00fadu `abdikum\u00fa `alayya shad\u00eddu._\n\n         \u201cYour neglect is more grievous to me than my sickness;\n         It would grieve me to neglect your slave.\u201d\n\nThe young man\u2019s sickness departed from him. His father permitted him to\nassociate with `Amr and repented of the suspicion which he had harboured\nin his heart, and the youth became an eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Sa`\u00edd (Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h) b. Yaz\u00edd al-Nib\u00e1j\u00ed. See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 86.\n\n\n             40. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD SAHL B. `ABDALL\u00c1H AL-TUSTAR\u00cd.\n\nHis austerities were great and his devotions excellent. He has fine\nsayings on sincerity and the defects of human actions. The formal\ndivines say that he combined the Law and the Truth (_jama`a bayn\nal-shar\u00ed`at wa \u00b4l-\u1e25aq\u00edqat_). This statement is erroneous, for the two\nthings have never been divided. The Law is the Truth, and the Truth is\nthe Law. Their assertion is founded on the fact that the sayings of this\nShaykh are more intelligible and easy to apprehend than is sometimes the\ncase. Inasmuch as God has joined the Law to the Truth, it is impossible\nthat His saints should separate them. If they be separated, one must\ninevitably be rejected and the other accepted. Rejection of the Law is\nheresy, and rejection of the Truth is infidelity and polytheism. Any\n(proper) separation between them is made, not to establish a difference\nof meaning, but to affirm the Truth, as when it is said: \u201cThe words\n_there is no god save Allah_ are Truth, and the words _Mu\u1e25ammad is the\nApostle of Allah_ are Law.\u201d No one can separate the one from the other\nwithout impairing his faith, and it is vain to wish to do so. In short,\nthe Law is a branch of the Truth: knowledge of God is Truth, and\nobedience to His command is Law. These formalists deny whatever does not\nsuit their fancy, and it is dangerous to deny one of the fundamental\nprinciples of the Way to God. Praise be to Allah for the faith which He\nhas given us! And it is related that he said: \u201cThe sun does not rise or\nset upon anyone on the face of the earth who is not ignorant of God,\nunless he prefers God to his own soul and spirit and to his present and\nfuture life,\u201d i.e., if anyone cleaves to self-interest, that is a proof\nthat he is ignorant of God, because knowledge of God requires\nabandonment of forethought (_tadb\u00edr_), and abandonment of forethought is\nresignation (_tasl\u00edm_), whereas perseverance in forethought arises from\nignorance of predestination.\n\n\n       41. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD `ABDALL\u00c1H MU\u1e24AMMAD B. AL-FA\u1e0cL AL-BALKH\u00cd.\n\nHe was approved by the people of `Ir\u00e1q as well as by those of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n.\nHe was a pupil of A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya, and Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n of \u1e24\u00edra had a great\naffection for him. Having been expelled from Balkh by fanatics on\naccount of his love of \u1e62\u00fafiism, he went to Samarcand, where he passed\nhis life. It is related that he said: \u201cHe that has most knowledge of God\nis he that strives hardest to fulfil His commandments, and follows most\nclosely the custom of His Prophet.\u201d The nearer one is to God the more\neager one is to do His bidding, and the farther one is from God the more\naverse one is to follow His Apostle. It is related that he said: \u201cI\nwonder at those who cross deserts and wildernesses to reach His House\nand Sanctuary, because the traces of His prophets are to be found there:\nwhy do not they cross their own passions and lusts to reach their\nhearts, where they will find the traces of their Lord?\u201d That is to say,\nthe heart is the seat of knowledge of God and is more venerable than the\nKa`ba, to which men turn in devotion. Men are ever looking towards the\nKa`ba, but God is ever looking towards the heart. Wherever the heart is,\nmy Beloved is there; wherever His decree is, my desire is there;\nwherever the traces of my prophets[87] are, the eyes of those whom I\nlove are directed there.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  So in all the texts.\n\n\n            42. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H MU\u1e24AMMAD B. `AL\u00cd AL-TIRMIDH\u00cd.\n\nHe is the author of many excellent books which, by their eloquence,\ndeclare the miracles vouchsafed to him, e.g., the _Khatm\nal-Wil\u00e1yat_,[88] the _Kit\u00e1b al-Nahj_,[89] the _Naw\u00e1dir al-U\u1e63\u00fal_,[90] and\nmany more, such as the _Kit\u00e1b al-Taw\u1e25\u00edd_[91] and the _Kit\u00e1b `Adh\u00e1b\nal-Qabr_[92]: it would be tedious to mention them all. I hold him in\ngreat veneration and am entirely devoted to him. My Shaykh said:\n\u201cMu\u1e25ammad is a union pearl that has no like in the whole world.\u201d He has\nalso written works on the formal sciences, and is a trustworthy\nauthority for the traditions of the Prophet which he related. He began a\ncommentary on the Koran, but did not live long enough to finish it. The\ncompleted portion is widely circulated among theologians. He studied\njurisprudence with an intimate friend of Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa. The inhabitants of\nTirmidh call him Mu\u1e25ammad \u1e24ak\u00edm, and the \u1e24ak\u00edm\u00eds, a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed sect in that\nregion, are his followers. Many remarkable stories are told of him, as\nfor instance that he associated with the Apostle Khi\u1e0dr. His disciple,\nAb\u00fa Bakr Warr\u00e1q, relates that Khi\u1e0dr used to visit him every Sunday, and\nthat they conversed with each other. It is recorded that he said:\n\u201cAnyone who is ignorant of the nature of servantship (_`ub\u00fadiyyat_) is\nyet more ignorant of the nature of lordship (_rub\u00fabiyyat_),\u201d i.e.,\nwhoever does not know the way to knowledge of himself does not know the\nway to knowledge of God, and whoever does not recognize the\ncontamination of human qualities does not recognize the purity of the\nDivine attributes, inasmuch as the outward is connected with the inward,\nand he who claims to possess the former without the latter makes an\nabsurd assertion. Knowledge of the nature of lordship depends on having\nright principles of servantship, and is not perfect without them. This\nis a very profound and instructive saying. It will be fully explained in\nthe proper place.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  \u201cThe Seal of Saintship.\u201d\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  \u201cThe Book of the Highway.\u201d\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  \u201cChoice Principles.\u201d\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  \u201cThe Book of Unification.\u201d\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  \u201cThe Book of the Torment of the Tomb.\u201d\n\n\n               43. AB\u00da BAKR MU\u1e24AMMAD B. `UMAR AL-WARR\u00c1Q.\n\nHe was a great Shaykh and ascetic. He had seen A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya and\nassociated with Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed. He is the author of books on rules of\ndiscipline and ethics. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have called him \u201cThe Instructor\nof the Saints\u201d (_mu\u00b4addib al-awliy\u00e1_). He relates the following story:\n\u201cMu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed handed to me some of his writings with the request\nthat I should throw them into the Oxus. I had not the heart to do so,\nbut placed them in my house and came to him and told him that I had\ncarried out his order. He asked me what I had seen. I replied,\n\u2018Nothing.\u2018 He said, \u2018You have not obeyed me; return and throw them into\nthe river.\u2019 I returned, doubting the promised sign, and cast them into\nthe river. The waters parted and a chest appeared, with its lid open. As\nsoon as the papers fell into it, the lid closed and the waters joined\nagain and the chest vanished. I went back to him and told him what had\noccurred. He answered, \u2018Now you have thrown them in.\u2019 I begged him to\nexplain the mystery. He said: \u2018I composed a work on theology and\nmysticism which could hardly be comprehended by the intellect. My\nbrother Khi\u1e0dr desired it of me, and God bade the waters bring it to\nhim.\u2019\u201d\n\nIt is related that Ab\u00fa Bakr Warr\u00e1q said: \u201cThere are three classes of\nmen\u2014divines (_`ulam\u00e1_) and princes (_umar\u00e1_) and dervishes (_fuqar\u00e1_).\nWhen the divines are corrupt, piety and religion are vitiated; when the\nprinces are corrupt, men\u2019s livelihood is spoiled; and when the dervishes\nare corrupt, men\u2019s morals are depraved.\u201d Accordingly, the corruption of\nthe divines consists in covetousness, that of the princes in injustice,\nand that of the dervishes in hypocrisy. Princes do not become corrupt\nuntil they turn their backs on divines, and divines do not become\ncorrupt until they associate with princes, and dervishes do not become\ncorrupt until they seek ostentation, because the injustice of princes is\ndue to want of knowledge, and the covetousness of divines is due to want\nof piety, and the hypocrisy of dervishes is due to want of trust in God.\n\n\n                44. AB\u00da SA`ID A\u1e24MAD B. `\u00cdS\u00c1 AL-KHARR\u00c1Z.\n\nHe was the first who explained the doctrine of annihilation (_fan\u00e1_) and\nsubsistence (_baq\u00e1_). He is the author of brilliant compositions and\nsublime sayings and allegories. He had met Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan of Egypt, and\nassociated with Bishr and Sar\u00ed. It is related that concerning the words\nof the Apostle, \u201cHearts are naturally disposed to love him who acts\nkindly towards them,\u201d he said: \u201cOh! I wonder at him who sees none acting\nkindly towards him except God, how he does not incline to God with his\nwhole being,\u201d inasmuch as true beneficence belongs to the Lord of\nphenomenal objects and is conferred only upon those who have need of it;\nhow can he who needs beneficence from others bestow it upon anyone? God\nis the King and Lord of all and hath need of none. Recognizing this, the\nfriends of God behold in every gift and benefit the Giver and\nBenefactor. Their hearts are wholly taken captive by love of Him and\nturned away from everything else.\n\n\n             45. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN `AL\u00cd B. MU\u1e24AMMAD AL-I\u1e62FAH\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nAccording to others, his name is `Al\u00ed b. Sahl. He was a great Shaykh.\nJunayd and he wrote exquisite letters to one another, and `Amr b.\n`Uthm\u00e1n Makk\u00ed went to I\u1e63fah\u00e1n to visit him. He consorted with Ab\u00fa Tur\u00e1b\nand Junayd. He followed a praiseworthy Path in \u1e62\u00fafiism and one that was\npeculiarly his own. He was adorned with acquiescence in God\u2019s will and\nself-discipline, and was preserved from mischiefs and contaminations. He\nspoke eloquently on the theory and practice of mysticism, and lucidly\nexplained its difficulties and symbolical allusions. It is related that\nhe said: \u201cPresence (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_) is better than certainty (_yaq\u00edn_), because\npresence is an abiding state (_wa\u1e6dan\u00e1t_), whereas certainty is a\ntransient one (_kha\u1e6dar\u00e1t_),\u201d i.e., presence makes its abode in the heart\nand does not admit forgetfulness, while certainty is a feeling that\ncomes and goes: hence those who are \u201cpresent\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0dir\u00e1n_) are in the\nsanctuary, and those who have certainty (_m\u00faqin\u00e1n_) are only at the\ngate. The subject of \u201cabsence\u201d and \u201cpresence\u201d will be discussed in a\nseparate chapter of this book.\n\nAnd he said also: \u201cFrom the time of Adam to the Resurrection people cry,\n\u2018The heart, the heart!\u2019 and I wish that I might find some one to\ndescribe what the heart is or how it is, but I find none. People in\ngeneral give the name of \u2018heart\u2019 (_dil_) to that piece of flesh which\nbelongs to madmen and ecstatics and children, who really are without\nheart (_b\u00e9dil_). What, then, is this heart, of which I hear only the\nname?\u201d That is to say, if I call intellect the heart, it is not the\nheart; and if I call spirit the heart, it is not the heart; and if I\ncall knowledge the heart, it is not the heart. All the evidences of the\nTruth subsist in the heart, yet only the name of it is to be found.\n\n\n         46. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN MU\u1e24AMMAD B. ISM\u00c1`\u00cdL KHAYR AL-NASS\u00c1J.\n\nHe was a great Shaykh, and in his time discoursed with eloquence on\nethics and preached excellent sermons. He died at an advanced age. Both\nShibl\u00ed and Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 were converted in his place of meeting. He\nsent Shibl\u00ed to Junayd, wishing to observe the respect due to the latter.\nHe was a pupil of Sar\u00ed, and was contemporary with Junayd and Abu\n\u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed. Junayd held him in high regard, and Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza of Baghd\u00e1d\ntreated him with the utmost consideration. It is related that he was\ncalled Khayr al-Nass\u00e1j from the following circumstance. He left S\u00e1marr\u00e1,\nhis native town, with the intention of performing the pilgrimage. At the\ngate of K\u00fafa, which lay on his route, he was seized by a weaver of silk,\nwho cried out: \u201cYou are my slave, and your name is Khayr.\u201d Deeming this\nto come from God, he did not contradict the weaver, and remained many\nyears in his employment. Whenever his master said \u201cKhayr!\u201d he answered,\n\u201cAt thy service\u201d (_labbayk_), until the man repented of what he had done\nand said to Khayr: \u201cI made a mistake; you are not my slave.\u201d So he\ndeparted and went to Mecca, where he attained to such a degree that\nJunayd said: \u201cKhayr is the best of us\u201d (_Khayr khayrun\u00e1_). He used to\nprefer to be called Khayr, saying: \u201cIt is not right that I should alter\na name which has been bestowed on me by a Moslem.\u201d They relate that when\nthe hour of his death approached, it was time for the evening prayer. He\nopened his eyes and looked at the Angel of Death and said: \u201cStop! God\nsave thee! Thou art only a servant who has received His orders, and I am\nthe same. That which thou art commanded to do (viz. to take my life)\nwill not escape thee, but that which I am commanded to do (viz. to\nperform the evening prayer) will escape me: therefore let me do as I am\nbidden, and then do as thou art bidden.\u201d He then called for water and\ncleansed himself, and performed the evening prayer and gave up his life.\nOn the same night he was seen in a dream and was asked: \u201cWhat has God\ndone to thee?\u201d He answered: \u201cDo not ask me of this, but I have gained\nrelease from your world.\u201d\n\nIt is related that he said in his place of meeting: \u201cGod hath expanded\nthe breasts of the pious with the light of certainty, and hath opened\nthe eyes of the possessors of certainty with the light of the verities\nof faith.\u201d Certainty is indispensable to the pious, whose hearts are\nexpanded with the light of certainty, and those who have certainty\ncannot do without the verities of faith, inasmuch as their intellectual\nvision consists in the light of faith. Accordingly, where faith is\ncertainty is there, and where certainty is piety is there, for they go\nhand in hand with each other.\n\n\n                      47. AB\u00da \u1e24AMZA AL-KHUR\u00c1S\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe is one of the ancient Shaykhs of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. He associated with Ab\u00fa\nTur\u00e1b, and had seen Kharr\u00e1z.[93] He was firmly grounded in trust in God\n(_tawakkul_). It is a well-known story that one day he fell into a pit.\nAfter three days had passed a party of travellers approached. Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza\nsaid to himself: \u201cI will call out to them.\u201d Then he said: \u201cNo; it is not\ngood that I seek aid from anyone except God, and I shall be complaining\nof God if I tell them that my God has cast me into a pit and implore\nthem to rescue me.\u201d When they came up and saw an open pit in the middle\nof the road, they said: \u201cFor the sake of obtaining Divine recompense\n(_thaw\u00e1b_) we must cover this pit lest anyone should fall into it.\u201d Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24amza said: \u201cI became deeply agitated and abandoned hope of life. After\nthey blocked the mouth of the pit and departed, I prayed to God and\nresigned myself to die, and hoped no more of mankind. When night fell I\nheard a movement at the top of the pit. I looked attentively. The mouth\nof the pit was open, and I saw a huge animal like a dragon, which let\ndown its tail. I knew that God had sent it and that I should be saved in\nthis way. I took hold of its tail and it dragged me out. A heavenly\nvoice cried to me, \u2018This is an excellent escape of thine, O Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza!\nWe have saved thee from death by means of a death\u2019\u201d (i.e. a deadly\nmonster).\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  See No. 44.\n\nHe was asked, \u201cWho is the stranger (_ghar\u00edb_)?\u201d He replied, \u201cHe who\nshuns society,\u201d because the dervish has no home or society either in\nthis world or the next, and when he is dissociated from phenomenal\nexistence he shuns everything, and then he is a stranger; and this is a\nvery lofty degree.\n\n\n                   48. ABU \u00b4L-`ABB\u00c1S A\u1e24MAD B. MASR\u00daQ.\n\nHe was one of the great men of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n, and the Saints of God are\nunanimously agreed that he was one of the _Awt\u00e1d_. He associated with\nthe _Qu\u1e6db_, who is the pivot of the universe. On being asked to say who\nthe _Qu\u1e6db_ was, he did not declare his name but hinted that Junayd was\nthat personage. He had done service to the Forty who possess the rank of\nfixity (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib tamk\u00edn_) and received instruction from them. It is\nrelated that he said: \u201cIf anyone takes joy in aught except God, his joy\nproduces sorrow, and if anyone is not intimate with the service of his\nLord, his intimacy produces loneliness (_wa\u1e25shat_),\u201d i.e., all save Him\nis perishable, and whoever rejoices in what is perishable, when that\nperishes becomes stricken with sorrow; and except His service all else\nis vain, and when the vileness of created objects is made manifest, his\nintimacy (with them) is wholly turned to loneliness: hence, the sorrow\nand loneliness of the entire universe consist in regarding that which is\nother (than God).\n\n\n         49. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H MU\u1e24AMMAD[94] B. ISM\u00c1`\u00cdL AL-MAGHRIB\u00cd.\n\nIn his time he was an approved teacher and a careful guardian of his\ndisciples. Both Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 and Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Shayb\u00e1n\u00ed were pupils of his.\nHe has lofty sayings and shining evidences, and he was perfectly\ngrounded in detachment from this world. It is related that he said: \u201cI\nnever saw anyone more just than the world: if you serve her she will\nserve you, and if you leave her she will leave you,\u201d i.e. as long as you\nseek her she will seek you, but when you turn away from her and seek God\nshe will flee from you, and worldly thoughts will no more cling to your\nheart.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  LB. have \u201cA\u1e25mad\u201d.\n\n\n               50. AB\u00da `AL\u00cd AL-\u1e24ASAN B. `AL\u00cd AL-J\u00daZAJ\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe wrote brilliant works on the science of ethics and the detection of\nspiritual cankers. He was a pupil of Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, and a\ncontemporary of Ab\u00fa Bakr Warr\u00e1q. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Samarqand\u00ed was a pupil of his.\nIt is related that he said: \u201cAll mankind are galloping on the\nrace-courses of heedlessness, relying upon idle fancies, while they\nsuppose themselves to be versed in the Truth and to be speaking from\nDivine revelation.\u201d This saying alludes to natural self-conceit and to\nthe pride of the soul. Men, though they are ignorant, have a firm belief\nin their ignorance, especially ignorant \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u2019s, who are the vilest\ncreatures of God, just as wise \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are the noblest. The latter possess\nthe Truth and are without conceit, whereas the former possess conceit\nand are without the Truth. They graze in the fields of heedlessness and\nimagine that it is the field of saintship. They rely on fancy and\nsuppose it to be certainty. They go about with form and think it is\nreality. They speak from their own lust and think it is a Divine\nrevelation. This they do because conceit is not expelled from a man\u2019s\nhead save by vision of the majesty or the beauty of God: for in the\nmanifestation of His beauty they see Him alone, and their conceit is\nannihilated, while in the revelation of His majesty they do not see\nthemselves, and their conceit does not intrude.\n\n\n            51. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD A\u1e24MAD B. AL-\u1e24USAYN AL-JURAYR\u00cd.\n\nHe was an intimate friend of Junayd, and also associated with Sahl b.\n`Abdall\u00e1h. He was learned in every branch of science and was the Im\u00e1m of\nhis day in jurisprudence, besides being well acquainted with theology.\nHis rank in \u1e62\u00fafiism was such that Junayd said to him: \u201cTeach my pupils\ndiscipline and train them!\u201d He succeeded Junayd and sat in his chair. It\nis related that he said: \u201cThe permanence of faith and the subsistence of\nreligions and the health of bodies depend on three qualities:\nsatisfaction (_iktif\u00e1_) and piety (_ittiq\u00e1_) and abstinence (_i\u1e25tim\u00e1_):\nif one is satisfied with God, his conscience becomes good; and if one\nguards himself from what God has forbidden, his character becomes\nupright; and if one abstains from what does not agree with him, his\nconstitution is brought into good order. The fruit of satisfaction is\npure knowledge of God, and the result of piety is excellence of moral\ncharacter, and the end of abstinence is equilibrium of constitution.\u201d\nThe Apostle said, \u201cHe that prays much by night, his face is fair by\nday,\u201d and he also said that the pious shall come at the Resurrection\n\u201cwith resplendent faces on thrones of light\u201d.\n\n\n         52. ABU \u00b4L-`ABB\u00c1S A\u1e24MAD B. MU\u1e24AMMAD B. SAHL AL-\u00c1MUL\u00cd.\n\nHe was always held in great respect by his contemporaries. He was versed\nin the sciences of Koranic exegesis and criticism, and expounded the\nsubtleties of the Koran with an eloquence and insight peculiar to\nhimself. He was an eminent pupil of Junayd, and had associated with\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm M\u00e1rist\u00e1n\u00ed. Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z regarded him with the utmost\nveneration, and used to declare that no one deserved the name of \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nexcept him. It is related that he said: \u201cAcquiescence in natural habits\nprevents a man from attaining to the exalted degrees of spirituality,\u201d\nbecause natural dispositions are the instruments and organs of the\nsensual part (_nafs_), which is the centre of \u201cveiling\u201d (_\u1e25ij\u00e1b_)\nwhereas the spiritual part (_\u1e25aq\u00edqat_) is the centre of revelation.\nNatural dispositions become attached to two things: firstly, to this\nworld and its accessories, and secondly, to the next world and its\ncircumstances: to the former in virtue of homogeneousness, and to the\nlatter through imagination and in virtue of heterogeneousness and\nnon-cognition. Therefore they are attached to the notion of the next\nworld, not to its true idea, for if they knew it in reality, they would\nbreak off connexion with this world, and nature would then have lost all\nher power and spiritual things would be revealed. There can be no\nharmony between the next world and human nature until the latter is\nannihilated, because \u201cin the next world is that which the heart of man\nnever conceived\u201d. The worth (_kha\u1e6dar_) of the next world lies in the\nfact that the way to it is full of danger (_kha\u1e6dar_). A thing that only\ncomes into one\u2019s thoughts (_khaw\u00e1\u1e6dir_) has little worth; and inasmuch as\nthe imagination is incapable of knowing the reality of the next world,\nhow can human nature become familiar with the true idea (_`ayn_)\nthereof? It is certain that our natural faculties can be acquainted only\nwith the notion (_pind\u00e1sht_) of the next world.\n\n\n           53. ABU \u00b4L-MUGH\u00cdTH AL-\u1e24USAYN B. MAN\u1e62\u00daR AL-\u1e24ALL\u00c1J.\n\nHe was an enamoured and intoxicated votary of \u1e62\u00fafiism. He had a strong\necstasy and a lofty spirit. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs are at variance concerning\nhim. Some reject him, while others accept him. Among the latter class\nare `Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Makk\u00ed, Ab\u00fa Ya`q\u00fab Nahraj\u00far\u00ed, Ab\u00fa Ya`q\u00fab Aq\u1e6da`,\n`Al\u00ed b. Sahl I\u1e63fah\u00e1n\u00ed, and others. He is accepted, moreover, by Ibn\n`A\u1e6d\u00e1, Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf, Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1d\u00ed, and all the moderns.\nOthers, again, suspend their judgment about him, e.g. Junayd and Shibl\u00ed\nand Jurayr\u00ed and \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed. Some accuse him of magic and matters coming under\nthat head, but in our days the Grand Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd b. Abi \u00b4l-Khayr\nand Shaykh Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed and Shaykh Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Shaq\u00e1n\u00ed looked\nupon him with favour, and in their eyes he was a great man. The Master\nAbu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Qushayr\u00ed remarks that if al-\u1e24all\u00e1j was a genuine\nspiritualist he is not to be banned on the ground of popular\ncondemnation, and if he was banned by \u1e62\u00fafiism and rejected by the Truth\nhe is not to be approved on the ground of popular approval. Therefore we\nleave him to the judgment of God, and honour him according to the tokens\nof the Truth which we have found him to possess. But of all these\nShaykhs only a few deny the perfection of his merit and the purity of\nhis spiritual state and the abundance of his ascetic practices. It would\nbe an act of dishonesty to omit his biography from this book. Some\npersons pronounce his outward behaviour to be that of an infidel, and\ndisbelieve in him and charge him with trickery and magic, and suppose\nthat \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far \u1e24all\u00e1j is that heretic of Baghd\u00e1d who was the\nmaster of Mu\u1e25ammad b. Zakariyy\u00e1[95] and the companion of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd the\nCarmathian; but this \u1e24usayn whose character is in dispute was a Persian\nand a native of Bay\u1e0d\u00e1, and his rejection by the Shaykhs was due, not to\nany attack on religion and doctrine, but to his conduct and behaviour.\nAt first he was a pupil of Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h, whom he left, without\nasking permission, in order to attach himself to `Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n Makk\u00ed.\nThen he left `Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n, again without asking permission, and\nsought to associate with Junayd, but Junayd would not receive him. This\nis the reason why he is banned by all the Shaykhs. Now, one who is\nbanned on account of his conduct is not banned on account of his\nprinciples. Do you not see that Shibl\u00ed said: \u201cAl-\u1e24all\u00e1j and I are of one\nbelief, but my madness saved me, while his intelligence destroyed him\u201d?\nHad his religion been suspected, Shibl\u00ed would not have said: \u201cAl-\u1e24all\u00e1j\nand I are of one belief.\u201d And Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf said: \u201cHe is a divinely\nlearned man\u201d (_`\u00e1lim-i rabb\u00e1n\u00ed_). Al-\u1e24all\u00e1j is the author of brilliant\ncompositions and allegories and polished sayings in theology and\njurisprudence. I have seen fifty works by him at Baghd\u00e1d and in the\nneighbouring districts, and some in Kh\u00fazist\u00e1n and F\u00e1rs and Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. All\nhis sayings are like the first visions of novices; some of them are\nstronger, some weaker, some easier, some more unseemly than others. When\nGod bestows a vision on anyone, and he endeavours to describe what he\nhas seen with the power of ecstasy and the help of Divine grace, his\nwords are obscure, especially if he expresses himself with haste and\nself-admiration: then they are more repugnant to the imaginations, and\nincomprehensible to the minds, of those who hear them, and then people\nsay, \u201cThis is a sublime utterance,\u201d either believing it or not, but\nequally ignorant of its meaning whether they believe or deny. On the\nother hand, when persons of true spirituality and insight have visions,\nthey make no effort to describe them, and do not occupy themselves with\nself-admiration on that account, and are careless of praise and blame\nalike, and are undisturbed by denial and belief.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  The famous physician Ab\u00fa Bakr Mu\u1e25ammad b. Zakariyy\u00e1 al-R\u00e1z\u00ed, who died\n  about 320 A.H. See Brockelmann, i, 233.\n\nIt is absurd to charge al-\u1e24all\u00e1j with being a magician. According to the\nprinciples of Mu\u1e25ammadan orthodoxy, magic is real, just as miracles are\nreal; but the manifestation of magic in the state of perfection is\ninfidelity, whereas the manifestation of miracles in the state of\nperfection is knowledge of God (_ma`rifat_), because the former is the\nresult of God\u2019s anger, while the latter is the corollary of His being\nwell pleased. I will explain this more fully in the chapter on the\naffirmation of miracles. By consent of all Sunnites who are endowed with\nperspicacity, no Moslem can be a magician and no infidel can be held in\nhonour, for contraries never meet. \u1e24usayn, as long as he lived, wore the\ngarb of piety, consisting in prayer and praise of God and continual\nfasts and fine sayings on the subject of Unification. If his actions\nwere magic, all this could not possibly have proceeded from him.\nConsequently, they must have been miracles, and miracles are vouchsafed\nonly to a true saint. Some orthodox theologians reject him on the ground\nthat his sayings are pantheistic (_ba-ma`ni-yi imtiz\u00e1j \u00fa itti\u1e25\u00e1d_), but\nthe offence lies solely in the expression, not in the meaning. A person\novercome with rapture has not the power of expressing himself correctly;\nbesides, the meaning of the expression may be difficult to apprehend, so\nthat people mistake the writer\u2019s intention, and repudiate, not his real\nmeaning, but a notion which they have formed for themselves. I have seen\nat Baghd\u00e1d and in the adjoining districts a number of heretics who\npretend to be the followers of al-\u1e24all\u00e1j and make his sayings an\nargument for their heresy (_zandaqa_) and call themselves \u1e24all\u00e1j\u00eds. They\nspoke of him in the same terms of exaggeration (_ghuluww_) as the\nR\u00e1fi\u1e0d\u00eds (Sh\u00ed`ites) apply to `Al\u00ed. I will refute their doctrines in the\nchapter concerning the different \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed sects. In conclusion, you must\nknow that the sayings of al-\u1e24all\u00e1j should not be taken as a model,\ninasmuch as he was an ecstatic (_maghl\u00fab andar \u1e25\u00e1l-i khud_), not firmly\nsettled (_mutamakkin_), and a man needs to be firmly settled before his\nsayings can be considered authoritative. Therefore, although he is dear\nto my heart, yet his \u201cpath\u201d is not soundly established on any principle,\nand his state is not fixed in any position, and his experiences are\nlargely mingled with error. When my own visions began I derived much\nsupport from him, that is to say, in the way of evidences (_bar\u00e1h\u00edn_).\nAt an earlier time I composed a book in explanation of his sayings and\ndemonstrated their sublimity by proofs and arguments. Furthermore, in\nanother work, entitled _Minh\u00e1j_, I have spoken of his life from\nbeginning to end; and now I have given some account of him in this\nplace. How can a doctrine whose principles require to be corroborated\nwith so much caution be followed and imitated? Truth and idle fancy\nnever agree. He is continually seeking to fasten upon some erroneous\ntheory. It is related that he said: _Al-alsinat mustan\u1e6diq\u00e1t ta\u1e25ta\nnu\u1e6dqih\u00e1 mustahlik\u00e1t_,[96] i.e. \u201cspeaking tongues are the destruction of\nsilent hearts\u201d. Such expressions are entirely mischievous. Expression of\nthe meaning of reality is futile. If the meaning exists it is not lost\nby expression, and if it is non-existent it is not created by\nexpression. Expression only produces an unreal notion and leads the\nstudent mortally astray by causing him to imagine that the expression is\nthe real meaning.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Literally, \u201cThe tongues desire to speak, (but) under their speech they\n  desire to perish.\u201d\n\n\n               54. AB\u00da IS\u1e24\u00c1Q IBR\u00c1H\u00cdM B. A\u1e24MAD AL-KHAWW\u00c1\u1e62.\n\nHe attained a high degree in the doctrine of trust in God (_tawakkul_).\nHe met many Shaykhs, and many signs and miracles were vouchsafed to him.\nHe is the author of excellent works on the ethics of \u1e62\u00fafiism. It is\nrelated that he said: \u201cAll knowledge is comprised in two sentences: \u2018do\nnot trouble yourself with anything that is done for you, and do not\nneglect anything that you are bound to do for yourself,\u2019\u201d i.e., do not\ntrouble yourself with destiny, for what is destined from eternity will\nnot be changed by your efforts, and do not neglect His commandment, for\nyou will be punished if you neglect it. He was asked what wonders he had\nseen. \u201cMany wonders,\u201d he replied, \u201cbut the most wonderful was that the\nApostle Khi\u1e0dr begged me to let him associate with me, and I refused. Not\nthat I desired any better companion, but I feared that I should depend\non him rather than on God, and that my trust in God would be impaired by\nconsorting with him, and that in consequence of performing a work of\nsupererogation I should fail to perform a duty incumbent on me.\u201d This is\nthe degree of perfection.\n\n\n                  55. AB\u00da \u1e24AMZA AL-BAGHD\u00c1D\u00cd AL-BAZZ\u00c1Z.\n\nHe was one of the principal \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed scholastic theologians\n(_mutakallim\u00e1n_). He was a pupil of \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, and associated with\nSar\u00ed and was contemporary with N\u00far\u00ed and Khayr Nass\u00e1j. He used to preach\nin the Ru\u1e63\u00e1fa mosque at Baghd\u00e1d. He was versed in Koranic exegesis and\ncriticism, and related Apostolic Traditions on trustworthy authority. It\nwas he who was with N\u00far\u00ed when the latter was persecuted and when God\ndelivered the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds from death. I will tell this story in the place\nwhere N\u00far\u00ed\u2019s doctrine is explained. It is recorded that Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza said:\n\u201cIf thy \u2018self\u2019 (_nafs_) is safe from thee, thou hast done all that is\ndue to it; and if mankind are safe from thee, thou hast paid all that is\ndue to them,\u201d i.e., there are two obligations, one which thou owest to\nthy \u201cself\u201d and one which thou owest to others. If thou refrain thy\n\u201cself\u201d from sin and seek for it the path of future salvation, thou hast\nfulfilled thy obligation towards it; and if thou make others secure from\nthy wickedness and do not wish to injure them, thou hast fulfilled thy\nobligation towards them. Endeavour that no evil may befall thy \u201cself\u201d or\nothers from thee: then occupy thyself with fulfilling thy obligation to\nGod.\n\n\n                56. AB\u00da BAKR MU\u1e24AMMAD B. M\u00daS\u00c1 AL-W\u00c1SI\u1e6c\u00cd.\n\nHe was a profound theosophist, praiseworthy in the eyes of all the\nShaykhs. He was one of the early disciples of Junayd. His abstruse\nmanner of expression caused his sayings to be regarded with suspicion by\nformalists (_\u1e95\u00e1\u1e25iriy\u00e1n_). He found peace in no city until he came to\nMerv. The inhabitants of Merv welcomed him on account of his amiable\ndisposition\u2014for he was a virtuous man\u2014and listened to his sayings; and\nhe passed his life there. It is related that he said: \u201cThose who\nremember their praise of God (_dhikr_) are more heedless than those who\nforget their praise,\u201d because if anyone forgets the praise, it is no\nmatter; but it does matter if he remembers the praise and forgets God.\nPraise is not the same thing as the object of praise. Neglect of the\nobject of praise combined with thought of the praise approximates to\nheedlessness more closely than neglect of the praise without thought. He\nwho forgets, in his forgetfulness and absence, does not think that he is\npresent (with God), but he who remembers, in his remembrance and absence\nfrom the object of praise, thinks that he is present (with God).\nAccordingly, to think that one is present when one is not present comes\nnearer to heedlessness than to be absent without thinking that one is\npresent, for conceit (_pind\u00e1sht_) is the ruin of those who seek the\nTruth. The more conceit, the less reality, and _vice vers\u00e2_. Conceit\nreally springs from the suspiciousness (_tuhmat_) of the intellect,\nwhich is produced by the insatiable desire (_nahmat_) of the lower soul;\nand holy aspiration (_himmat_) has nothing in common with either of\nthese qualities. The fundamental principle of remembrance of God\n(_dhikr_) is either in absence (_ghaybat_) or in presence (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_).\nWhen anyone is absent from himself and present with God, that state is\nnot presence, but contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_); and when anyone is\nabsent from God and present with himself, that state is not remembrance\nof God (_dhikr_), but absence; and absence is the result of heedlessness\n(_ghaflat_). The truth is best known to God.\n\n\n               57. AB\u00da BAKR B. DULAF B. JA\u1e24DAR AL-SHIBL\u00cd.\n\nHe was a great and celebrated Shaykh. He had a blameless spiritual life\nand enjoyed perfect communion with God. He was subtle in the use of\nsymbolism, wherefore one of the moderns says: \u201cThe wonders of the world\nare three: the symbolical utterances (_ish\u00e1r\u00e1t_) of Shibl\u00ed, and the\nmystical sayings (_nukat_) of Murta`ish, and the anecdotes (_\u1e25ik\u00e1y\u00e1t_)\nof Ja`far.\u201c[97] At first he was chief chamberlain to the Caliph, but he\nwas converted in the assembly-room (_majlis_) of Khayr al-Nass\u00e1j and\nbecame a disciple of Junayd. He made the acquaintance of a large number\nof Shaykhs. It is related that he explained the verse \u201d_Tell the\nbelievers to refrain their eyes_\u201d (Kor. xxiv, 30) as follows: \u201cO\nMu\u1e25ammad, tell the believers to refrain their bodily eyes from what is\nunlawful, and to refrain their spiritual eyes from everything except\nGod,\u201d i.e. not to look at lust and to have no thought except the vision\nof God. It is a mark of heedlessness to follow one\u2019s lusts and to regard\nunlawful things, and the greatest calamity that befalls the heedless is\nthat they are ignorant of their own faults; for anyone who is ignorant\nhere shall also be ignorant hereafter: \u201c_Those who are blind in this\nworld shall be blind in the next world_\u201d (Kor. xvii, 74). In truth,\nuntil God clears the desire of lust out of a man\u2019s heart the bodily eye\nis not safe from its hidden dangers, and until God establishes the\ndesire of Himself in a man\u2019s heart the spiritual eye is not safe from\nlooking at other than Him.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  See No. #58:.\n\nIt is related that one day when Shibl\u00ed came into the bazaar, the people\nsaid, \u201cThis is a madman.\u201d He replied: \u201cYou think I am mad, and I think\nyou are sensible: may God increase my madness and your sense!\u201d i.e.,\ninasmuch as my madness is the result of intense love of God, while your\nsense is the result of great heedlessness, may God increase my madness\nin order that I may become nearer and nearer to Him, and may He increase\nyour sense in order that you may become farther and farther from Him.\nThis he said from jealousy (_ghayrat_) that anyone should be so beside\none\u2019s self as not to separate love of God from madness and not to\ndistinguish between them in this world or the next.\n\n\n              58. AB\u00da MU\u1e24AMMAD JA`FAR B. NU\u1e62AYR AL-KHULD\u00cd.\n\nHe is the well-known biographer of the Saints. One of the most eminent\nand oldest of Junayd\u2019s pupils, he was profoundly versed in the various\nbranches of \u1e62\u00fafiism and paid the utmost respect to the Shaykhs. He has\nmany sublime sayings. In order to avoid spiritual conceit, he attributed\nto different persons the anecdotes which he composed in illustration of\neach topic. It is related that he said: \u201cTrust in God is equanimity\nwhether you find anything or no,\u201d i.e., you are not made glad by having\ndaily bread or sorrowful by not having it, because it is the property of\nthe Lord, who has a better right than you either to preserve or to\ndestroy: do not interfere, but let the Lord dispose of His own. Ja`far\nrelates that he went to Junayd and found him suffering from a fever. \u201cO\nMaster,\u201d he cried, \u201ctell God in order that He may restore thee to\nhealth.\u201d Junayd said: \u201cLast night I was about to tell Him, but a voice\nwhispered in my heart, \u2018Thy body belongs to Me: I keep it well or ill,\nas I please. Who art thou, that thou shouldst interfere with My\nproperty.\u2019\u201d\n\n\n             59. AB\u00da `AL\u00cd MU\u1e24AMMAD B. AL-Q\u00c1SIM AL-R\u00daDB\u00c1R\u00cd.\n\nHe was a great \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed and of royal descent. Many signs and virtues were\nvouchsafed to him. He discoursed lucidly on the arcana of \u1e62\u00fafiism. It is\nrelated that he said: \u201cHe who desires (_mur\u00edd_) desires for himself only\nwhat God desires for him, and he who is desired (_mur\u00e1d_) does not\ndesire anything in this world or the next except God.\u201d Accordingly, he\nwho is satisfied with the will of God must abandon his own will in order\nthat he may desire, whereas the lover has no will of his own that he\nshould have any object of desire. He who desires God desires only what\nGod desires, and he whom God desires desires only God. Hence\nsatisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) is one of the \u201cstations\u201d (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) of the\nbeginning, and love (_ma\u1e25abbat_) is one of the \u201cstates\u201d (_a\u1e25w\u00e1l_) of the\nend. The \u201cstations\u201d are connected with the realization of servantship\n(_`ub\u00fadiyyat_), while ecstasy (_mashrab_) leads to the corroboration of\nLordship (_rub\u00fabiyyat_). This being so, the desirer (_mur\u00edd_) subsists\nin himself, and the desired (_mur\u00e1d_) subsists in God.\n\n\n          60. ABU \u00b4L-`ABB\u00c1S Q\u00c1SIM B. AL-MAHD\u00cd[98] AL-SAYY\u00c1R\u00cd.\n\nHe associated with Ab\u00fa Bakr W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed and derived instruction from many\nShaykhs. He was the most accomplished (_a\u1e95raf_) of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in\ncompanionship (_\u1e63u\u1e25bat_) and the most sparing (_azhad_) of them in\nfriendship (_ulfat_). He is the author of lofty sayings and praiseworthy\ncompositions. It is related that he said: \u201cUnification (_al-taw\u1e25\u00edd_) is\nthis: that nothing should occur to your mind except God.\u201d He belonged to\na learned and influential family of Merv. Having inherited a large\nfortune from his father, he gave the whole of it in return for two of\nthe Apostle\u2019s hairs. Through the blessing of those hairs God bestowed on\nhim a sincere repentance. He fell into the company of Ab\u00fa Bakr W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed,\nand attained such a high degree that he became the leader of a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nsect. When he was on the point of death, he gave directions that those\nhairs should be placed in his mouth. His tomb is still to be seen at\nMerv, and people come thither to seek what they desire; and their\nprayers are granted.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 167, has \u201cQ\u00e1sim b. al-Q\u00e1sim al-Mahd\u00ed\u201d.\n\n\n                 61. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H MU\u1e24AMMAD B. KHAF\u00cdF.\n\nHe was the Im\u00e1m of his age in diverse sciences. He was renowned for his\nmortifications and for his convincing elucidation of mystical truths.\nHis spiritual attainments are clearly shown by his compositions. He was\nacquainted with Ibn `A\u1e6d\u00e1 and Shibl\u00ed and \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far and Jurayr\u00ed,\nand associated at Mecca with Ab\u00fa Ya`q\u00fab Nahraj\u00far\u00ed. He made excellent\njourneys in detachment from the world (_tajr\u00edd_). He was of royal\ndescent, but God bestowed on him repentance, so that he turned his back\non the glories of this world. He is held in high esteem by\nspiritualists. It is related that he said: \u201cUnification consists in\nturning away from nature,\u201d because the natures of mankind are all veiled\nfrom the bounties and blind to the beneficence of God. Hence no one can\nturn to God until he has turned away from nature, and the \u201cnatural\u201d man\n(_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib \u1e6dab`_) is unable to apprehend the reality of Unification, which\nis revealed to you only when you see the corruption of your own nature.\n\n\n              62. AB\u00da `UTHM\u00c1N SA`\u00cdD B. SALL\u00c1M AL-MAGHRIB\u00cd.\n\nHe was an eminent spiritualist of the class who have attained \u201cfixity\u201d\n(_ahl-i tamk\u00edn_), and was profoundly versed in various departments of\nknowledge. He practised austerities, and is the author of many notable\nsayings and excellent proofs concerning the observation of spiritual\nblemishes (_ru\u00b4yat-i \u00e1f\u00e1t_). It is related that he said: \u201cWhenever\nanyone prefers association with the rich to sitting with the poor God\nafflicts him with spiritual death.\u201d The terms \u201cassociation\u201d (_\u1e63u\u1e25bat_)\nand \u201csitting with\u201d (_muj\u00e1lasat_) are employed, because a man turns away\nfrom the poor only when he has sat with them, not when he has associated\nwith them; for there is no turning away in association. When he leaves\noff sitting with the poor in order to associate with the rich, his heart\nbecomes dead to supplication (_niy\u00e1z_) and his body is caught in the\ntoils of covetousness (_\u00e1z_). Since the result of turning away from\n_muj\u00e1lasat_ is spiritual death, how should there be any turning away\nfrom _\u1e63u\u1e25bat_? The two terms are clearly distinguished from each other\nin this saying.\n\n      63.ABU \u00b4L-Q\u00c1SIM IBR\u00c1H\u00cdM B. MU\u1e24AMMAD B. MA\u1e24M\u00daD AL-NA\u1e62R\u00c1B\u00c1D\u00cd.\n\nHe was like a king in N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, save that the glory of kings is in this\nworld, while his was in the next world. Original sayings and exalted\nsigns were vouchsafed to him. Himself a pupil of Shibl\u00ed, he was the\nmaster of the later Shaykhs of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. He was the most learned and\ndevout man of his age. It is recorded that he said: \u201cThou art between\ntwo relationships: one to Adam, the other to God. If thou claim\nrelationship to Adam, thou wilt enter the arenas of lust and the places\nof corruption and error; for by this claim thou seekest to realize thy\nhumanity (_bashariyyat_). God hath said: \u2018_Verily, he was unjust and\nfoolish_\u2019 (Kor. xxxiii, 72). If, however, thou claim relationship to\nGod, thou wilt enter the stations of revelation and evidence and\nprotection (from sin) and saintship; for by this claim thou seekest to\nrealize thy servantship (_`ub\u00fadiyyat_). God hath said: \u2018_The servants of\nthe Merciful are those who walk on the earth meekly_\u2019 (Kor. xxv, 64).\u201c\nRelationship to Adam ends at the Resurrection, whereas the relationship\nof being a servant of God subsists always and is unalterable. When a man\nrefers himself to himself or to Adam, the utmost that he can reach is to\nsay: \u201d_Verily, I have injured myself_\u201c (Kor. xxviii, 15); but when he\nrefers himself to God, the son of Adam is in the same case as those of\nwhom God hath said: \u201d_O My servants, there is no fear for you this day_\u201d\n(Kor. xliii, 68).\n\n               64. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN `AL\u00cd B. IBR\u00c1H\u00cdM AL-\u1e24U\u1e62R\u00cd.\n\nHe is one of the great Im\u00e1ms of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and was unrivalled in his\ntime. He has lofty sayings and admirable explanations in all spiritual\nmatters. It is related that he said: \u201cLeave me alone in my affliction!\nAre not ye children of Adam, whom God formed with His own hand and\nbreathed a spirit into him and caused the angels to bow down to him?\nThen He commanded him to do something, and he disobeyed. If the first of\nthe wine-jar is dregs, what will its last be?\u201d That is to say: \u201cWhen a\nman is left to himself he is all disobedience, but when Divine favour\ncomes to his help he is all love. Now regard the beauty of Divine favour\nand compare with it the ugliness of thy behaviour, and pass thy whole\nlife in this.\u201d\n\nI have mentioned some of the ancient \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds whose example is\nauthoritative. If I had noticed them all and had set forth their lives\nin detail and had included the anecdotes respecting them, my purpose\nwould not have been accomplished, and this book would have run to great\nlength. Now I will add some account of the modern \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n            CONCERNING THE PRINCIPAL \u1e62\u00daF\u00cdS OF RECENT TIMES.\n\nYou must know that in our days there are some persons who cannot endure\nthe burden of discipline (_riy\u00e1\u1e0dat_) and seek authority (_riy\u00e1sat_)\nwithout discipline, and think that all \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are like themselves; and\nwhen they hear the sayings of those who have passed away and see their\neminence and read of their devotional practices they examine themselves,\nand finding that they are far inferior to the Shaykhs of old they no\nlonger attempt to emulate them, but say: \u201cWe are not as they, and there\nis none like them in our time.\u201d Their assertion is absurd, for God never\nleaves the earth without a proof (_\u1e25ujjat_) or the Moslem community\nwithout a saint, as the Apostle said: \u201cOne sect of my people shall\ncontinue in goodness and truth until the hour of the Resurrection.\u201d And\nhe said also: \u201cThere shall always be in my people forty who have the\nnature of Abraham.\u201d\n\nSome of those whom I shall mention in this chapter are already deceased,\nand some are still living.\n\n\n             1. ABU \u00b4L-`ABB\u00c1S A\u1e24MAD B. MU\u1e24AMMAD AL-QA\u1e62\u1e62\u00c1B.\n\nHe associated with the leading Shaykhs of Transoxania. He was famed for\nhis lofty spiritual endowments, his true sagacity, his abundant\nevidences, ascetic practices, and miracles. Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Khayy\u00e1\u1e6d\u00ed, the\nIm\u00e1m of \u1e6cabarist\u00e1n, says of him: \u201cIt is one of God\u2019s bounties that He\nhas made a person who was never taught able to answer our questions\nabout any difficulty touching the principles of religion and the\nsubtleties of Unification.\u201d Although Abu \u00b4l-Abb\u00e1s Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1b was illiterate\n(_umm\u00ed_), he discoursed in sublime fashion concerning the science of\n\u1e62\u00fafiism and theology. I have heard many stories of him, but my rule in\nthis book is brevity. One day a camel, with a heavy burden, was going\nthrough the market-place at \u00c1mul, which is always muddy. The camel fell\nand broke its leg. While the lad in charge of it was lamenting and\nlifting his hands to implore the help of God, and the people were about\nto take the load off its back, the Shaykh passed by, and asked what was\nthe matter. On being informed, he seized the camel\u2019s bridle and turned\nhis face to the sky and said: \u201cO Lord! make the leg of this camel whole.\nIf Thou wilt not do so, why hast Thou let my heart be melted by the\ntears of a lad?\u201d The camel immediately got up and went on its way.\n\nIt is stated that he said: \u201cAll mankind, whether they will or no, must\nreconcile themselves to God, or else they will suffer pain,\u201d because,\nwhen you are reconciled to Him in affliction, you see only the Author of\naffliction, and the affliction itself does not come; and if you are not\nreconciled to Him, affliction comes and your heart is filled with\nanguish. God having predestined our satisfaction and dissatisfaction,\ndoes not alter His predestination: therefore our satisfaction with His\ndecrees is a part of our pleasure. Whenever anyone reconciles himself to\nHim, that man\u2019s heart is rejoiced; and whenever anyone turns away from\nHim, that man is distressed by the coming of destiny.\n\n\n                2. AB\u00da `AL\u00cd \u1e24ASAN B. MU\u1e24AMMAD AL-DAQQ\u00c1Q.\n\nHe was the leading authority in his department (of science) and had no\nrival among his contemporaries. He was lucid in exposition and eloquent\nin speech as regards the revelation of the way to God. He had seen many\nShaykhs and associated with them. He was a pupil of Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1di[99] and\nused to be a preacher (_tadhk\u00edr kard\u00ed_). It is related that he said:\n\u201cWhoever becomes intimate with anyone except God is weak in his\n(spiritual) state, and whoever speaks of anyone except God is false in\nhis speech,\u201d because intimacy with anyone except God springs from not\nknowing God sufficiently, and intimacy with Him is friendlessness in\nregard to others, and the friendless man does not speak of others.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  See Chapter XI, No. 63.\n\nI heard an old man relate that one day he went to the place where\nal-Daqq\u00e1q held his meetings, with the intention of asking him about the\nstate of those who trust in God (_mutawakkil\u00e1n_). Al-Daqq\u00e1q was wearing\na fine turban manufactured in \u1e6cabarist\u00e1n, which the old man coveted. He\nsaid to al-Daqq\u00e1q: \u201cWhat is trust in God?\u201d The Shaykh replied: \u201cTo\nrefrain from coveting people\u2019s turbans.\u201d With these words he flung his\nturban in front of the questioner.\n\n\n               3. ABU \u00b4L-\u1e24ASAN `AL\u00cd B. A\u1e24MAD AL-KHURQ\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe was a great Shaykh and was praised by all the Saints in his time.\nShaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd visited him, and they conversed with each other on\nevery topic. When he was about to take leave he said to al-Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed: \u201cI\nchoose you to be my successor.\u201d I have heard from \u1e24asan Mu\u00b4addib, who\nwas the servant of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd, that when Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd came into the presence\nof al-Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed, he did not speak another word, but listened and only\nspoke by way of answering what was said by the latter. \u1e24asan asked him\nwhy he had been so silent. He replied: \u201cOne interpreter is enough for\none theme.\u201d And I heard the Master, Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Qushayr\u00ed, say: \u201cWhen I\ncame to Khurq\u00e1n, my eloquence departed and I no longer had any power to\nexpress myself, on account of the veneration with which that spiritual\ndirector inspired me; and I thought that I had been deposed from my own\nsaintship.\u201d\n\nIt is related that he said: \u201cThere are two ways, one wrong and one\nright. The wrong way is Man\u2019s way to God, and the right way is God\u2019s way\nto Man. Whoever says he has attained to God has not attained; but when\nanyone says that he has been made to attain to God, know that he has\nreally attained.\u201d It is not a question of attaining or not attaining,\nand of salvation or non-salvation, but one of being _caused_ to attain\nor not to attain, and of being _given_ salvation or being not given\nsalvation.\n\n\n   4. AB\u00da `ABDALL\u00c1H MU\u1e24AMMAD B. `AL\u00cd, GENERALLY KNOWN AS AL-D\u00c1ST\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe resided at Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m. He was learned in various branches of science, and\nis the author of polished discourses and fine symbolical indications. He\nfound an excellent successor in Shaykh Sahlag\u00ed, who was the Im\u00e1m of\nthose parts. I have heard from Sahlag\u00ed some of his spiritual utterances\n(_anf\u00e1s_), which are very sublime and admirable. He says, for example:\n\u201cUnification, coming from thee, is existent (_mawj\u00fad_), but thou in\nunification art non-existent (_mafq\u00fad_),\u201d i.e. unification, when it\nproceeds from thee, is faultless (_durust_), but thou art faulty in\nunification, because thou dost not fulfil its requirements. The lowest\ndegree in unification is the negation of thy personal control over\nanything that thou hast, and the affirmation of thy absolute submission\nto God in all thy affairs. Shaykh Sahlag\u00ed relates as follows: \u201cOnce the\nlocusts came to Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m in such numbers that every tree and field was\nblack with them. The people cried aloud for help. The Shaykh asked me:\n\u2018What is all this pother?\u2019 I told him that the locusts had come and that\nthe people were distressed in consequence. He rose and went up to the\nroof and looked towards heaven. The locusts immediately began to fly\naway. By the hour of the afternoon prayer not one was left, and nobody\nlost even a blade of grass.\u201d\n\n\n             5. AB\u00da SA`\u00cdD FA\u1e0cLALL\u00c1H B. MU\u1e24AMMAD AL-MAYHAN\u00cd.\n\nHe was the sultan of his age and the ornament of the Mystic Path. All\nhis contemporaries were subject to him, some through their sound\nperception, and some through their excellent belief, and some through\nthe strong influence of their spiritual feelings. He was versed in the\ndifferent branches of science. He had a wonderful religious experience\nand an extraordinary power of reading men\u2019s secret thoughts. Besides\nthis he had many remarkable powers and evidences, of which the effects\nare manifest at the present day. In early life he left Mihna (Mayhana)\nand came to Sarakhs in order to study. He attached himself to Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed\nZ\u00e1hir, from whom he learned in one day as much as is contained in three\nlectures, and he used to spend in devotion the three days that he had\nsaved in this manner. The saint of Sarakhs at that time was Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl\n\u1e24asan. One day, when Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd was walking by the river of Sarakhs, Abu\n\u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl met him and said: \u201cYour way is not that which you are taking:\ntake your own way.\u201d The Shaykh did not attach himself to him, but\nreturned to his native town and engaged in asceticism and austerities\nuntil God opened to him the door of guidance and raised him to the\nhighest rank. I heard the following story from Shaykh Ab\u00fa Muslim F\u00e1ris\u00ed:\n\u201cI had always,\u201d he said, \u201cbeen on unfriendly terms with the Shaykh. Once\nI set out to pay him a visit. My patched frock was so dirty that it had\nbecome like leather. When I entered his presence, I found him sitting on\na couch, dressed in a robe of Egyptian linen. I said to myself: \u2018This\nman claims to be a dervish (_faq\u00edr_) with all these worldly encumbrances\n(_`al\u00e1\u00b4iq_), while I claim to be a dervish with all this detachment from\nthe world (_tajr\u00edd_). How can I agree with this man?\u2019 He read my\nthoughts, and raising his head cried: \u2018O Ab\u00fa Muslim, in what _d\u00edw\u00e1n_\nhave you found that the name of dervish is applied to anyone whose heart\nsubsists in the contemplation of God?\u2019 i.e. those who contemplate God\nare rich in God, whereas dervishes (_fuqar\u00e1_) are occupied with\nself-mortification. I repented of my conceit and asked God to pardon me\nfor such an unseemly thought.\u201d\n\nAnd it is related that he said: \u201c\u1e62\u00fafiism is the subsistence of the heart\nwith God without any mediation.\u201d This alludes to contemplation\n(_mush\u00e1hadat_), which is violence of love, and absorption of human\nattributes in realizing the vision of God, and their annihilation by the\neverlastingness of God. I will discuss the nature of contemplation in\nthe chapter which treats of the Pilgrimage.\n\nOn one occasion Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd set out from N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far towards \u1e6c\u00fas. While he\nwas passing through a mountainous ravine his feet felt cold in his\nboots. A dervish who was then with him says: \u201cI thought of tearing my\nwaist-cloth (_f\u00fa\u1e6da_) into two halves and wrapping them round his feet;\nbut I could not bring myself to do it, as my _f\u00fa\u1e6da_ was a very fine one.\nWhen we arrived at \u1e6c\u00fas I attended his meeting and asked him to tell me\nthe difference between suggestions of the Devil (_wasw\u00e1s_) and Divine\ninspiration (_ilh\u00e1m_). He answered: \u2018It was a Divine inspiration that\nurged you to tear your _f\u00fa\u1e6da_ into two pieces for the sake of warming my\nfeet; and it was a diabolic suggestion that hindered you from doing\nso.\u2019\u201d He performed a whole series of miracles of this kind which are\nwrought by spiritual adepts.\n\n\n            6. ABU \u00b4L-FA\u1e0cL MU\u1e24AMMAD B. AL-\u1e24ASAN AL-KHUTTAL\u00cd.\n\nHe is the teacher whom I follow in \u1e62\u00fafiism. He was versed in the science\nof Koranic exegesis and in traditions (_riw\u00e1y\u00e1t_). In \u1e62\u00fafiism he held\nthe doctrine of Junayd. He was a pupil of \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed[100] and a companion of\nS\u00edraw\u00e1n\u00ed, and was contemporary with Ab\u00fa `Amr Qazw\u00edn\u00ed and Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan b.\nS\u00e1liba. He spent sixty years in sincere retirement from the world, for\nthe most part on Mount Luk\u00e1m. He displayed many signs and proofs (of\nsaintship), but he did not wear the garb or adopt the external fashions\nof the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and he used to treat formalists with severity. I never saw\nany man who inspired me with greater awe than he did. It is related that\nhe said: \u201cThe world is but a single day, in which we are fasting,\u201d i.e.,\nwe get nothing from it, and are not occupied with it, because we have\nperceived its corruption and its \u201cveils\u201d and have turned our backs upon\nit. Once I was pouring water on his hands in order that he might purify\nhimself. The thought occurred to me: \u201cInasmuch as everything is\npredestined, why should free men make themselves the slaves of spiritual\ndirectors in the hope of having miracles vouchsafed to them?\u201d The Shaykh\nsaid: \u201cO my son, I know what you are thinking. Be assured that there is\na cause for every decree of Providence. When God wishes to bestow a\ncrown and a kingdom on a guardsman\u2019s son (_`aw\u00e1n-bacha_), He gives him\nrepentance and employs him in the service of one of His friends, in\norder that this service may be the means of his obtaining the gift of\nmiracles.\u201d Many such fine sayings he uttered to me every day. He died at\nBayt al-Jinn, a village situated at the head of a mountain pass between\nB\u00e1niy\u00e1s[101] and the river of Damascus. While he lay on his death-bed,\nhis head resting on my bosom (and at that time I was feeling hurt, as\nmen often do, by the behaviour of a friend of mine), he said to me: \u201cO\nmy son, I will tell thee one article of belief which, if thou holdest it\nfirmly, will deliver thee from all troubles. Whatever good or evil God\ncreates, do not in any place or circumstance quarrel with His action or\nbe aggrieved in thy heart.\u201d He gave no further injunction, but yielded\nup his soul.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  See Chapter XI, No. 64.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  L. B\u00e1niy\u00e1n, IJ. M\u00e1niy\u00e1n.\n\n\n         7. ABU \u00b4L-Q\u00c1SIM `ABD AL-KAR\u00cdM B. HAW\u00c1ZIN AL-QUSHAYR\u00cd.\n\nIn his time he was a wonder. His rank is high and his position is great,\nand his spiritual life and manifold virtues are well known to the people\nof the present age. He is the author of many fine sayings and exquisite\nworks, all of them profoundly theosophical, in every branch of science.\nGod rendered his feelings and his tongue secure from anthropomorphism\n(_\u1e25ashw_). I have heard that he said: \u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed is like the disease\ncalled _birs\u00e1m_, which begins with delirium and ends in silence; for\nwhen you have attained \u2018fixity\u2019 you are dumb.\u201c \u1e62\u00fafiism (_\u1e63afwat_) has\ntwo sides: ecstasy (_wajd_) and visions (_num\u00fad_). Visions belong to\nnovices, and the expression of such visions is delirium (_hadhay\u00e1n_).\nEcstasy belongs to adepts, and the expression of ecstasy, while the\necstasy continues, is impossible. So long as they are only seekers they\nutter lofty aspirations, which seem delirium even to those who aspire\n(_ahl-i himmat_), but when they have attained they cease, and no more\nexpress anything either by word or sign. Similarly, since Moses was a\nbeginner (_mubtad\u00ed_) all his desire was for vision of God; he expressed\nhis desire and said, \u201d_O Lord, show me that I may behold Thee_\u201d (Kor.\nvii, 139). This expression of an unattained desire seemed like delirium.\nOur Apostle, however, was an adept (_muntah\u00ed_) and firmly established\n(_mutamakkin_). When his person arrived at the station of desire his\ndesire was annihilated, and he said, \u201cI cannot praise Thee duly.\u201d\n\n\n             8. ABU \u00b4L-`ABB\u00c1S A\u1e24MAD B. MU\u1e24AMMAD AL-ASHQ\u00c1N\u00cd.\n\nHe was an Im\u00e1m in every branch of the fundamental and derivative\nsciences, and consummate in all respects. He had met a great number of\neminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. His doctrine was based on \u201cannihilation\u201d (_fan\u00e1_), and\nhis recondite manner of expression was peculiarly his own; but I have\nseen some fools who imitated it and adopted his ecstatic phrases\n(_sha\u1e6d\u1e25h\u00e1_). It is not laudable to imitate even a spiritual meaning:\nmark, then, how wrong it must be to imitate a mere expression! I was\nvery intimate with him, and he had a sincere affection for me. He was my\nteacher in some sciences. During my whole life I have never seen anyone,\nof any sect, who held the religious law in greater veneration than he.\nHe was detached from all created things, and only an Im\u00e1m of profound\ninsight could derive instruction from him, on account of the subtlety of\nhis theological expositions. He always had a natural disgust of this\nworld and the next, and was constantly exclaiming: _Ashtah\u00ed `adam^{an}\nl\u00e1 wuj\u00fad lahu_, \u201cI long for a non-existence that has no existence.\u201d And\nhe used to say in Persian: \u201cEvery man has an impossible desire, and I\ntoo have an impossible desire, which I surely know will never be\nrealized, namely, that God should bring me to a non-existence that will\nnever return to existence.\u201d He wished this because \u201cstations\u201d and\nmiracles are all centres of veiling (i.e. they veil man from God). Man\nhas fallen in love with that which veils him. Non-existence in desire of\nvision is better than taking delight in veils. Inasmuch as Almighty God\nis a Being that is not subject to not-being, what loss would His kingdom\nsuffer if I become a nonentity that shall never be endowed with\nexistence? This is a sound principle in a real annihilation.\n\n            9. ABU \u00b4L-Q\u00c1SIM B. `AL\u00cd B. `ABDALL\u00c1H AL-GURG\u00c1N\u00cd\n (may God prolong his life for the benefit of us and of all Moslems!).\n\nIn his time he was unique and incomparable. His beginning (_ibtid\u00e1_) was\nvery excellent and strong, and his journeys were performed with\npunctilious observance (of the sacred law). At that time the hearts of\nall initiates (_ahl-i darg\u00e1h_) were turned towards him, and all seekers\n(_\u1e6d\u00e1lib\u00e1n_) had a firm belief in him. He possessed a marvellous power of\nrevealing the inward experiences of novices (_kashf-i w\u00e1qi`a-i\nmur\u00edd\u00e1n_), and he was learned in various branches of knowledge. All his\ndisciples are ornaments of the society in which they move. Please God,\nhe will have an excellent successor, whose authority the whole body of\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds will recognize, namely, Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed al-Fa\u1e0dl b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-F\u00e1rmadh\u00ed\n(may God lengthen his days!),[102] who has not omitted to fulfil his\nduty towards his master, and has turned his back on all (worldly)\nthings, and through the blessings of that (renunciation) has been made\nby God the spiritual mouthpiece (_zab\u00e1n-i \u1e25\u00e1l_) of that venerable\nShaykh.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 428.\n\nOne day I was seated in the Shaykh\u2019s presence and was recounting to him\nmy experiences and visions, in order that he might test them, for he had\nunrivalled skill in this. He was listening kindly to what I said. The\nvanity and enthusiasm of youth made me eager to relate those matters,\nand the thought occurred to me that perhaps the Shaykh, in his\nnovitiate, did not enjoy such experiences, or he would not show so much\nhumility towards me and be so anxious to inquire concerning my spiritual\nstate. The Shaykh perceived what I was thinking. \u201cMy dear friend,\u201d he\nsaid, \u201cyou must know that my humility is not on account of you or your\nexperiences, but is shown towards Him who brings experiences to pass.\nThey are not peculiar to yourself, but common to all seekers of God.\u201d On\nhearing him say this I was utterly taken aback. He saw my confusion and\nsaid: \u201cO my son, Man has no further relation to this Path except that,\nwhen he is attached to it, he imagines that he has found it, and when he\nis deposed from it he clothes his imagination in words. Hence both his\nnegation and his affirmation, both his non-existence and existence, are\nimagination. Man never escapes from the prison of imagination. It\nbehoves him to stand like a slave at the door and put away from himself\nevery relation (_nisbat_) except that of manhood and obedience.\u201d\nAfterwards I had much spiritual conversation with him, but if I were to\nenter upon the task of setting forth his extraordinary powers my purpose\nwould be defeated.\n\n\n             10. AB\u00da A\u1e24MAD AL-MU\u1e94AFFAR B. A\u1e24MAD B. \u1e24AMD\u00c1N.\n\nWhile he was seated on the cushion of authority (_riy\u00e1sat_), God opened\nto him the door of this mystery (_\u1e62\u00fafiism_) and bestowed on him the\ncrown of miracles. He spoke eloquently and discoursed with sublimity on\nannihilation and subsistence (_fan\u00e1 \u00fa baq\u00e1_). The Grand Shaykh, Ab\u00fa\nSa`\u00edd, said: \u201cI was led to the court (of God) by the way of servantship\n(_bandag\u00ed_), but Khw\u00e1ja Mu\u1e95affar was conducted thither by the way of\nlordship and dominion (_khw\u00e1jag\u00ed_),\u201d i.e. \u201cI attained contemplation\n(_mush\u00e1hadat_) by means of self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_), whereas he\ncame from contemplation to self-mortification\u201d. I have heard that he\nsaid: \u201cThat which great mystics have discovered by traversing deserts\nand wildernesses I have gained in the seat of power and pre-eminence\n(_b\u00e1lish \u00fa \u1e63adr_).\u201d Some foolish and conceited persons have attributed\nthis saying of his to arrogance, but it is never arrogant to declare\none\u2019s true state, especially when the speaker is a spiritualist. At the\npresent time Mu\u1e95affar has an excellent and honoured successor in Khw\u00e1ja\nA\u1e25mad. One day, when I was in his company, a certain pretender of\nN\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far happened to use the expression: \u201cHe becomes annihilated and\nthen becomes subsistent.\u201d Khw\u00e1ja Mu\u1e95affar said: \u201cHow can subsistence\n(_baq\u00e1_) be predicated of annihilation (_fan\u00e1_)? Annihilation means\n\u2018not-being\u2019, while subsistence refers to \u2018being\u2019: each term negates the\nother. We know what annihilation is, but when it is not, if it becomes\n\u2018being\u2019, its identity (_`ayn_) is lost. Essences are not capable of\nannihilation. Attributes, however, can be annihilated, and so can\nsecondary causes. Therefore, when attributes and secondary causes are\nannihilated, the Object invested with attributes and the Author of\nsecondary causes continues to subsist: His essence does not admit of\nannihilation.\u201d I do not recollect the precise words in which Mu\u1e95affar\nexpressed his meaning, but this was the purport of them. Now I will\nexplain more clearly what he intended, in order that it may be more\ngenerally understood. A man\u2019s will (_ikhtiy\u00e1r_) is an attribute of\nhimself, and he is veiled by his will from the will of God. Therefore a\nman\u2019s attributes veil him from God. Necessarily, the Divine will is\neternal and the human will phenomenal, and what is eternal cannot be\nannihilated. When the Divine will in regard to a man becomes subsistent\n(_baq\u00e1 y\u00e1bad_), his will is annihilated and his personal initiative\ndisappears. But God knows best.\n\nOne day I came into his presence, when the weather was extremely hot,\nwearing a traveller\u2019s dress and with my hair in disorder. He said to me:\n\u201cTell me what you wish at this moment.\u201d I replied that I wished to hear\nsome music (_sam\u00e1`_). He immediately sent for a singer (_qaww\u00e1l_) and a\nnumber of musicians. Being young and enthusiastic and filled with the\nardour of a novice, I became deeply agitated as the strains of the music\nfell on my ear. After a while, when my transports subsided, he asked me\nhow I liked it. I told him that I had enjoyed it very much. He answered:\n\u201cA time will come when this music will be no more to you than the\ncroaking of a raven. The influence of music only lasts so long as there\nis no contemplation, and as soon as contemplation is attained music has\nno power. Take care not to accustom yourself to this, lest it grow part\nof your nature and keep you back from higher things.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\n      A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE MODERN \u1e62\u00daF\u00cdS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.\n\nI have not space enough to give biographies of them all, and if I omit\nsome the object of this book will not be accomplished. Now, therefore, I\nwill mention only the names of individual \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and leading\nspiritualists who have lived in my time or are still alive, excluding\nthe formalists (_ahl-i rus\u00fam_).\n\n\n                          1. SYRIA AND `IR\u00c1Q.\n\nShaykh Zak\u00ed b. al-`Al\u00e1 was an eminent Shaykh. I found him to be like a\nflash of love. He was endowed with wonderful signs and evidences.\n\nShaykh Ab\u00fa Ja`far Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Mi\u1e63b\u00e1\u1e25 al-\u1e62aydal\u00e1n\u00ed was one of the\nprincipal aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism. He discoursed eloquently on theosophy\nand had a great fondness for \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j), some of whose\nworks I have read to him.\n\nShaykh Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Sudd\u00ed[103] was a director who mortified himself and\nled an excellent spiritual life. He cared tenderly for dervishes and had\na goodly belief in them.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  IJ. Suds\u00ed, B. Sundus\u00ed.\n\n\n                                2. F\u00c1RS.\n\nThe Grand Shaykh, Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan b. S\u00e1liba,[104] spoke with the utmost\nelegance on \u1e62\u00fafiism and with extreme lucidity on Unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_).\nHis sayings are well known.\n\nThe Shaykh and Director (_murshid_) Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q b. Shahriy\u00e1r was one of\nthe most venerable \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and had complete authority.\n\nShaykh Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. Bakr\u00e1n was a great _muta\u1e63awwif_, and Shaykh\nAb\u00fa Muslim was highly esteemed in his time.\n\nShaykh Abu \u00b4l-Fat\u1e25 b. S\u00e1liba is an excellent and hopeful successor to\nhis father.\n\nShaykh Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1lib was a man enraptured by the words of the Truth.\n\nI have seen all these except the Grand Shaykh, Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 347, where he is called Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24usayn S\u00e1liba.\n\n\n          3.QUHIST\u00c1N, \u00c1DHARB\u00c1YAJ\u00c1N, \u1e6cABARIST\u00c1N, AND KISH.[105]\n\nShaykh Faraj,[106] known as Akh\u00ed Zanj\u00e1n\u00ed, was a man of excellent\ndisposition and admirable doctrine.\n\nShaykh Badr al-D\u00edn is one of the great men of this sect, and his good\ndeeds are many.\n\nP\u00e1dsh\u00e1h-i T\u00e1\u00b4ib was profoundly versed in mysticism.\n\nShaykh Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Junayd\u00ed was a revered director.\n\nShaykh Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1hir Maksh\u00faf was one of the eminent of that time.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja \u1e24usayn Simn\u00e1n is an enraptured and hopeful man.\n\nShaykh Sahlag\u00ed was one of the principal \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed paupers (_\u1e63a`\u00e1l\u00edk_).\n\nA\u1e25mad, son of Shaykh Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed, was an excellent successor to his father.\n\nAd\u00edb Kumand\u00ed was one of the chief men of the time.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  B. Kumish.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  The texts have \u0641\u0631\u062d[**Arabic] or \u0641\u0631\u062e[**Arabic], but see _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No.\n  171.\n\n\n                               4. KIRM\u00c1N.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja `Al\u00ed b. al-\u1e24usayn al-S\u00edrg\u00e1n\u00ed was the wandering devotee (_sayy\u00e1\u1e25_)\nof his age and made excellent journeys. His son, \u1e24ak\u00edm, is held in\nhonour.\n\nShaykh Mu\u1e25ammad b. Salama was among the eminent of the time. Before him\nthere have been hidden saints of God, and hopeful youths and striplings\nare still to be found.\n\n\n         5. KHUR\u00c1S\u00c1N (where now is the shadow of God\u2019s favour).\n\nThe Shaykh and Mujtahid Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s was the heart of spiritualism\n(_sirr-i ma`\u00e1n\u00ed_) and had a goodly life.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Ab\u00fa Ja`far Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed is one of the eminent\ntheosophists of this sect.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Ab\u00fa Ja`far Tursh\u00edz\u00ed was highly esteemed.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Ma\u1e25m\u00fad of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far was regarded as an authority by his\ncontemporaries. He was eloquent in discourse.\n\nShaykh Mu\u1e25ammad Ma`sh\u00faq had an excellent spiritual state and was aglow\nwith love.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Rash\u00edd Mu\u1e95affar, the son of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd, will, it may be hoped,\nbecome an example to all \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and a point to which their hearts will\nturn.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Shaykh A\u1e25mad \u1e24amm\u00e1d\u00ed of Sarakhs was the champion of the time. He\nwas in my company for a while, and I witnessed many wondrous experiences\nthat he had.\n\nShaykh A\u1e25mad Najj\u00e1r Samarqand\u00ed, who resided at Merv, was the sultan of\nhis age.\n\nShaykh Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. Ab\u00ed `Al\u00ed al-Aswad was an excellent successor\nto his father, and was unique in the sublimity of his aspiration and the\nsagacity of his intelligence.\n\nIt would be difficult to mention all the Shaykhs of Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. I have met\nthree hundred in that province alone who had such mystical endowments\nthat a single man of them would have been enough for the whole world.\nThis is due to the fact that the sun of love and the fortune of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nPath is in the ascendant in Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n.\n\n\n                            6. TRANSOXIANA.\n\nThe Khw\u00e1ja and Im\u00e1m, honoured by high and low, Ab\u00fa Ja`far Mu\u1e25ammad b.\nal-\u1e24usayn[107] al-\u1e24aram\u00ed, is an ecstatic (_mustami`_) and enraptured\nman, who has a great affection towards the seekers of God.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad B\u00e1nghar\u00ed[108] had an excellent spiritual life, and\nthere was no weakness in his devotional practices.\n\nA\u1e25mad \u00cdl\u00e1q\u00ed was the Shaykh of his time. He renounced forms and habits.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja `\u00c1rif was unparalleled in his day.\n\n`Al\u00ed b. Is\u1e25\u00e1q was venerated and had an eloquent tongue.\n\nI have seen all these Shaykhs and ascertained the \u201cstation\u201d of each of\nthem. They were all profound theosophists.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  IJ. Al-\u1e24asan.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  This _nisba_ is variously written \u201cB\u00e1nghar\u00ed\u201d and \u201cB\u00e1yghaz\u00ed\u201d.\n\n                               7.GHAZNA.\n\nAbu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl b. al-Asad\u00ed was a venerable director, with brilliant\nevidences and manifest miracles. He was like a flash of the fire of\nlove. His spiritual life was based on concealment (_talb\u00eds_).\n\nIsm\u00e1`\u00edl al-Sh\u00e1sh\u00ed was a highly esteemed director. He followed the path\nof \u201cblame\u201d (_mal\u00e1mat_).\n\nShaykh S\u00e1l\u00e1r-i \u1e6cabar\u00ed was one of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed divines and had an excellent\nstate.\n\nShaykh Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24ak\u00edm, known as Mur\u00edd, was a\nGod-intoxicated man, and was not rivalled by any contemporary in his own\nline. His state was hidden from the vulgar, but his signs and evidences\nwere conspicuous, and his state was better in companionship (_\u1e63u\u1e25bat_)\nthan in casual meeting (_d\u00edd\u00e1r_).\n\nShaykh Sa`\u00edd b. Ab\u00ed Sa`\u00edd al-`Ayy\u00e1r was a recorder (_\u1e25\u00e1fi\u1e95_) of\nApostolic Traditions. He had seen many Shaykhs and was a man of powerful\nspirituality and great knowledge, but he took the way of concealment and\ndid not exhibit his true character.\n\nKhw\u00e1ja Abu \u00b4l-`Al\u00e1 `Abd al-Ra\u1e25\u00edm b. A\u1e25mad al-Sughd\u00ed is honoured by all\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and my heart is well-disposed towards him. His spiritual state is\nexcellent, and he is acquainted with various branches of science.\n\nShaykh Aw\u1e25ad Qaswarat b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Jard\u00edz\u00ed has a boundless affection\nfor \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and holds every one of them in reverence. He has seen many\nShaykhs.\n\nIn consequence of the firm convictions of the people and divines of\nGhazna, I have good hope that hereafter persons will appear in whom we\nshall believe, and that those wretches (_par\u00e1gandag\u00e1n_) who have found\ntheir way into this city and have made the externals of \u1e62\u00fafiism\nabominable will be cleared out, so that Ghazna will once more become the\nabode of saints and venerable men.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n     CONCERNING THE DOCTRINES HELD BY THE DIFFERENT SECTS OF \u1e62\u00daF\u00cdS.\n\n\nI have already stated, in the notice of Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed, that the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are divided into twelve sects, of which two are reprobated and ten\nare approved. Every one of these ten sects has an excellent system and\ndoctrine as regards both purgation (_muj\u00e1hadat_) and contemplation\n(_mush\u00e1hadat_). Although they differ from each other in their devotional\npractices and ascetic disciplines, they agree in the fundamentals and\nderivatives of the religious law and Unification. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cThe\ndisagreement of divines is a mercy except as regards the detachment\n(_tajr\u00edd_)[109] of Unification\u201d; and there is a famous tradition to the\nsame effect. The real essence of \u1e62\u00fafiism lies amidst the traditions\n(_akhb\u00e1r_) of the Shaykhs, and is divided only metaphorically and\nformally. Therefore I will briefly divide their sayings in explanation\nof \u1e62\u00fafiism and unfold the main principle on which the doctrine of each\none of them is based, in order that the student may readily understand\nthis matter.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  i.e. the detachment of all phenomenal attributes from the Unity of\n  God.\n\n\n                            1.THE MU\u1e24\u00c1SIB\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h \u1e24\u00e1rith b. Asad al-Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, who\nby consent of all his contemporaries was a man of approved spiritual\ninfluence and mortified passions (_maqb\u00fal al-nafas \u00fa maqt\u00fal al-nafs_),\nversed in theology, jurisprudence, and mysticism. He discoursed on\ndetachment from the world and Unification, while his outward and inward\ndealings (with God) were beyond reproach. The peculiarity of his\ndoctrine is this, that he does not reckon satisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) among\nthe \u201cstations\u201d (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_), but includes it in the \u201cstates\u201d (_a\u1e25w\u00e1l_).\nHe was the first to hold this view, which was adopted by the people of\nKhur\u00e1s\u00e1n. The people of `Ir\u00e1q, on the contrary, asserted that\nsatisfaction is one of the \u201cstations\u201d, and that it is the extreme of\ntrust in God (_tawakkul_). The controversy between them has gone on to\nthe present day.[110]\n\n  _Discourse on the true nature of Satisfaction and the explanation of\n                            this doctrine._\n\nIn the first place I will establish the true nature of satisfaction and\nset forth its various kinds; then, secondly, I will explain the real\nmeaning of \u201cstation\u201d (_maq\u00e1m_) and \u201cstate\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) and the difference\nbetween them.\n\nSatisfaction is of two kinds: (_a_) the satisfaction of God with Man,\nand (_b_) the satisfaction of Man with God. Divine satisfaction really\nconsists in God\u2019s willing that Man should be recompensed (for his good\nworks) and in His bestowing grace (_kar\u00e1mat_) upon him. Human\nsatisfaction really consists in Man\u2019s performing the command of God and\nsubmitting to His decree. Accordingly, the satisfaction of God precedes\nthat of Man, for until Man is divinely aided he does not submit to God\u2019s\ndecree and does not perform His command, because Man\u2019s satisfaction is\nconnected with God\u2019s satisfaction and subsists thereby. In short, human\nsatisfaction is equanimity (_istiw\u00e1-yi dil_) towards Fate, whether it\nwithholds or bestows, and spiritual steadfastness (_istiq\u00e1mat_) in\nregarding events, whether they be the manifestation of Divine Beauty\n(_jam\u00e1l_) or of Divine Majesty (_jal\u00e1l_), so that it is all one to a man\nwhether he is consumed in the fire of wrath or illuminated by the light\nof mercy, because both wrath and mercy are evidences of God, and\nwhatever proceeds from God is good in His eyes. The Commander of the\nFaithful, Husayn b. `Al\u00ed, was asked about the saying of Ab\u00fa Dharr\nGhif\u00e1r\u00ed: \u201cI love poverty better than riches, and sickness better than\nhealth.\u201d \u1e24usayn replied: \u201cGod have mercy on Ab\u00fa Dharr! but I say that\nwhoever surveys the excellent choice made by God for him does not desire\nanything except what God has chosen for him.\u201d When a man sees God\u2019s\nchoice and abandons his own choice, he is delivered from all sorrow.\nThis, however, does not hold good in absence from God (_ghaybat_); it\nrequires presence with God (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_), because \u201csatisfaction expels\nsorrows and cures heedlessness\u201d, and purges the heart of thoughts\nrelating to other than God and frees it from the bonds of tribulation;\nfor it is characteristic of satisfaction to deliver (_rah\u00e1n\u00eddan_).\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  According to Qushayr\u00ed (105, 21 ff.) the `Ir\u00e1q\u00eds held the doctrine\n  which is here ascribed to the Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n\u00eds, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\n\nFrom the standpoint of ethics, satisfaction is the acquiescence of one\nwho knows that giving and withholding are in God\u2019s knowledge, and firmly\nbelieves that God sees him in all circumstances. There are four classes\nof quietists: (1) those who are satisfied with God\u2019s gift (_`a\u1e6d\u00e1_),\nwhich is gnosis (_ma`rifat_); (2) those who are satisfied with happiness\n(_nu`m\u00e1_), which is this world; (3) those who are satisfied with\naffliction (_bal\u00e1_), which consists of diverse probations; and (4) those\nwho are satisfied with being chosen (_i\u1e63\u1e6dif\u00e1_), which is love\n(_ma\u1e25abbat_). He who looks away from the Giver to the gift accepts it\nwith his soul, and when he has so accepted it trouble and grief vanish\nfrom his heart. He who looks away from the gift to the Giver loses the\ngift and treads the path of satisfaction by his own effort. Now effort\nis painful and grievous, and gnosis is only realized when its true\nnature is divinely revealed; and inasmuch as gnosis, when sought by\neffort, is a shackle and a veil, such gnosis is non-cognition\n(_nakirat_). Again, he who is satisfied with this world, without God, is\ninvolved in destruction and perdition, because the whole world is not\nworth so much that a friend of God should set his heart on it or that\nany care for it should enter his mind. Happiness is happiness only when\nit leads to the Giver of happiness; otherwise, it is an affliction.\nAgain, he who is satisfied with the affliction that God sends is\nsatisfied because in the affliction he sees the Author thereof and can\nendure its pain by contemplating Him who sent it; nay, he does not\naccount it painful, such is his joy in contemplating his Beloved.\nFinally, those who are satisfied with being chosen by God are His\nlovers, whose existence is an illusion alike in His anger and His\nsatisfaction; whose hearts dwell in the presence of Purity and in the\ngarden of Intimacy; who have no thought of created things and have\nescaped from the bonds of \u201cstations\u201d and \u201cstates\u201d and have devoted\nthemselves to the love of God. Their satisfaction involves no loss, for\nsatisfaction with God is a manifest kingdom.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nIt is related in the Traditions that Moses said: \u201cO God, show me an\naction with which, if I did it, Thou wouldst be satisfied.\u201d God\nanswered: \u201cThou canst not do that, O Moses!\u201d Then Moses fell prostrate,\nworshipping God and supplicating Him, and God made a revelation to him,\nsaying: \u201cO son of `Imr\u00e1n, My satisfaction with thee consists in thy\nbeing satisfied with My decree,\u201d i.e. when a man is satisfied with God\u2019s\ndecrees it is a sign that God is satisfied with him.\n\nBishr \u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed asked Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d whether renunciation (_zuhd_) or\nsatisfaction was better. Fu\u1e0dayl replied: \u201cSatisfaction, because he who\nis satisfied does not desire any higher stage,\u201d i.e. there is above\nrenunciation a stage which the renouncer desires, but there is no stage\nabove satisfaction that the satisfied man should wish for it. Hence the\nshrine is superior to the gate. This story shows the correctness of\nMu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed\u2019s doctrine, that satisfaction belongs to the class of \u201cstates\u201d\nand Divine gifts, not to the stages that are acquired (by effort). It is\npossible, however, that the satisfied man should have a desire. The\nApostle used to say in his prayers: \u201cO God, I ask of Thee satisfaction\nafter the going forth of Thy ordinance (_al-ri\u1e0d\u00e1 ba`d al-qa\u1e0d\u00e1_),\u201d i.e.\n\u201ckeep me in such a condition that when the ordinance comes to me from\nThee, Destiny may find me satisfied with its coming\u201d. Here it is\naffirmed that satisfaction properly is posterior to the advent of\nDestiny, because, if it preceded, it would only be a resolution to be\nsatisfied, which is not the same thing as actual satisfaction. Abu\n\u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s b. `A\u1e6d\u00e1 says: \u201cSatisfaction is this, that the heart should\nconsider the eternal choice of God on behalf of His creature,\u201d i.e.\nwhatever befalls him, he should recognize it as the eternal will of God\nand His past decree, and should not be distressed, but should accept it\ncheerfully. \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, the author of the doctrine, says:\n\u201cSatisfaction is the quiescence (_suk\u00fan_) of the heart under the events\nwhich flow from the Divine decrees.\u201d This is sound doctrine, because the\nquiescence and tranquillity of the heart are not qualities acquired by\nMan, but are Divine gifts. And as an argument for the view that\nsatisfaction is a \u201cstate\u201d, not a \u201cstation\u201d, they cite the story of `Utba\nal-Ghul\u00e1m, who one night did not sleep, but kept saying: \u201cIf Thou\nchastise me I love Thee, and if Thou have mercy on me I love Thee,\u201d i.e.\n\u201cthe pain of Thy chastisement and the pleasure of Thy bounty affect the\nbody alone, whereas the agitation of love resides in the heart, which is\nnot injured thereby\u201d. This corroborates the view of Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed.\nSatisfaction is the result of love, inasmuch as the lover is satisfied\nwith what is done by the Beloved. Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n \u1e24\u00edr\u00ed says: \u201cDuring the\nlast forty years God has never put me in any state that I disliked, or\ntransferred me to another state that I resented.\u201d This indicates\ncontinual satisfaction and perfect love. The story of the dervish who\nfell into the Tigris is well known. Seeing that he could not swim, a man\non the bank cried out to him: \u201cShall I tell some one to bring you\nashore?\u201d The dervish said, \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen do you wish to be drowned?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d\n\u201cWhat, then, do you wish?\u201d The dervish replied: \u201cThat which God wishes.\nWhat have I to do with wishing?\u201d\n\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have uttered many sayings on satisfaction, which differ\nin phraseology but agree in the two principles that have been mentioned.\n\n  _The distinction between a \u201cState\u201d_ (\u1e25\u00e1l) _and a \u201cStation\u201d_ (maq\u00e1m).\n\nYou must know that both these terms are in common use among \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and\nit is necessary that the student should be acquainted with them. I must\ndiscuss this matter here, although it does not belong to the present\nchapter.\n\n\u201cStation\u201d (_maq\u00e1m_) denotes anyone\u2019s \u201cstanding\u201d in the Way of God, and\nhis fulfilment of the obligations appertaining to that \u201cstation\u201d and his\nkeeping it until he comprehends its perfection so far as lies in a man\u2019s\npower. It is not permissible that he should quit his \u201cstation\u201d without\nfulfilling the obligations thereof. Thus, the first \u201cstation\u201d is\nrepentance (_tawbat_), then comes conversion (_in\u00e1bat_), then\nrenunciation (_zuhd_), then trust in God (_tawakkul_), and so on: it is\nnot permissible that anyone should pretend to conversion without\nrepentance, or to renunciation without conversion, or to trust in God\nwithout renunciation.\n\n\u201cState\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1l_), on the other hand, is something that descends from God\ninto a man\u2019s heart, without his being able to repel it when it comes, or\nto attract it when it goes, by his own effort. Accordingly, while the\nterm \u201cstation\u201d denotes the way of the seeker, and his progress in the\nfield of exertion, and his rank before God in proportion to his merit,\nthe term \u201cstate\u201d denotes the favour and grace which God bestows upon the\nheart of His servant, and which are not connected with any mortification\non the latter\u2019s part. \u201cStation\u201d belongs to the category of acts, \u201cstate\u201d\nto the category of gifts. Hence the man that has a \u201cstation\u201d stands by\nhis own self-mortification, whereas the man that has a \u201cstate\u201d is dead\nto \u201cself\u201d and stands by a \u201cstate\u201d which God creates in him.\n\nHere the Shaykhs are at variance. Some hold that a \u201cstate\u201d may be\npermanent, while others reject this view. \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed maintained\nthat a \u201cstate\u201d may be permanent. He argued that love and longing and\n\u201ccontraction\u201d (_qab\u1e0d_) and \u201cexpansion\u201d (_bas\u1e6d_) are \u201cstates\u201d: if they\ncannot be permanent, then the lover would not be a lover, and until a\nman\u2019s \u201cstate\u201d becomes his attribute (_\u1e63ifat_) the name of that \u201cstate\u201d\nis not properly applied to him. It is for this reason that he holds\nsatisfaction to be one of the \u201cstates\u201d, and the same view is indicated\nby the saying of Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n: \u201cDuring the last forty years God has never\nput me in a \u2018state\u2019 that I disliked.\u201d Other Shaykhs deny that a \u201cstate\u201d\ncan be permanent. Junayd says: \u201c\u2018States\u2019 are like flashes of lightning:\ntheir permanence is merely a suggestion of the lower soul (_nafs_).\u201d\nSome have said, to the same effect: \u201c\u2018States\u2019 are like their name,\u201d i.e.\nthey vanish almost as soon as they descend (_ta\u1e25illu_) on the heart.\nWhatever is permanent becomes an attribute, and attributes subsist in an\nobject which must be more perfect than the attributes themselves; and\nthis reduces the doctrine that \u201cstates\u201d are permanent to an absurdity. I\nhave set forth the distinction between \u201cstate\u201d and \u201cstation\u201d in order\nthat you may know what is signified by these terms wherever they occur\nin the phraseology of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds or in the present work.\n\nIn conclusion, you must know that satisfaction is the end of the\n\u201cstations\u201d and the beginning of the \u201cstates\u201d: it is a place of which one\nside rests on acquisition and effort, and the other side on love and\nrapture: there is no \u201cstation\u201d above it: at this point mortifications\n(_muj\u00e1had\u00e1t_) cease. Hence its beginning is in the class of things\nacquired by effort, its end in the class of things divinely bestowed.\nTherefore it may be called either a \u201cstation\u201d or a \u201cstate\u201d.\n\nThis is the doctrine of Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed as regards the theory of \u1e62\u00fafiism. In\npractice, however, he made no difference, except that he used to warn\nhis pupils against expressions and acts which, though sound in\nprinciple, might be thought evil. For example, he had a \u201cking-bird\u201d\n(_sh\u00e1hmurgh\u00ed_), which used to utter a loud note. One day Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza of\nBaghd\u00e1d, who was \u1e24\u00e1rith\u2019s pupil and an ecstatic man, came to see him.\nThe bird piped, and Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza gave a shriek. \u1e24\u00e1rith rose up and seized a\nknife, crying, \u201cThou art an infidel,\u201d and would have killed him if the\ndisciples had not separated them. Then he said to Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza: \u201cBecome a\nMoslem, O miscreant!\u201d The disciples exclaimed: \u201cO Shaykh, we all know\nhim to be one of the elect saints and Unitarians: why does the Shaykh\nregard him with suspicion?\u201d \u1e24\u00e1rith replied: \u201cI do not suspect him: his\nopinions are excellent, and I know that he is a profound Unitarian, but\nwhy should he do something which resembles the actions of those who\nbelieve in incarnation (_\u1e25ul\u00faliy\u00e1n_) and has the appearance of being\nderived from their doctrine? If a senseless bird pipes after its\nfashion, capriciously, why should he behave as though its note were the\nvoice of God? God is indivisible, and the Eternal does not become\nincarnate, or united with phenomena or commingled with them.\u201d When Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24amza perceived the Shaykh\u2019s insight, he said: \u201cO Shaykh, although I am\nright in theory, nevertheless, since my action resembled the actions of\nheretics, I repent and withdraw.\u201d\n\nMay God keep my conduct above suspicion! But this is impossible when one\nassociates with worldly formalists whose enmity is aroused by anyone who\ndoes not submit to their hypocrisy and sin.\n\n\n                            2. THE QA\u1e62\u1e62\u00c1R\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Ab\u00fa \u1e62\u00e1li\u1e25 \u1e24amd\u00fan b. A\u1e25mad b. `Um\u00e1ra al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r,\na celebrated divine and eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed. His doctrine was the manifestation\nand divulgation of \u201cblame\u201d (_mal\u00e1mat_). He used to say: \u201cGod\u2019s knowledge\nof thee is better than men\u2019s knowledge,\u201d i.e. thy dealings with God in\nprivate should be better than thy dealings with men in public, for thy\npreoccupation with men is the greatest veil between thee and God. I have\ngiven some account of al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r in the chapter on \u201cBlame\u201d. He relates\nthe following story: \u201cOne day, while I was walking in the river-bed in\nthe \u1e24\u00edra quarter of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, I met N\u00fa\u1e25, a brigand famous for his\ngenerosity, who was the captain of all the brigands of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far. I said\nto him, \u2018O N\u00fa\u1e25, what is generosity?\u2019 He replied, \u2018My generosity or\nyours?\u2019 I said, \u2018Describe both.\u2019 He replied: \u2018I put off the coat\n(_qab\u00e1_) and wear a patched frock and practise the conduct appropriate\nto that garment, in order that I may become a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed and refrain from sin\nbecause of the shame that I feel before God; but you put off the patched\nfrock in order that you may not be deceived by men, and that men may not\nbe deceived by thee: accordingly, my generosity is formal observance of\nthe religious law, while your generosity is spiritual observance of the\nTruth.\u2019\u201d This is a very sound principle.\n\n\n                            3. THE \u1e6cAYF\u00daR\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd \u1e6cayf\u00far b. \u00cds\u00e1 b. Sur\u00fash\u00e1n\nal-Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed, a great and eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed. His doctrine is rapture\n(_ghalabat_) and intoxication (_sukr_). Rapturous longing for God and\nintoxication of love cannot be acquired by human beings, and it is idle\nto claim, and absurd to imitate, anything that lies beyond the range of\nacquisition. Intoxication is not an attribute of the sober, and Man has\nno power of drawing it to himself. The intoxicated man is enraptured and\npays no heed to created things, that he should manifest any quality\ninvolving conscious effort (_taklif_). The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs are agreed that\nno one is a proper model for others unless he is steadfast (_mustaq\u00edm_)\nand has escaped from the circle of \u201cstates\u201d; but there are some who\nallow that the way of rapture and intoxication may be trodden with\neffort, because the Apostle said: \u201cWeep, or else make as though ye\nwept!\u201d Now, to imitate others for the sake of ostentation is sheer\npolytheism, but it is different when the object of the imitator is that\nGod may perchance raise him to the rank of those whom he has imitated,\nin accordance with the saying of the Apostle: \u201cWhoever makes himself\nlike unto a people is one of them.\u201d And one of the Shaykhs said:\n\u201cContemplations (_mush\u00e1had\u00e1t_) are the result of mortifications\n(_muj\u00e1had\u00e1t_).\u201d My own view is that, although mortifications are always\nexcellent, intoxication and rapture cannot be acquired at all; hence\nthey cannot be induced by mortifications, which in themselves never\nbecome a cause of intoxication. I will now set forth the different\nopinions of the Shaykhs concerning the true nature of intoxication\n(_sukr_) and sobriety (_\u1e63a\u1e25w_), in order that difficulties may be\nremoved.\n\n               _Discourse on Intoxication and Sobriety._\n\nYou must know that \u201cintoxication\u201d and \u201crapture\u201d are terms used by\nspiritualists to denote the rapture of love for God, while the term\n\u201csobriety\u201d expresses the attainment of that which is desired. Some place\nthe former above the latter, and some hold the latter to be superior.\nAb\u00fa Yaz\u00edd and his followers prefer intoxication to sobriety. They say\nthat sobriety involves the fixity and equilibrium of human attributes,\nwhich are the greatest veil between God and Man, whereas intoxication\ninvolves the destruction of human attributes, like foresight and choice,\nand the annihilation of a man\u2019s self-control in God, so that only those\nfaculties survive in him that do not belong to the human _genus_; and\nthey are the most complete and perfect. Thus David was in the state of\nsobriety; an act proceeded from him which God attributed to him and\nsaid, \u201c_David killed Goliath_\u201d (Kor. ii, 252): but our Apostle was in\nthe state of intoxication; an act proceeded from him which God\nattributed to Himself and said, \u201c_Thou didst not throw, when thou\nthrewest, but God threw_\u201d (Kor. viii, 17). How great is the difference\nbetween these two men! The attribution of a man\u2019s act to God is better\nthan the attribution of God\u2019s act to a man, for in the latter case the\nman stands by himself, while in the former case he stands through God.\n\nJunayd and his followers prefer sobriety to intoxication. They say that\nintoxication is evil, because it involves the disturbance of one\u2019s\nnormal state and loss of sanity and self-control; and inasmuch as the\nprinciple of all things is sought either by way of annihilation or\nsubsistence, or of effacement or affirmation, the principle of\nverification cannot be attained unless the seeker is sane. Blindness\nwill never release anyone from the bondage and corruption of phenomena.\nThe fact that people remain in phenomena and forget God is due to their\nnot seeing things as they really are; for if they saw, they would\nescape. Seeing is of two kinds: he who looks at anything sees it either\nwith the eye of subsistence (_baq\u00e1_) or with the eye of annihilation\n(_fan\u00e1_). If with the eye of subsistence, he perceives that the whole\nuniverse is imperfect in comparison with his own subsistence, for he\ndoes not regard phenomena as self-subsistent; and if he looks with the\neye of annihilation, he perceives that all created things are\nnon-existent beside the subsistence of God. In either case he turns away\nfrom created things. On this account the Apostle said in his prayer: \u201cO\nGod, show us things as they are,\u201d because whoever thus sees them finds\nrest. Now, such vision cannot be properly attained except in the state\nof sobriety, and the intoxicated have no knowledge thereof. For example,\nMoses was intoxicated; he could not endure the manifestation of one\nepiphany, but fell in a swoon (Kor. vii, 139): but our Apostle was\nsober; he beheld the same glory continuously, with ever-increasing\nconsciousness, all the way from Mecca, until he stood at the space of\ntwo bow-lengths from the Divine presence (Kor. liii, 9).\n\nMy Shaykh, who followed the doctrine of Junayd, used to say that\nintoxication is the playground of children, but sobriety is the\ndeath-field of men. I say, in agreement with my Shaykh, that the\nperfection of the state of the intoxicated man is sobriety. The lowest\nstage in sobriety consists in regarding the powerlessness of humanity:\ntherefore, a sobriety that appears to be evil is better than an\nintoxication that is really evil. It is related that Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n\nMaghrib\u00ed, in the earlier part of his life, passed twenty years in\nretirement, living in deserts where he never heard the sound of a human\nvoice, until his frame was wasted and his eyes became as small as the\neye of a sack-needle. After twenty years he was commanded to associate\nwith mankind. He resolved to begin with the people of God who dwelt\nbeside His Temple, since by doing so he would gain a greater blessing.\nThe Shaykhs of Mecca were aware of his coming and went forth to meet\nhim. Finding him so changed that he hardly seemed to be a human\ncreature, they said to him: \u201cO Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n, tell us why you went and\nwhat you saw and what you gained and wherefore you have come back.\u201d He\nreplied: \u201cI went because of intoxication, and I saw the evil of\nintoxication, and I gained despair, and I have come back on account of\nweakness.\u201d All the Shaykhs said: \u201cO Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n, it is not lawful for\nanyone after you to explain the meaning of sobriety and intoxication,\nfor you have done justice to the whole matter and have shown forth the\nevil of intoxication.\u201d\n\nIntoxication, then, is to fancy one\u2019s self annihilated while the\nattributes really subsist; and this is a veil. Sobriety, on the other\nhand, is the vision of subsistence while the attributes are annihilated;\nand this is actual revelation. It is absurd for anyone to suppose that\nintoxication is nearer to annihilation than sobriety is, for\nintoxication is a quality that exceeds sobriety, and so long as a man\u2019s\nattributes tend to increase he is without knowledge; but when he begins\nto diminish them, seekers (of God) have some hope of him.\n\nIt is related that Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh wrote to Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd: \u201cWhat do you say\nof one who drinks a single drop of the ocean of love and becomes\nintoxicated?\u201d B\u00e1yaz\u00edd wrote in reply: \u201cWhat do you say of one who, if\nall the oceans in the world were filled with the wine of love, would\ndrink them all and still cry for more to slake his thirst?\u201d People\nimagine that Yahy\u00e1 was speaking of intoxication, and B\u00e1yaz\u00edd of\nsobriety, but the opposite is the case. The man of sobriety is he who is\nunable to drink even one drop, and the man of intoxication is he who\ndrinks all and still desires more. Wine being the instrument of\nintoxication, but the enemy of sobriety, intoxication demands what is\nhomogeneous with itself, whereas sobriety takes no pleasure in drinking.\n\nThere are two kinds of intoxication: (1) with the wine of affection\n(_mawaddat_) and (2) with the cup of love (_ma\u1e25abbat_). The former is\n\u201ccaused\u201d (_ma`l\u00fal_), since it arises from regarding the benefit\n(_ni`mat_); but the latter has no cause, since it arises from regarding\nthe benefactor (_mun`im_). He who regards the benefit sees through\nhimself and therefore sees himself, but he who regards the benefactor\nsees through Him and therefore does not see himself, so that, although\nhe is intoxicated, his intoxication is sobriety.\n\nSobriety also is of two kinds: sobriety in heedlessness (_ghaflat_) and\nsobriety in love (_ma\u1e25abbat_). The former is the greatest of veils, but\nthe latter is the clearest of revelations. The sobriety that is\nconnected with heedlessness is really intoxication, while that which is\nlinked with love, although it be intoxication, is really sobriety. When\nthe principle (_a\u1e63l_) is firmly established, sobriety and intoxication\nresemble one another, but when the principle is wanting, both are\nbaseless. In short, where true mystics tread, sobriety and intoxication\nare the effect of difference (_ikhtil\u00e1f_), and when the Sultan of Truth\ndisplays his beauty, both sobriety and intoxication appear to be\nintruders (_\u1e6dufayl\u00ed_), because the boundaries of both are joined, and\nthe end of the one is the beginning of the other, and beginning and end\nare terms that imply separation, which has only a relative existence. In\nunion all separations are negated, as the poet says\u2014\n\n                \u201c_When the morning-star of wine rises,\n                The drunken and the sober are as one._\u201d\n\nAt Sarakhs there were two spiritual directors, namely, Luqm\u00e1n and Abu\n\u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl \u1e24asan. One day Luqm\u00e1n came to Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl and found him with a\npiece (of manuscript) in his hand. He said: \u201cO Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl, what are you\nseeking in this paper?\u201d Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl replied: \u201cThe same thing as you are\nseeking without a paper.\u201d Luqm\u00e1n said: \u201cThen why this difference?\u201d Abu\n\u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl answered: \u201cYou see a difference when you ask me what I am\nseeking. Become sober from intoxication and get rid of sobriety, in\norder that the difference may be removed from you and that you may know\nwhat you and I are in search of.\u201d\n\nThe \u1e6cayf\u00far\u00eds and Junayd\u00eds are at variance to the extent which has been\nindicated. As regards ethics, the doctrine of B\u00e1yaz\u00edd consists in\nshunning companionship and choosing retirement from the world, and he\nenjoined all his disciples to do the same. This is a praiseworthy and\nlaudable Path.\n\n\n                            4. THE JUNAYD\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim al-Junayd b. Mu\u1e25ammad, who in his\ntime was called the Peacock of the Divines (_\u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00fas al-`Ulam\u00e1_). He is\nthe chief of this sect and the Im\u00e1m of their Im\u00e1ms. His doctrine is\nbased on sobriety and is opposed to that of the \u1e6cayf\u00far\u00eds, as has been\nexplained. It is the best known and most celebrated of all doctrines,\nand all the Shaykhs have adopted it, notwithstanding that there is much\ndifference in their sayings on the ethics of \u1e62\u00fafiism. Want of space\nforbids me to discuss it further in this book: those who wish to become\nbetter acquainted with it must seek information elsewhere.\n\nI have read in the Anecdotes that when \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) in\nhis rapture broke off all relations with `Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n (al-Makk\u00ed) and\ncame to Junayd, Junayd asked him for what purpose he had come to him.\n\u1e24usayn said: \u201cFor the purpose of associating with the Shaykh.\u201d Junayd\nreplied: \u201cI do not associate with madmen. Association demands sanity; if\nthat is wanting, the result is such behaviour as yours in regard to Sahl\nb. `Abdall\u00e1h Tustar\u00ed and `Amr.\u201d \u1e24usayn said: \u201cO Shaykh, sobriety and\nintoxication are two attributes of Man, and Man is veiled from his Lord\nuntil his attributes are annihilated.\u201d \u201cO son of Man\u1e63\u00far,\u201d said Junayd,\n\u201cyou are in error concerning sobriety and intoxication. The former\ndenotes soundness of one\u2019s spiritual state in relation to God, while the\nlatter denotes excess of longing and extremity of love, and neither of\nthem can be acquired by human effort. O son of Man\u1e63\u00far, in your words I\nsee much foolishness and nonsense.\u201d\n\n\n                             5. THE N\u00daR\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad N\u00far\u00ed, one of\nthe most eminent and illustrious \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed divines. The principle of his\ndoctrine is to regard \u1e62\u00fafiism (_ta\u1e63awwuf_) as superior to poverty\n(_faqr_). In matters of conduct he agrees with Junayd. It is a\npeculiarity of his \u201cpath\u201d that in companionship (_\u1e63u\u1e25bat_) he prefers\nhis companion\u2019s claim to his own, and holds companionship without\npreference (_\u00edth\u00e1r_) to be unlawful. He also holds that companionship is\nobligatory on dervishes, and that retirement (_`uzlat_) is not\npraiseworthy, and that everyone is bound to prefer his companion to\nhimself. It is related that he said: \u201cBeware of retirement! for it is in\nconnexion with Satan; and cleave to companionship, for therein is the\nsatisfaction of the Merciful God.\u201d\n\nNow I will explain the true nature of preference, and when I come to the\nchapter on companionship and retirement I will set forth the mysteries\nof the subject in order to make it more generally instructive.\n\n                   _Discourse on Preference_ (\u00edth\u00e1r).\n\nGod said: \u201c_And they prefer them to themselves, although they are\nindigent_\u201d (Kor. lix, 9). This verse was revealed concerning the poor\nmen among the Companions in particular. The true nature of preference\nconsists in maintaining the rights of the person with whom one\nassociates, and in subordinating one\u2019s own interest to the interest of\none\u2019s friend, and in taking trouble upon one\u2019s self for the sake of\npromoting his happiness, because preference is the rendering of help to\nothers, and the putting into practice of that which God commanded to His\nApostle: \u201c_Use indulgence and command what is just and turn away from\nthe ignorant_\u201d (Kor. vii, 198). This will be explained more fully in the\nchapter on the rules of companionship.\n\nNow, preference is of two kinds: firstly, in companionship, as has been\nmentioned; and secondly, in love. In preferring the claim of one\u2019s\ncompanion there is a sort of trouble and effort, but in preferring the\nclaim of one\u2019s beloved there is nothing but pleasure and delight. It is\nwell known that when Ghul\u00e1m al-Khal\u00edl persecuted the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, N\u00far\u00ed and\nRaqq\u00e1m and Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza were arrested and conveyed to the Caliph\u2019s palace.\nGhul\u00e1m al-Khal\u00edl urged the Caliph to put them to death, saying that they\nwere heretics (_zan\u00e1diqa_), and the Caliph immediately gave orders for\ntheir execution. When the executioner approached Raqq\u00e1m, N\u00far\u00ed rose and\noffered himself in Raqq\u00e1m\u2019s place with the utmost cheerfulness and\nsubmission. All the spectators were astounded. The executioner said: \u201cO\nyoung man, the sword is not a thing that people desire to meet so\neagerly as you have welcomed it; and your turn has not yet arrived.\u201d\nN\u00far\u00ed answered: \u201cYes; my doctrine is founded on preference. Life is the\nmost precious thing in the world: I wish to sacrifice for my brethren\u2019s\nsake the few moments that remain. In my opinion, one moment of this\nworld is better than a thousand years of the next world, because this is\nthe place of service (_khidmat_) and that is the place of proximity\n(_qurbat_), and proximity is gained by service.\u201d The tenderness of N\u00far\u00ed\nand the fineness of his saying astonished the Caliph (who was informed\nby a courier of what had passed) to such a degree, that he suspended the\nexecution of the three \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and charged the chief Cadi, Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s\nb. `Al\u00ed, to inquire into the matter. The Cadi, having taken them to his\nhouse and questioned them concerning the ordinances of the Law and the\nTruth, found them perfect, and felt remorse for his indifference to\ntheir fate. Then N\u00far\u00ed said: \u201cO Cadi, though you have asked all these\nquestions, you have not yet asked anything to the point, for God has\nservants who eat through Him, and drink through Him, and sit through\nHim, and live through Him, and abide in contemplation of Him: if they\nwere cut off from contemplating Him they would cry out in anguish.\u201d The\nCadi was amazed at the subtlety of his speech and the soundness of his\nstate. He wrote to the Caliph: \u201cIf the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are heretics, who in the\nworld is a Unitarian?\u201d The Caliph called them to his presence and said:\n\u201cAsk a boon.\u201d They replied: \u201cThe only boon we ask of thee is that thou\nshouldst forget us, and neither make us thy favourites nor banish us\nfrom thy court, for thy favour and displeasure are alike to us.\u201d The\nCaliph wept and dismissed them with honour.\n\nIt is related that N\u00e1fi`[111] said: \u201cIbn `Umar[112] desired to eat a\nfish. I sought through the town, but did not find one until several days\nhad passed. Having procured it, I gave orders that it should be placed\non a cake of bread and presented it to him. I noticed an expression of\njoy on his face as he received it, but suddenly a beggar came to the\ndoor of his house and he ordered the fish to be given to him. The\nservant said: \u2018O master, you have been desiring a fish for several days;\nlet us give the beggar something else.\u2019 Ibn `Umar replied: \u2018This fish is\nunlawful to me, for I have put it out of my mind on account of a\nTradition which I heard from the Apostle: _Whenever anyone feels a\ndesire and repels it and prefers another to himself, he shall be\nforgiven_.\u2019\u201c\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  A well-known traditionist, who died about 120 A.H.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  `Abdall\u00e1h, son of the Caliph `Umar.\n\nI have read in the Anecdotes that ten dervishes lost their way in the\ndesert and were overtaken by thirst. They had only one cup of water, and\neveryone preferred the claim of the others, so that none of them would\ndrink and they all died except one, who then drank it and found strength\nto escape. Some person said to him: \u201cHad you not drunk, it would have\nbeen better.\u201d He replied: \u201cThe Law obliged me to drink; if I had not, I\nshould have killed myself and been punished on that account.\u201d The other\nsaid: \u201cThen did your friends kill themselves?\u201d \u201cNo,\u201d said the dervish;\n\u201cthey refused to drink in order that their companions might drink, but\nwhen I alone survived I was legally obliged to drink.\u201d[113]\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  Here follow two stories illustrating the same topic: the first relates\n  how `Al\u00ed slept in the Prophet\u2019s bed on the night of the latter\u2019s\n  emigration from Mecca, when the infidels were seeking to slay him; the\n  second, how on the battle-field of U\u1e25ud the wounded Moslems, though\n  parched with thirst, preferred to die rather than drink the water\n  which their comrades asked for.\n\nAmong the Israelites there was a devotee who had served God for four\nhundred years. One day he said: \u201cO Lord, if Thou hadst not created these\nmountains, wandering for religion\u2019s sake (_siy\u00e1\u1e25at_) would have been\neasier for Thy servants.\u201d The Divine command came to the Apostle of that\ntime to say to the devotee: \u201cWhat business have you to interfere in My\nkingdom? Now, since you have interfered, I blot your name from the\nregister of the blest and inscribe it in the register of the damned.\u201d On\nhearing this, the devotee trembled with joy and bowed to the ground in\nthanksgiving. The Apostle said: \u201cO fool, it is not necessary to bow down\nin thanksgiving for damnation.\u201d \u201cMy thanksgiving,\u201d the devotee replied:\n\u201cis not for damnation, but because my name is at least inscribed in one\nof His registers. But, O Apostle, I have a boon to ask. Say unto God,\n\u2018Since Thou wilt send me to Hell, make me so large that I may take the\nplace of all sinful Unitarians, and let them go to Paradise.\u2019\u201d God\ncommanded the Apostle to tell the devotee that the probation which he\nhad undergone was not for the purpose of humiliating him, but to reveal\nhim to the people, and that on the Day of Resurrection both he and those\nfor whom he had interceded would be in Paradise.\n\nI asked A\u1e25mad \u1e24amm\u00e1d\u00ed of Sarakhs what was the beginning of his\nconversion. He replied: \u201cOnce I set out from Sarakhs and took my camels\ninto the desert and stayed there for a considerable time. I was always\nwishing to be hungry and was giving my portion of food to others, and\nthe words of God\u2014\u2018_They_ _prefer them to themselves, although they\nare_ _indigent_\u2019 (Kor. lix, 9)\u2014were ever fresh in my mind; and I\nhad a firm belief in the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. One day a hungry lion came from the\ndesert and killed one of my camels and retired to some rising ground and\nroared. All the wild beasts in the neighbourhood, hearing him roar,\ngathered round him. He tore the camel to pieces and went back to the\nhigher ground without having eaten anything. The other beasts\u2014foxes,\njackals, wolves, etc.\u2014began to eat, and the lion waited until they had\ngone away. Then he approached in order to eat a morsel, but seeing a\nlame fox in the distance he withdrew once more until the new-comer had\neaten his fill. After that, he came and ate a morsel. As he departed he\nspoke to me, who had been watching from afar, and said: \u2018O A\u1e25mad, to\nprefer others to one\u2019s self in the matter of food is an act only worthy\nof dogs: a _man_ sacrifices his life and his soul.\u2019 When I saw this\nevidence I renounced all worldly occupations, and that was the beginning\nof my conversion.\u201d\n\nJa`far Khuld\u00ed says: \u201cOne day, when Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed was praying to God\nin solitude I went to overhear him, for he was very eloquent. He was\nsaying, \u2018O Lord, in Thy eternal knowledge and power and will Thou dost\npunish the people of Hell, whom Thou hast created; and if it be Thy\ninexorable will to make Hell full of mankind, Thou art able to fill that\nHell and all its limbos with me alone and to send them to Paradise.\u2019 I\nwas amazed by his speech, but I dreamed that some one came to me and\nsaid: \u2018God bids thee tell Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan that he has been forgiven on\naccount of his compassion for God\u2019s creatures and his reverence for\nGod.\u2019\u201d\n\nHe was called N\u00far\u00ed because when he spoke in a dark room the whole room\nwas illuminated by the light (_n\u00far_) of his spirituality. And by the\nlight of the Truth he used to read the inmost thoughts of his disciples,\nso that Junayd said: \u201cAbu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan is the spy on men\u2019s hearts (_j\u00e1s\u00fas\nal-qul\u00fab_).\u201c\n\nThis is his peculiar doctrine. It is a sound principle, and one of great\nimportance in the eyes of those who have insight. Nothing is harder to a\nman than spiritual sacrifice (_badhl-i r\u00fa\u1e25_) and to refrain from the\nobject of his love, and God hath made this sacrifice the key of all\ngood, as He said: \u201d_Ye shall never attain to righteousness until ye give\nin alms of that which ye love_\u201d (Kor. iii, 86). When a man\u2019s spirit is\nsacrificed, of what value are his wealth and his health and his frock\nand his food? This is the foundation of \u1e62\u00fafiism. Some one came to Ruwaym\nand asked him for direction. Ruwaym said: \u201cO my son, the whole affair\nconsists in spiritual sacrifice. If you are able for this, it is well;\nif not, do not occupy yourself with the futilities (_turrah\u00e1t_) of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds,\u201d i.e. all except this is futile; and God said: \u201c_Do not call dead\nthose who are slain in the way of God. Nay, they are living_\u201d (Kor. ii,\n149). Eternal life is gained by spiritual sacrifice and by renunciation\nof self-interest in fulfilling God\u2019s commandment and by obedience to His\nfriends. But from the standpoint of gnosis (_ma`rifat_) preference and\nfree choice are separation (_tafriqat_), and real preference consists in\nunion with God, for the true basis of self-interest is self-abandonment.\nSo long as the seeker\u2019s progress is connected with acquisition (_kasb_)\nit is pernicious, but when the attracting influence (_jadhb_) of the\nTruth manifests its dominion all his actions are confounded, and he\nloses all power of expression; nor can any name be applied to him or any\ndescription be given of him or anything be imputed to him. On this\nsubject Shibl\u00ed says in verse\u2014\n\n               \u201c_I am lost to myself and unconscious,\n               And my attributes are annihilated.\n               To-day I am lost to all things:\n               Naught remains but a forced expression._\u201d\n\n\n                             6. THE SAHL\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h of Tustar, a great and\nvenerable \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed, who has been already mentioned. His doctrine inculcates\nendeavour and self-mortification and ascetic training, and he used to\nbring his disciples to perfection in self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_).\nIt is related in a well-known anecdote that he said to one of his\ndisciples: \u201cStrive to say continuously for one day, \u2018O Allah! O Allah! O\nAllah!\u2019 and do the same next day and the day after that,\u201d until he\nbecame habituated to saying those words. Then he bade him repeat them at\nnight also, until they became so familiar that he uttered them even\nduring his sleep. Then he said: \u201cDo not repeat them any more, but let\nall your faculties be engrossed in remembering God.\u201d The disciple did\nthis, until he became absorbed in the thought of God. One day, when he\nwas in his house, a piece of wood fell on his head and broke it. The\ndrops of blood which trickled to the ground bore the legend \u201cAllah!\nAllah! Allah!\u201d\n\nThe \u201cpath\u201d of the Sahl\u00eds is to educate disciples by acts of\nself-mortification, and austerities; that of the \u1e24amd\u00fan\u00eds[114] is to\nserve and reverence dervishes; and that of the Junayd\u00eds is to keep watch\nover one\u2019s spiritual state (_mur\u00e1qaba-i b\u00e1\u1e6din_).\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  The followers of \u1e24amd\u00fan al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r, who are generally called Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r\u00eds.\n\nThe object of all austerities and acts of self-mortification is\nresistance to the lower soul (_nafs_), and until a man knows his lower\nsoul his austerities are of no use to him. Now, therefore, I will\nexplain the knowledge and true nature of the lower soul, and in the next\nplace I will lay down the doctrine concerning self-mortification and its\nprinciples.\n\n _Discourse touching the true nature of the Lower Soul_ (nafs) _and the\n                      meaning of Passion_ (haw\u00e1).\n\nYou must know that _nafs_, etymologically, is the essence and reality of\nanything, but in popular language it is used to denote many\ncontradictory meanings, e.g. \u201cspirit\u201d, \u201cvirility\u201d (_muruwwat_), \u201cbody\u201d,\nand \u201cblood\u201d. The mystics of this sect, however, are agreed that it is\nthe source and principle of evil, but while some assert that it is a\nsubstance (_`ayn_) located in the body, as the spirit (_r\u00fa\u1e25_) is, others\nhold it to be an attribute of the body, as life is. But they all agree\nthat through it base qualities are manifested and that it is the\nimmediate cause of blameworthy actions. Such actions are of two kinds,\nnamely, sins (_ma`\u00e1\u1e63\u00ed_) and base qualities (_akhl\u00e1q-i dan\u00ed_), like\npride, envy, avarice, anger, hatred, etc., which are not commendable in\nlaw and reason. These qualities can be removed by discipline\n(_riy\u00e1\u1e0dat_): e.g., sins are removed by repentance. Sins belong to the\nclass of external attributes, whereas the qualities above mentioned\nbelong to the class of internal attributes. Similarly, discipline is an\nexternal act, and repentance is an internal attribute. A base quality\nthat appears _within_ is purged by excellent outward attributes, and one\nthat appears _without_ is purged by laudable inward attributes. Both the\nlower soul and the spirit are subtle things (_la\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4if_) existing in the\nbody, just as devils and angels and Paradise and Hell exist in the\nuniverse; but the one is the seat of good, while the other is the seat\nof evil. Hence, resistance to the lower soul is the chief of all acts of\ndevotion and the crown of all acts of self-mortification, and only\nthereby can Man find the way to God, because submission to the lower\nsoul involves his destruction and resistance to it involves his\nsalvation.[115]\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  Here the author cites Kor. lxxix, 40, 41; ii, 81 (part of the verse);\n  xii, 53; and the Traditions: \u201cWhen God wishes well unto His servant He\n  causes him to see the faults of his soul,\u201d and \u201cGod said to David, \u2018O\n  David, hate thy soul, for My love depends on thy hatred of it.\u2019\u201d\n\nNow, every attribute needs an object whereby it subsists, and knowledge\nof that attribute, namely, the soul, is not attained save by knowledge\nof the whole body, which knowledge in turn demands an explanation of the\nqualities of human nature (_ins\u00e1niyyat_) and the mystery thereof, and is\nincumbent upon all seekers of the Truth, because whoever is ignorant of\nhimself is yet more ignorant of other things; and inasmuch as a man is\nbound to know God, he must first know himself, in order that by rightly\nperceiving his own temporality he may recognize the eternity of God, and\nmay learn the everlastingness of God through his own perishableness. The\nApostle said: \u201cHe who knows himself already knows his Lord,\u201d i.e., if he\nknows himself as perishable he knows God as everlasting, or if he knows\nhimself as humble he knows God as Almighty, or if he knows himself as a\nservant he knows God as the Lord. Therefore one who does not know\nhimself is debarred from knowledge of all things.\n\nAs regards the knowledge of human nature and the various opinions held\non that topic, some Moslems assert that Man is nothing but spirit\n(_r\u00fa\u1e25_), of which this body is the cuirass and temple and residence, in\norder to preserve it from being injured by the natural humours\n(_\u1e6dab\u00e1yi`_), and of which the attributes are sensation and intelligence.\nThis view is false, because a body from which the soul (_j\u00e1n_) has\ndeparted is still called \u201ca human being\u201d (_ins\u00e1n_); if the soul is\njoined with it it is \u201ca live human being\u201d, and if the soul is gone it is\n\u201ca dead human being\u201d. Moreover, a soul is located in the bodies of\nanimals, yet they are not called \u201chuman beings\u201d. If the spirit (_r\u00fa\u1e25_)\nwere the cause of human nature, it would follow that the principle of\nhuman nature must exist in every creature possessed of a soul\n(_j\u00e1n-d\u00e1r\u00ed_); which is a proof of the falsity of their assertion.\nOthers, again, have stated that the term \u201chuman nature\u201d is applicable to\nthe spirit and the body together, and that it no longer applies when one\nis separated from the other; e.g., when two colours, black and white,\nare combined on a horse, it is called \u201cpiebald\u201d (_ablaq_), whereas the\nsame colours, apart from each other, are called \u201cblack\u201d and \u201cwhite\u201d.\nThis too is false, in accordance with God\u2019s word: \u201c_Did there not come\nover Man a space of time during which he was not a thing worthy of\nmention?_\u201d (Kor. lxxvi, 1): in this verse Man\u2019s clay, without soul\u2014for\nthe soul had not yet been joined to his body\u2014is called \u201cMan\u201d. Others\naver that \u201cMan\u201d is an atom, centred in the heart, which is the principle\nof all human attributes. This also is absurd, for if anyone is killed\nand his heart is taken out of his body he does not lose the name of\n\u201chuman being\u201d; moreover, it is agreed that the heart was not in the\nhuman body before the soul. Some pretenders to \u1e62\u00fafiism have fallen into\nerror on this subject. They declare that \u201cMan\u201d is not that which eats\nand drinks and suffers decay, but a Divine mystery, of which this body\nis the vesture, situated in the interfusion of the natural humours\n(_imtiz\u00e1j-i \u1e6dab`_) and in the union (_itti\u1e25\u00e1d_) of body and spirit. To\nthis I reply, that by universal consent the name of \u201chuman being\u201d\nbelongs to sane men and mad, and to infidels and immoral and ignorant\npersons, in whom there is no such \u201cmystery\u201d and who suffer decay and eat\nand drink; and that there is not anything called \u201cMan\u201d in the body,\neither while it exists or after it has ceased to exist. God Almighty has\ngiven the name of \u201cMan\u201d to the sum of the substances which He compounded\nin us, excluding those things which are not to be found in some human\nbeings, e.g. in the verses \u201c_And We have created Man of the choicest\nclay_,\u201d etc. (Kor. xxiii, 12-14). Therefore, according to the word of\nGod, who is the most veracious of all who speak the Truth, this\nparticular form, with all its ingredients and with all the changes which\nit undergoes, is \u201cMan\u201d. In like manner, certain Sunn\u00eds have said that\nMan is a living creature whose form has these characteristics, and that\ndeath does not deprive him of this name, and that he is endowed with a\ndefinite physiognomy (_\u1e63\u00farat-i ma`h\u00fad_) and a distinct organ (_\u00e1lat-i\nmaws\u00fam_) both externally and internally. By \u201ca definite physiognomy\u201d\nthey mean that he has either good or ill health, and by \u201ca distinct\norgan\u201d that he is either mad or sane. It is generally allowed that the\nmore sound (_\u1e63a\u1e25\u00ed\u1e25_) a thing is, the more perfect it is in constitution.\nYou must know, then, that in the opinion of mystics the most perfect\ncomposition of Man includes three elements, viz. spirit, soul, and body;\nand that each of these has an attribute which subsists therein, the\nattribute of spirit being intelligence, of soul, passion, and of body,\nsensation. Man is a type of the whole universe. The universe is the name\nof the two worlds, and in Man there is a vestige of both, for he is\ncomposed of phlegm, blood, bile, and melancholy, which four humours\ncorrespond to the four elements of this world, viz. water, earth, air,\nand fire, while his soul (_j\u00e1n_), his lower soul (_nafs_), and his body\ncorrespond to Paradise, Hell, and the place of Resurrection. Paradise is\nthe effect of God\u2019s satisfaction, and Hell is the result of His anger.\nSimilarly, the spirit of the true believer reflects the peace of\nknowledge, and his lower soul the error which veils him from God. As, at\nthe Resurrection, the believer must be released from Hell before he can\nreach Paradise and attain to real vision and pure love, so in this world\nhe must escape from his lower soul before he can attain to real\ndiscipleship (_ir\u00e1dat_), of which the spirit is the principle, and to\nreal proximity (to God) and gnosis. Hence, whoever knows Him in this\nworld and turns away from all besides and follows the highway of the\nsacred law, at the Resurrection he will not see Hell and the Bridge\n(_\u1e62ir\u00e1\u1e6d_). In short, the believer\u2019s spirit calls him to Paradise, of\nwhich it is a type in this world, and his lower soul calls him to Hell,\nof which it is a type in this world. Therefore it behoves those who seek\nGod never to relax their resistance to the lower soul, in order that\nthereby they may reinforce the spirit and the intelligence, which are\nthe home of the Divine mystery.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nAs regards what has been said by the Shaykhs concerning the lower soul,\nDhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian says: \u201cVision of the lower soul and its\npromptings is the worst of veils,\u201d because obedience to it is\ndisobedience to God, which is the origin of all veils. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed\nsays: \u201cThe lower soul is an attribute which never rests save in\nfalsehood,\u201d i.e. it never seeks the Truth. Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed\nsays: \u201cYou wish to know God while your lower soul subsists in you; but\nyour lower soul does not know itself, how should it know another?\u201d\nJunayd says: \u201cTo fulfil the desires of your lower soul is the foundation\nof infidelity,\u201d because the lower soul is not connected with, and is\nalways striving to turn away from, the pure truth of Islam; and he who\nturns away denies, and he who denies is an alien (_b\u00e9g\u00e1na_). Ab\u00fa\nSulaym\u00e1n D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed says: \u201cThe lower soul is treacherous and hindering (one\nwho seeks to please God); and resistance to it is the best of actions.\u201d\n\nNow I come to my main purpose, which is to set forth the doctrine of\nSahl concerning the mortification and discipline of the lower soul, and\nto explain its true nature.\n\n          _Discourse on the Mortification of the Lower Soul._\n\nGod has said: \u201c_Those who strive to the utmost_ (j\u00e1had\u00fa) _for Our sake,\nWe will guide them into Our ways_\u201d (Kor. xxix, 69). And the Prophet\nsaid: \u201cThe (_muj\u00e1hid_) is he who struggles with all his might against\nhimself (_j\u00e1hada nafsahu_) for God\u2019s sake.\u201d And he also said: \u201cWe have\nreturned from the lesser war (_al-jih\u00e1d al-a\u1e63ghar_) to the greater war\n(_al-jih\u00e1d al-akbar_)\u201d. On being asked, \u201cWhat is the greater war?\u201d he\nreplied, \u201cIt is the struggle against one\u2019s self\u201d (_muj\u00e1hadat al-nafs_).\nThus the Apostle adjudged the mortification of the lower soul to be\nsuperior to the Holy War against unbelievers, because the former is more\npainful. You must know, then, that the way of mortification is plain and\nmanifest, for it is approved by men of all religions and sects, and is\nobserved and practised by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in particular; and the term\n\u201cmortification\u201d (_muj\u00e1hadat_) is current among \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds of every class, and\nthe Shaykhs have uttered many sayings on this topic. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h\nTustar\u00ed carries the principle to an extreme point. It is related that he\nused to break his fast only once in fifteen days, and he ate but little\nfood in the course of his long life. While all mystics have affirmed the\nneed of mortification, and have declared it to be an indirect means\n(_asb\u00e1b_) of attaining contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_), Sahl asserted that\nmortification is the direct cause (_`illat_) of the latter, and he\nattributed to search (_\u1e6dalab_) a powerful effect on attainment (_y\u00e1ft_),\nso that he even regarded the present life, spent in search, as superior\nto the future life of fruition. \u201cIf,\u201d he said, \u201cyou serve God in this\nworld, you will attain proximity to Him in the next world: without that\nservice there would not be this proximity: it follows that\nself-mortification, practised with the aid of God, is the direct cause\nof union with God.\u201d Others, on the contrary, hold that there is no\ndirect cause of union with God, and whoever attains to God does so by\nDivine grace (_fa\u1e0dl_), which is independent of human actions. Therefore,\nthey argue, the object of mortification is to correct the vices of the\nlower soul, not to attain real proximity, and inasmuch as mortification\nis referred to Man, while contemplation is referred to God, it is\nimpossible that one should be caused by the other. Sahl, however, cites\nin favour of his view the words of God: \u201c_Those who strive to the utmost\nfor Our sake, We will guide them into Our ways_\u201d (Kor. xxix, 69), i.e.\nwhoever mortifies himself will attain to contemplation. Furthermore, he\ncontends that inasmuch as the books revealed to the Prophets, and the\nSacred Law, and all the religious ordinances imposed on mankind involve\nmortification, they must all be false and vain if mortification were not\nthe cause of contemplation. Again, both in this world and the next,\neverything is connected with principles and causes. If it is maintained\nthat principles have no causes, there is an end of all law and order:\nneither can religious obligations be justified nor will food be the\ncause of repletion and clothes the cause of warmth. Accordingly, to\nregard actions as being caused is Unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), and to rebut\nthis is Nullification (_ta`\u1e6d\u00edl_). He who asserts it is proving the\nexistence of contemplation, and he who denies it is denying the\nexistence of contemplation. Does not training (_riy\u00e1\u1e0dat_) alter the\nanimal qualities of a wild horse and substitute human qualities in their\nstead, so that he will pick up a whip from the ground and give it to his\nmaster, or will roll a ball with his foot? In the same way, a boy\nwithout sense and of foreign race is taught by training to speak Arabic,\nand take a new language in exchange for his mother tongue; and a savage\nbeast is trained to go away when leave is given to it, and to come back\nwhen it is called, preferring captivity to freedom.[116] Therefore, Sahl\nand his followers argue, mortification is just as necessary for the\nattainment of union with God as diction and composition are necessary\nfor the elucidation of ideas; and as one is led to knowledge of the\nCreator by assurance that the universe was created in time, so one is\nled to union with God by knowledge and mortification of the lower soul.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  Here follows an account of the mortification which the Prophet imposed\n  on himself.\n\nI will now state the arguments of the opposing party. They maintain that\nthe verse of the Koran (xxix, 69) cited by Sahl is a _hysteron\nproteron_, and that the meaning of it is, \u201cThose whom We guide into Our\nways strive to the utmost for Our sake.\u201d And the Apostle said: \u201cNot one\nof you shall be saved by his works.\u201d \u201cO Apostle,\u201d they cried, \u201cnot even\nthou?\u201d \u201cNot even I,\u201d he said, \u201cunless God encompass me with His mercy.\u201d\nNow, mortification is a man\u2019s act, and his act cannot possibly become\nthe cause of his salvation, which depends on the Divine Will, as God\nhath said: \u201c_Whomsoever God wishes to lead aright, He will open his\nbreast to receive_ _Islam, but whomsoever He wishes to lead astray, He\nwill make his breast strait and narrow_\u201d (Kor. vi, 125). By affirming\nHis will, He denies the (effect of the) religious ordinances which have\nbeen laid upon mankind. If mortification were the cause of union Ibl\u00eds\nwould not have been damned, or if neglect of mortification were the\ncause of damnation Adam would never have been blessed. The result hangs\non predestined grace (_`in\u00e1yat_), not on abundance of mortification. It\nis not the case that he who most exerts himself is the most secure, but\nthat he who has most grace is nearest to God. A monk worshipping in his\ncell may be far from God, and a sinner in the tavern may be near to Him.\nThe noblest thing in the world is the faith of a child who is not\nsubject to the religious law (_mukallaf_) and in this respect belongs to\nthe same category as madmen: if, then, mortification is not the cause of\nthe noblest of all gifts, no cause is necessary for anything that is\ninferior.\n\nI, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, say that the difference between the two\nparties in this controversy lies in expression (_`ib\u00e1rat_). One says,\n\u201cHe who seeks shall find,\u201d and the other says, \u201cHe who finds shall\nseek.\u201d Seeking is the cause of finding, but it is no less true that\nfinding is the cause of seeking. The one party practises mortification\nfor the purpose of attaining contemplation, and the other party\npractises contemplation for the purpose of attaining mortification. The\nfact is that mortification stands in the same relation to contemplation\nas Divine blessing (_tawf\u00edq_), which is a gift from God, to obedience\n(_\u1e6d\u00e1`at_): as it is absurd to seek obedience without Divine blessing, so\nit is absurd to seek Divine blessing without obedience, and as there can\nbe no mortification without contemplation, so there can be no\ncontemplation without mortification. Man is guided to mortification by a\nflash of the Divine Beauty, and inasmuch as that flash is the cause of\nthe existence of mortification, Divine guidance (_hid\u00e1yat_) precedes\nmortification.\n\nNow, as regards the argument of Sahl and his followers that failure to\naffirm mortification involves the denial of all the religious ordinances\nwhich have come down in the books revealed to the Prophets, this\nstatement requires correction. Religious obligations (_takl\u00edf_) depend\non Divine guidance (_hid\u00e1yat_), and acts of mortification only serve to\naffirm the proofs of God, not to effect real union with Him. God has\nsaid: \u201c_And though We had sent down the angels unto them and the dead\nhad spoken unto them and We had gathered before them all things\ntogether, they would not have believed unless God had so willed_\u201d (Kor.\nvi, 111), for the cause of belief is Our will, not evidences or\nmortification. Accordingly, the revelations of the Prophets and the\nordinances of religion are a means (_asb\u00e1b_) of attaining to union, but\nare not the cause (_`illat_) of union. So far as religious obligations\nare concerned, Ab\u00fa Bakr was in the same position as Ab\u00fa Jahl, but Ab\u00fa\nBakr, having justice and grace, attained, whereas Ab\u00fa Jahl, having\njustice without grace, failed. Therefore the cause of attainment is\nattainment itself, not the act of seeking attainment, for if the seeker\nwere one with the object sought the seeker would be one, and in that\ncase he would not be a seeker, because he who has attained is at rest,\nwhich the seeker cannot be.\n\nAgain, in reference to their argument that the qualities of a horse are\naltered by mortification, you must know that mortification is only a\nmeans of bringing out qualities that are already latent in the horse but\ndo not appear until he has been trained. Mortification will never turn a\ndonkey into a horse or a horse into a donkey, because this involves a\nchange of identity; and since mortification has not the power of\ntransforming identity it cannot possibly be affirmed in the presence of\nGod.\n\nOver that spiritual director, namely, Sahl, there used to pass a\nmortification of which he was independent and which, while he was in the\nreality thereof, he was unable to express in words. He was not like some\nwho have made it their religion to talk about mortification without\npractising it. How absurd that what ought to consist wholly in action\nshould become nothing but words! In short, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are unanimous in\nrecognizing the existence of mortification and discipline, but hold that\nit is wrong to pay regard to them. Those who deny mortification do not\nmean to deny its reality, but only to deny that any regard should be\npaid to it or that anyone should be pleased with his own actions in the\nplace of holiness, inasmuch as mortification is the act of Man, while\ncontemplation is a state in which one is kept by God, and a man\u2019s\nactions do not begin to have value until God keeps him thus. The\nmortification of those whom God loves is the work of God in them without\nchoice on their part: it overwhelms and melts them away; but the\nmortification of ignorant men is the work of themselves in themselves by\ntheir own choice: it perturbs and distresses them, and distress is due\nto evil. Therefore, do not speak of thine own actions while thou canst\navoid it, and never in any circumstances follow thy lower soul, for it\nis thy phenomenal being that veils thee from God. If thou wert veiled by\none act alone, thou mightest be unveiled by another, but since thy whole\nbeing is a veil thou wilt not become worthy of subsistence (_baq\u00e1_)\nuntil thou art wholly annihilated. It is related in a well\u2014known\nanecdote that \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) came to K\u00fafa and lodged in\nthe house of Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24usayn al-`Alaw\u00ed. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 also came\nto K\u00fafa, and, having heard of al-\u1e24all\u00e1j, went to see him. Al-\u1e24all\u00e1j\nsaid: \u201cO Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm, during these forty years of your connexion with\n\u1e62\u00fafiism, what have you gained from it?\u201d Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm answered: \u201cI have made\nthe doctrine of trust in God (_tawakkul_) peculiarly my own.\u201d Al-\u1e24all\u00e1j\nsaid: \u201cYou have wasted your life in cultivating your spiritual nature:\nwhat has become of annihilation in Unification (_al-fan\u00e1 fi\n\u00b4l-taw\u1e25\u00edd_)?\u201d i.e. \u201ctrust in God is a term denoting your conduct towards\nGod and your spiritual excellence in regard to relying on Him: if a man\nspends his whole life in remedying his spiritual nature, he will need\nanother life for remedying his material nature, and his life will be\nlost before he has found a trace or vestige of God\u201d. And a story is told\nof Shaykh Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Siy\u00e1h of Merv, that he said: \u201cI saw my lower soul in\na form resembling my own, and some one had seized it by its hair and\ngave it into my hands. I bound it to a tree and was about to destroy it,\nwhen it cried out, \u2018O Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed, do not trouble yourself. I am God\u2019s army\n(_lashkar-i khud\u00e1yam_): you cannot reduce me to naught.\u2019\u201d And it is\nrelated concerning Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Uly\u00e1n of Nas\u00e1, an eminent companion of\nJunayd, that he said: \u201cIn my novitiate, when I had become aware of the\ncorruptions of the lower soul and acquainted with its places of ambush,\nI always felt a violent hatred of it in my heart. One day something like\na young fox came forth from my throat, and God caused me to know that it\nwas my lower soul. I cast it under my feet, and at every kick that I\ngave it, it grew bigger. I said: \u2018Other things are destroyed by pain and\nblows: why dost thou increase?\u2019 It replied: \u2018Because I was created\nperverse: that which is pain to other things is pleasure to me, and\ntheir pleasure is my pain.\u2019\u201d Shaykh Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Shaq\u00e1n\u00ed, who was the\nIm\u00e1m of his time, said: \u201cOne day I came into my house and found a yellow\ndog lying there, asleep. Thinking it had come in from the street, I was\nabout to turn it out. It crept under my skirt and vanished.\u201d Shaykh Abu\n\u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed, who to-day is the Qu\u1e6db\u2014may God prolong his\nlife!\u2014relates, speaking of his novitiate, that he saw his lower soul in\nthe form of a snake. A dervish said: \u201cI saw my lower soul in the shape\nof a mouse. \u2018Who art thou?\u2019 I asked. It answered: \u2018I am the destruction\nof the heedless, for I urge them to evil, and the salvation of those who\nlove God, for if I were not with them in my corruption they would be\npuffed up with pride in their purity.\u2019\u201d\n\nAll these stories prove that the lower soul is a real substance\n(_`ayn\u00ed_), not a mere attribute, and that it has attributes which we\nclearly perceive. The Apostle said: \u201cThy worst enemy is thy lower soul,\nwhich is between thy two sides.\u201d When you have obtained knowledge of it\nyou recognize that it can be mastered by discipline, but that its\nessence and substance do not perish. If it is rightly known and under\ncontrol, the seeker need not care though it continues to exist in him.\nHence the purpose of mortifying the lower soul is to destroy its\nattributes, not to annihilate its reality. Now I will discuss the true\nnature of passion and the renunciation of lusts.\n\n           _Discourse on the true nature of Passion_ (haw\u00e1).\n\nYou must know that, according to the opinion of some, passion is a term\napplied to the attributes of the lower soul, but, according to others, a\nterm denoting the natural volition (_ir\u00e1dat-i \u1e6dab`_) whereby the lower\nsoul is controlled and directed, just as the spirit is controlled by the\nintelligence. Every spirit that is devoid of the faculty of intelligence\nis imperfect, and similarly every lower soul that is devoid of the\nfaculty of passion is imperfect. Man is continually being called by\nintelligence and passion into contrary ways. If he obeys the call of\nintelligence he attains to faith, but if he obeys the call of passion he\narrives at error and infidelity. Therefore passion is a veil and a false\nguide, and man is commanded to resist it. Passion is of two kinds: (1)\ndesire of pleasure and lust, and (2) desire of worldly honour and\nauthority. He who follows pleasure and lust haunts taverns, and mankind\nare safe from his mischief, but he who desires honour and authority\nlives in cells (_\u1e63aw\u00e1mi`_) and monasteries, and not only has lost the\nright way himself but also leads others into error. One whose every act\ndepends on passion, and who finds satisfaction in following it, is far\nfrom God although he be with you in a mosque, but one who has renounced\nand abandoned it is near to God although he be in a church. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm\nKhaww\u00e1\u1e63 relates this anecdote: \u201cOnce I heard that in R\u00fam there was a\nmonk who had been seventy years in a monastery. I said to myself:\n\u2018Wonderful! Forty years is the term of monastic vows: what is the state\nof this man that he has remained there for seventy years?\u2019 I went to see\nhim. When I approached, he opened a window and said to me: \u2018O Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm, I\nknow why you have come. I have not stayed here for seventy years because\nof monastic vows, but I have a dog foul with passion, and I have taken\nmy abode in this monastery for the purpose of guarding the dog\n(_sagb\u00e1n\u00ed_), and preventing it from doing harm to others.\u2019 On hearing\nhim say this I exclaimed: \u2018O Lord, Thou art able to bestow righteousness\non a man even though he be involved in sheer error.\u2019 He said to me: \u2018O\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm, how long will you seek men? Go and seek yourself, and when you\nhave found yourself keep watch over yourself, for this passion clothes\nitself every day in three hundred and sixty diverse garments of godhead\nand leads men astray.\u2019\u201c\n\nIn short, the devil cannot enter a man\u2019s heart until he desires to\ncommit a sin: but when a certain quantity of passion appears, the devil\ntakes it and decks it out and displays it to the man\u2019s heart; and this\nis called diabolic suggestion (_wasw\u00e1s_). It begins from passion, and in\nreference to this fact God said to Ibl\u00eds when he threatened to seduce\nall mankind: \u201d_Verily, thou hast no power over My servants_\u201d (Kor. xv,\n42), for the devil in reality is a man\u2019s lower soul and passion. Hence\nthe Apostle said: \u201cThere is no one whom his devil (i.e. his passion) has\nnot subdued except `Umar, for he has subdued his devil.\u201d Passion is\nmingled as an ingredient in the clay of Adam; whoever renounces it\nbecomes a prince and whoever follows it becomes a captive. Junayd was\nasked: \u201cWhat is union with God?\u201d He replied: \u201cTo renounce passion,\u201d for\nof all the acts of devotion by which God\u2019s favour is sought none has\ngreater value than resistance to passion, because it is easier for a man\nto destroy a mountain with his nails than to resist passion. I have read\nin the Anecdotes that Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian said: \u201cI saw a man flying\nthrough the air, and asked him how he had attained to this degree. He\nanswered: \u2018I set my feet on passion (_haw\u00e1_) in order that I might\nascend into the air (_haw\u00e1_).\u2019\u201d It is related that Mu\u1e25ammad b. Fa\u1e0dl\nal-Balkh\u00ed said: \u201cI marvel at one who goes with his passion into God\u2019s\nHouse and visits Him: why does not he trample on his passion that he may\nattain to Him?\u201d\n\nThe most manifest attribute of the lower soul is lust (_shahwat_). Lust\nis a thing that is dispersed in different parts of the human body, and\nis served by the senses. Man is bound to guard all his members from it,\nand he shall be questioned concerning the acts of each. The lust of the\neye is sight, that of the ear is hearing, that of the nose is smell,\nthat of the tongue is speech, that of the palate is taste, that of the\nbody (_jasad_) is touch, and that of the mind is thought (_and\u00edsh\u00eddan_).\nIt behoves the seeker of God to spend his whole life, day and night, in\nridding himself of these incitements to passion which show themselves\nthrough the senses, and to pray God to make him such that this desire\nwill be removed from his inward nature, since whoever is afflicted with\nlust is veiled from all spiritual things. If anyone should repel it by\nhis own exertions, his task would be long and painful. The right way is\nresignation (_tasl\u00edm_). It is related that Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Siy\u00e1h of Merv said:\n\u201cI had gone to the bath and in accordance with the custom of the Prophet\nI was using a razor (_pubis tondend\u00e6 caus\u00e2_). I said to myself: \u2018O Ab\u00fa\n`Al\u00ed, amputate this member which is the source of all lusts and keeps\nthee afflicted with so much evil.\u2019 A voice in my heart whispered: \u2018O Ab\u00fa\n`Al\u00ed, wilt thou interfere in My kingdom? Are not all thy limbs equally\nat My disposal? If thou do this, I swear by My glory that I will put a\nhundredfold lust and passion in every hair in that place.\u2019\u201d\n\nAlthough a man has no power over what is vicious in his constitution, he\ncan get an attribute changed by Divine aid and by resigning himself to\nGod\u2019s will and by divesting himself of his own power and strength. In\nreality, when he resigns himself, God protects him; and through God\u2019s\nprotection he comes nearer to annihilating the evil than he does through\nself-mortification, since flies are more easily driven away with an\numbrella (_mikanna_) than with a fly-whisk (_midhabba_). Unless Divine\nprotection is predestined to a man, he cannot abstain from anything by\nhis own exertion, and unless God exerts Himself towards a man, that\nman\u2019s exertion is of no use. All acts of exertion fall under two heads:\ntheir object is either to avert the predestination of God or to acquire\nsomething in spite of predestination; and both these objects are\nimpossible. It is related that when Shibl\u00ed was ill, the physician\nadvised him to be abstinent. \u201cFrom what shall I abstain?\u201d said he, \u201cfrom\nthat which God bestows upon me, or from that which He does not bestow?\nIt is impossible to abstain from the former, and the latter is not in my\nhands.\u201d I will discuss this question carefully on another occasion.\n\n\n                            7. THE \u1e24AK\u00cdM\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-\u1e24ak\u00edm\nal-Tirmidh\u00ed, who was one of the religious leaders of his time and the\nauthor of many works on every branch of exoteric and esoteric science.\nHis doctrine was based on saintship (_wil\u00e1yat_), and he used to explain\nthe true nature of saintship and the degrees of the saints and the\nobservance of the proper arrangement of their ranks.\n\nAs the first step towards understanding his doctrine, you must know that\nGod has saints (_awliy\u00e1_), whom He has chosen out of mankind, and whose\nthoughts He has withdrawn from worldly ties and delivered from sensual\ntemptations; and He has stationed each of them in a particular degree,\nand has opened unto them the door of these mysteries. Much might be said\non this topic, but I must briefly set forth several points of capital\nimportance.\n\n         _Discourse on the Affirmation of Saintship_ (wil\u00e1yat).\n\nYou must know that the principle and foundation of \u1e62\u00fafiism and knowledge\nof God rests on saintship, the reality of which is unanimously affirmed\nby all the Shaykhs, though every one has expressed himself in different\nlanguage. The peculiarity of Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed (al-\u1e24ak\u00edm) lies in the\nfact that he applied this term to the theory of \u1e62\u00fafiism.\n\n_Wal\u00e1yat_ means, etymologically, \u201cpower to dispose\u201d (_ta\u1e63arruf_), and\n_wil\u00e1yat_ means \u201cpossession of command\u201d (_im\u00e1rat_). _Wal\u00e1yat_ also means\n\u201clordship\u201d (_rub\u00fabiyyat_); hence God hath said: \u201c_In this case the\nlordship_ (al-wal\u00e1yat) _belongs to God who is the_ _Truth_\u201d (Kor. xviii,\n42), because the unbelievers seek His protection and turn unto Him and\nrenounce their idols. And _wil\u00e1yat_ also means \u201clove\u201d (_ma\u1e25abbat_).\n_Wal\u00ed_ may be the form _fa`\u00edl_ with the meaning of _maf`\u00fal_, as God hath\nsaid: \u201c_And He takes charge of_ (yatawall\u00e1) _the righteous_\u201d (Kor. vii,\n195), for God does not leave His servant to his own actions and\nattributes, but keeps him under His protection. And _wal\u00ed_ may be the\nform _fa`\u00edl_, equivalent to _f\u00e1`il_, with an intensive force, because a\nman takes care (_tawall\u00ed kunad_) to obey God and constantly to fulfil\nthe obligations that he owes to Him. Thus _wal\u00ed_ in the active meaning\nis \u201cone who desires\u201d (_mur\u00edd_), while in the passive meaning it denotes\n\u201cone who is the object of God\u2019s desire\u201d (_mur\u00e1d_). All these meanings,\nwhether they signify the relation of God to Man or that of Man to God,\nare allowable, for God may be the protector of His friends, inasmuch as\nHe promised His protection to the Companions of the Apostle, and\ndeclared that the unbelievers had no protector (_mawl\u00e1_).[117] And,\nmoreover, He may distinguish them in an exclusive way by His friendship,\nas He hath said, \u201c_He loves them and they love Him_\u201d (Kor. v, 59), so\nthat they turn away from the favour of mankind: He is their friend\n(_wal\u00ed_) and they are His friends (_awliy\u00e1_). And He may confer on one a\n\u201cfriendship\u201d (_wil\u00e1yat_) that enables him to persevere in obedience to\nHim, and keeps him free from sin, and on another a \u201cfriendship\u201d that\nempowers him to loose and bind, and makes his prayers answered and his\naspirations effectual, as the Apostle said: \u201cThere is many a one with\ndirty hair, dust-stained, clad in two old garments, whom men never heed;\nbut if he were to swear by God, God would verify his oath.\u201d It is well\nknown that in the Caliphate of `Umar b. al-Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b, the Nile, in\naccordance with its usual habit, ceased to flow; for in the time of\nPaganism they used annually to adorn a maiden and throw her into the\nriver to make it flow again. `Umar therefore wrote on a piece of paper:\n\u201cO river, if thou hast stopped of thy own will, thou doest wrong, and if\nby command of God, `Umar bids thee flow.\u201c When this paper was thrown in,\nthe Nile resumed its course.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  Kor. xlvii, 12.\n\nMy purpose in discussing saintship and affirming its reality is to show\nyou that the name of saint (_wal\u00ed_) is properly applied to those in whom\nthe above-mentioned qualities are actually present (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) and not\nmerely reputed (_q\u00e1l_). Certain Shaykhs formerly composed books on this\nsubject, but they became rare and soon disappeared. Now I will commend\nto you the explanation given by that venerable spiritual director who is\nthe author of the doctrine\u2014for my own belief in it is greater\u2014in order\nthat much instruction may be gained, not only by yourself, but also by\nevery seeker of \u1e62\u00fafiism who may have the good fortune to read this book.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nYou must know that the word _wal\u00ed_ is current among the vulgar, and is\nto be found in the Koran and the Apostolic Traditions: e.g., God hath\nsaid, \u201d_Verily, on the friends_ (awliy\u00e1) _of God no fear shall come, and\nthey shall not grieve_\u201c (Kor. x, 63); and again, \u201d_God is the friend_\n(wal\u00ed) _of those who believe_\u201d (Kor. ii, 258). And the Apostle said:\n\u201cAmong the servants of God there are some whom the prophets and martyrs\ndeem happy.\u201d He was asked: \u201cWho are they? Describe them to us that\nperchance we may love them.\u201d He replied: \u201cThose who love one another,\nthrough God\u2019s mercy, without wealth and without seeking a livelihood:\ntheir faces are luminous, and they sit on thrones of light; they are not\nafraid when men are afraid, nor do they grieve when men grieve.\u201d Then he\nrecited: \u201c_Verily, on the friends of God no fear shall come, and they\nshall not grieve_\u201d (Kor. x, 63). Furthermore, the Apostle said that God\nsaid: \u201cHe who hurts a saint (_wal\u00ed_) has allowed himself to make war on\nMe.\u201d\n\nThese passages show that God has saints (_awliy\u00e1_) whom He has specially\ndistinguished by His friendship and whom He has chosen to be the\ngovernors of His kingdom and has marked out to manifest His actions and\nhas peculiarly favoured with diverse kinds of miracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) and\nhas purged of natural corruptions and has delivered from subjection to\ntheir lower soul and passion, so that all their thoughts are of Him and\ntheir intimacy is with Him alone. Such have been in past ages, and are\nnow, and shall be hereafter until the Day of Resurrection, because God\nhas exalted this (Moslem) community above all others and has promised to\npreserve the religion of Mu\u1e25ammad. Inasmuch as the traditional and\nintellectual proofs of this religion are to be found among the divines\n(_`ulam\u00e1_), it follows that the visible proof is to be found among the\nSaints and elect of God. Here we have two parties opposed to us, namely,\nthe Mu`tazilites and the rank and file of the Anthropomorphists\n(_\u1e24ashwiyya_). The Mu`tazilites deny that one Moslem is specially\nprivileged more than another; but if a saint is not specially\nprivileged, neither is a prophet specially privileged; and this is\ninfidelity. The vulgar Anthropomorphists allow that special privileges\nmay be conferred, but assert that such privileged persons no longer\nexist, although they did exist in the past. It is all the same, however,\nwhether they deny the past or the future, since one side of denial is no\nbetter than another.\n\nGod, then, has caused the prophetic evidence (_burh\u00e1n-i nabaw\u00ed_) to\nremain down to the present day, and has made the Saints the means\nwhereby it is manifested, in order that the signs of the Truth and the\nproof of Mu\u1e25ammad\u2019s veracity may continue to be clearly seen. He has\nmade the Saints the governors of the universe; they have become entirely\ndevoted to His business, and have ceased to follow their sensual\naffections. Through the blessing of their advent the rain falls from\nheaven, and through the purity of their lives the plants spring up from\nthe earth, and through their spiritual influence the Moslems gain\nvictories over the unbelievers. Among them there are four thousand who\nare concealed and do not know one another and are not aware of the\nexcellence of their state, but in all circumstances are hidden from\nthemselves and from mankind. Traditions have come down to this effect,\nand the sayings of the Saints proclaim the truth thereof, and I\nmyself\u2014God be praised!\u2014have had ocular experience (_khabar-i `iy\u00e1n_) of\nthis matter. But of those who have power to loose and to bind and are\nthe officers of the Divine court there are three hundred, called\n_Akhy\u00e1r_, and forty, called _Abd\u00e1l_, and seven, called _Abr\u00e1r_, and\nfour, called _Awt\u00e1d_, and three, called _Nuqab\u00e1_, and one, called _Qu\u1e6db_\nor _Ghawth_. All these know one another and cannot act save by mutual\nconsent.\n\nHere the vulgar may object to my assertion that they know one another to\nbe saints, on the ground that, if such is the case, they must be secure\nas to their fate in the next world. I reply that it is absurd to suppose\nthat knowledge of saintship involves security. A believer may have\nknowledge of his faith and yet not be secure: why should not the same\nhold good of a saint who has knowledge of his saintship? Nevertheless,\nit is possible that God should miraculously cause the saint to know his\nsecurity in regard to the future life, while maintaining him in a state\nof spiritual soundness and preserving him from disobedience. The Shaykhs\ndiffer on this question for the reason which I have explained. Those\nbelonging to the four thousand who are concealed do not admit that the\nsaint can know himself to be such, whereas those of the other class take\nthe contrary view. Each opinion is supported by many lawyers and\nscholastics. Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q Isfar\u00e1\u00b4in\u00ed[118] and some of the ancients hold\nthat a saint is ignorant of his saintship, while Ab\u00fa Bakr b. F\u00farak[119]\nand others of the past generation hold that he is conscious of it. I ask\nthe former party, what loss or evil does a saint suffer by knowing\nhimself? If they allege that he is conceited when he knows himself to be\na saint, I answer that Divine protection is a necessary condition of\nsaintship, and one who is protected from evil cannot fall into\nself-conceit. It is a very common notion (_sukhan-i sakht `\u00e1miy\u00e1na_)\nthat a saint, to whom extraordinary miracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) are continually\nvouchsafed, does not know himself to be a saint or these miracles to be\nmiracles. Both parties have adherents among the common people, but\nopinion is of no account.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  See Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 4.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  See Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 621; Brockelmann, i, 166.\n\nThe Mu`tazilites, however, deny special privileges and miracles, which\nconstitute the essence of saintship. They affirm that all Moslems are\nfriends (_awliy\u00e1_) of God when they are obedient to Him, and that anyone\nwho fulfils the ordinances of the Faith and denies the attributes and\nvision of God and allows believers to be eternally damned in Hell and\nacknowledges only such obligations as are imposed by Reason, without\nregard to Revelation, is a \u201cfriend\u201d (_wal\u00ed_). All Moslems agree that\nsuch a person is a \u201cfriend\u201d, but a friend of the Devil. The Mu`tazilites\nalso maintain that, if saintship involved miracles, all believers must\nhave miracles vouchsafed to them, because they all share in faith\n(_\u00edm\u00e1n_), and if they share in what is fundamental they must likewise\nshare in what is derivative. They say, further, that miracles may be\nvouchsafed both to believers and to infidels, e.g. when anyone is hungry\nor fatigued on a journey some person may appear in order to give him\nfood or mount him on an animal for riding. If it were possible, they\nadd, for anyone to traverse a great distance in one night, the Apostle\nmust have been that man; yet, when he set out for Mecca, God said, \u201c_And\nthey_ (the animals) _carry your burdens to a land which ye would not\nhave reached save with sore trouble to yourselves_\u201d (Kor. xvi, 7). I\nreply: \u201cYour arguments are worthless, for God said, \u2018_Glory to Him who\ntransported His servant by night from the sacred mosque to the farther\nmosque_\u2019\u201d (Kor. xvii, 1). Miracles are special, not general; but it\nwould have been a general instance if all the Companions had been\nmiraculously conveyed to Mecca, and this would have destroyed all the\nprinciples of faith in the unseen. Faith is a general term, applicable\nto the righteous and the wicked alike, whereas saintship is special. The\njourney of the Companions to Mecca falls under the former category, but\ninasmuch as the case of the Apostle was a special one, God conveyed him\nin one night from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to a space of two\nbow-lengths from the Divine presence; and he returned ere the night was\nfar spent. Again, to deny special privileges is manifestly unreasonable.\nAs in a palace there are chamberlains, janitors, grooms, and viziers,\nwho, although they are equally the king\u2019s servants, are not equal in\nrank, so all believers are equal in respect of their faith, but some are\nobedient, some wise, some pious, and some ignorant.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThe Shaykhs, every one, have given hints as to the true meaning of\nsaintship. Now I will bring together as many of these selected\ndefinitions as possible.\n\nAb\u00fa `Al\u00ed J\u00fazaj\u00e1n\u00ed says: \u201cThe saint is annihilated in his own state and\nsubsistent in the contemplation of the Truth: he cannot tell anything\nconcerning himself, nor can he rest with anyone except God,\u201d because a\nman has knowledge only of his own state, and when all his states are\nannihilated he cannot tell anything about himself; and he cannot rest\nwith anyone else, to whom he might tell his state, because to\ncommunicate one\u2019s hidden state to another is to reveal the secret of the\nBeloved, which cannot be revealed except to the Beloved himself.\nMoreover, in contemplation it is impossible to regard aught except God:\nhow, then, can he be at rest with mankind? Junayd said: \u201cThe saint hath\nno fear, because fear is the expectation either of some future calamity\nor of the eventual loss of some object of desire, whereas the saint is\nthe son of his time (_ibn waqtihi_): he has no future that he should\nfear anything; and as he hath no fear so he hath no hope, since hope is\nthe expectation either of gaining an object of desire or of being\nrelieved from a misfortune, and this belongs to the future; nor does he\ngrieve, because grief arises from the rigour of time, and how should he\nfeel grief who is in the radiance of satisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) and the\ngarden of concord (_muw\u00e1faqat_)?\u201d The vulgar imagine this saying to\nimply that, inasmuch as the saint feels neither fear nor hope nor grief,\nhe has security (_amn_) in their place; but he has not security, for\nsecurity arises from not seeing that which is hidden, and from turning\none\u2019s back on \u201ctime\u201d; and this (absence of security) is characteristic\nof those who pay no regard to their humanity (_bashariyyat_) and are not\ncontent with attributes. Fear and hope and security and grief all refer\nto the interests of the lower soul, and when that is annihilated\nsatisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_) becomes an attribute of Man, and when satisfaction\nhas been attained his states become steadfast (_mustaq\u00edm_) in vision of\nthe Author of states (_mu\u1e25awwil_), and his back is turned on all states.\nThen saintship is revealed to his heart and its meaning is made clear to\nhis inmost thoughts. Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n Maghrib\u00ed says: \u201cThe saint is sometimes\ncelebrated (_mashh\u00far_), but he is not seduced (_maft\u00fan_),\u201d and another\nsays: \u201cThe saint is sometimes hidden (_mast\u00far_), but he is not\ncelebrated.\u201d Seduction consists in falsehood: inasmuch as the saint must\nbe veracious, and miracles cannot possibly be performed by a liar, it\nfollows that the saint is incapable of being seduced. These two sayings\nrefer to the controversy whether the saint knows himself to be such: if\nhe knows, he is celebrated, and if he does not know, he is seduced; but\nthe explanation of this is tedious. It is related that Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham\nasked a certain man whether he desired to be one of God\u2019s saints, and on\nhis replying \u201cYes\u201d, said: \u201cDo not covet anything in this world or the\nnext, and devote thyself entirely to God, and turn to God with all thy\nheart.\u201d To covet this world is to turn away from God for the sake of\nthat which is transitory, and to covet the next world is to turn away\nfrom God for the sake of that which is everlasting: that which is\ntransitory perishes and its renunciation becomes naught, but that which\nis everlasting cannot perish, hence its renunciation also is\nimperishable. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd was asked: \u201cWho is a saint?\u201d He answered: \u201cThat\none who is patient under the command and prohibition of God,\u201d because\nthe more a man loves God the more does his heart revere what He commands\nand the farther is his body from what He forbids. It is related that Ab\u00fa\nYaz\u00edd said: \u201cOnce I was told that a saint of God was in such and such a\ntown. I set out to visit him. When I arrived at his mosque he came forth\nfrom his chamber and spat on the floor of the mosque. I turned back\nwithout saluting him, and said to myself: \u2018A saint must keep the\nreligious law in order that God may keep him in his spiritual state. Had\nthis man been a saint his respect for the mosque would have prevented\nhim from spitting on its floor, or God would have preserved him from\nmarring the grace vouchsafed to him.\u2019 The same night I dreamed that the\nApostle said to me, \u2018O Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, the blessing of that which thou hast\ndone is come to thee.\u2019 Next day I attained to this degree which ye\nbehold.\u201d And I have heard that a man who came to visit Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd\nentered the mosque with his left foot foremost. The Shaykh gave orders\nthat he should be dismissed, saying: \u201cHe who does not know how to enter\nthe house of the Friend is not suitable for us.\u201d Some heretics who have\nadopted this perilous doctrine assert that service of God (_khidmat_) is\nnecessary only while one is becoming a saint, but that after one has\nbecome a saint service is abolished. This is clearly wrong. There is no\n\u201cstation\u201d on the way to the Truth where any obligation of service is\nabolished. I will explain this matter fully in its proper place.\n\n         _Discourse on the Affirmation of Miracles_ (kar\u00e1m\u00e1t).\n\nYou must know that miracles may be vouchsafed to a saint so long as he\ndoes not infringe the obligations of the religious law. Both parties of\nthe orthodox Moslems agree on this point, nor is it intellectually\nimpossible, because such miracles are a species of that which is\npredestined by God, and their manifestation does not contradict any\nprinciple of the religious law, nor, on the other hand, is it repugnant\nto the mind to conceive them as a genus. A miracle is a token of a\nsaint\u2019s veracity, and it cannot be manifested to an impostor except as a\nsign that his pretensions are false. It is an extraordinary act (_fi`l\u00ed\nn\u00e1qi\u1e0d-i `\u00e1dat_), performed while he is still subject to the obligations\nof religion; and whoever is able, through knowledge given him by God, to\ndistinguish by the method of deduction what is true from what is false,\nhe too is a saint. Some Sunn\u00eds maintain that miracles are established,\nbut not to the degree of an evidentiary miracle (_mu`jizat_[120]): they\ndo not admit, for example, that prayers may be answered and fulfilled,\nand so forth, contrary to custom. I ask in reply: \u201cWhat do you consider\nwrong in the performance by a true saint, while he is subject to\nreligious obligations, of an act which violates custom?\u201d If they say\nthat it is not a species of that which is predestined by God, this\nstatement is erroneous; and if they say that it is a species of that\nwhich is predestined, but that its performance by a true saint involves\nthe annulment of prophecy and the denial of special privileges to the\nprophets, this assertion also is inadmissible, since the saint is\nspecially distinguished by miracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) and the prophet by\nevidentiary miracles (_mu`jiz\u00e1t_); and inasmuch as the saint is a saint\nand the prophet is a prophet, there is no likeness between them to\njustify such precaution. The pre-eminence of the prophets depends on\ntheir exalted rank and on their being preserved from the defilement of\nsin, not on miracles or evidentiary miracles or acts which violate\ncustom. All the prophets are equal so far as they all have the power of\nworking such miracles (_i`j\u00e1z_), but some are superior to others in\ndegree. Since, then, notwithstanding this equality in regard to their\nactions, some prophets are superior to others, why should not miracles\n(_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) which violate custom be vouchsafed also to the saints,\nalthough the prophets are superior to them? And since, in the case of\nthe prophets, an act which violates custom does not cause one of them to\nbe more exalted or more specially privileged than another, so, in the\ncase of the saints, a similar act does not cause a saint to be more\nspecially privileged than a prophet, i.e. the saints do not become like\nin kind (_hams\u00e1n_) to the prophets. This proof will clear away, for\nreasonable men, any difficulties that this matter may have presented to\nthem. \u201cBut suppose,\u201d it may be said, \u201cthat a saint whose miracles\nviolate custom should claim to be a prophet.\u201d I reply that this is\nimpossible, because saintship involves veracity, and he who tells a\nfalsehood is no saint. Moreover, a saint who pretends to prophesy casts\nan imputation on (the genuineness of) evidentiary miracles, which is\ninfidelity. Miracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) are vouchsafed only to a pious\nbeliever, and falsehood is impiety. That being so, the miracles of the\nsaint confirm the evidence of the prophet. There is no difficulty in\nreconciling the two classes of miracles. The apostle establishes his\nprophecy by establishing the reality of evidentiary miracles, while the\nsaint, by the miracles which he performs, establishes both the prophecy\nof the apostle and his own saintship. Therefore the veracious saint says\nthe same thing as the veracious prophet. The miracles of the former are\nidentical with the evidentiary miracles of the latter. A believer,\nseeing the miracles of a saint, has more faith in the veracity of the\nprophet, not more doubt, because there is no contradiction between the\nclaims made by them. Similarly, in law, when a number of heirs are\nagreed in their claim, if one of them establishes his claim the claim of\nthe others is established; but not so if their claims are contradictory.\nHence, when a prophet adduces evidentiary miracles as evidence that his\nprophecy is genuine, and when his claim is confirmed by a saint, it is\nimpossible that any difficulty should arise.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  The name _mu`jizat_ is given to a miracle performed by a prophet,\n  while one performed by a saint is called _kar\u00e1mat_.\n\n _Discourse on the difference between Evidentiary Miracles_ (mu`jiz\u00e1t)\n                       _and Miracles_ (kar\u00e1m\u00e1t).\n\nInasmuch as it has been shown that neither class of miracles can be\nwrought by an impostor, we must now distinguish more clearly between\nthem. _Mu`jiz\u00e1t_ involve publicity and _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ secrecy, because the\nresult of the former is to affect others, while the latter are peculiar\nto the person by whom they are performed. Again, the doer of _mu`jiz\u00e1t_\nis quite sure that he has wrought an extraordinary miracle, whereas the\ndoer of _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ cannot be sure whether he has really wrought a miracle\nor whether he is insensibly deceived (_istidr\u00e1j_). He who performs\n_mu`jiz\u00e1t_ has authority over the law, and in arranging it he denies or\naffirms, according as God commands him, that he is insensibly\ndeceived.[121] On the other hand, he who performs _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ has no\nchoice but to resign himself (to God\u2019s will) and to accept the\nordinances that are laid upon him, because the _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ of a saint are\nnever in any way incompatible with the law laid down by a prophet. It\nmay be said: \u201cIf evidentiary miracles are the proof of a prophet\u2019s\nveracity, and if nevertheless you assert that miracles of the same kind\nmay be performed by one who is not a prophet, then they become ordinary\nevents (_mu`t\u00e1d_): therefore your proof of the reality of _mu`jiz\u00e1t_\nannuls your argument establishing the reality of _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_.\u201d I reply:\n\u201cThis is not the case. The _kar\u00e1mat_ of a saint is identical with, and\ndisplays the same evidence as, the _mu`jizat_ of a prophet: the quality\nof _i`j\u00e1z_ (inimitability) exhibited in the one instance does not impair\nthe same quality in the other instance.\u201d When the infidels put Khubayb\non the gallows at Mecca, the Apostle, who was then seated in the mosque\nat Med\u00edna, saw him and told the Companions what was being done to him.\nGod also lifted the veil from the eyes of Khubayb, so that he saw the\nApostle and cried, \u201cPeace be with thee!\u201d and God caused the Apostle to\nhear his salutation, and caused Khubayb to hear the Apostle\u2019s answer.\nNow, the fact that the Apostle at Med\u00edna saw Khubayb at Mecca was an\nevidentiary miracle, and the fact that Khubayb at Mecca saw the Apostle\nat Med\u00edna was likewise an extraordinary act. Accordingly there is no\ndifference between absence in time and absence in space; for Khubayb\u2019s\nmiracle (_kar\u00e1mat_) was wrought when he was absent from the Apostle in\nspace, and the miracles of later days were wrought by those who were\nabsent from the Apostle in time. This is a clear distinction and a\nmanifest proof that _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ cannot possibly be in contradiction with\n_i`j\u00e1z_ (miracles performed by a prophet). _Kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ are not established\nunless they bear testimony to the truth of one who has performed a\n_mu`jizat_, and they are not vouchsafed except to a pious believer who\nbears such testimony. _Kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_ of Moslems are an extraordinary miracle\n(_mu`jizat_) of the Apostle, for as his law is permanent so must his\nproof (_\u1e25ujjat_) also be permanent. The saints are witnesses to the\ntruth of the Apostle\u2019s mission, and it is impossible that a miracle\n(_kar\u00e1mat_) should be wrought by an unbeliever (_b\u00e9g\u00e1na_).\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  B. omits the words \u201cthat he is insensibly deceived\u201d.\n\nOn this topic a story is related of Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63, which is very\napposite here. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm said: \u201cI went down into the desert in my usual\nstate of detachment from worldly things (_tajr\u00edd_). After I had gone\nsome distance a man appeared and begged me to let him be my companion. I\nlooked at him and was conscious of a feeling of repugnance. He said to\nme: \u2018O Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm, do not be vexed. I am a Christian, and one of the\n\u1e62\u00e1bians among them. I have come from the confines of R\u00fam in the hope of\nbeing thy companion.\u2019 When I knew that he was an unbeliever, I regained\nmy equanimity, and felt it more easy to take him as my companion and to\nfulfil my obligations towards him. I said: \u2018O monk, I fear that thou\nwilt suffer from want of meat and drink, for I have nothing with me.\u2019 \u2018O\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm,\u2019 said he, \u2018is thy fame in the world so great, and art thou\nstill concerned about meat and drink?\u2019 I marvelled at his boldness and\naccepted him as my companion in order to test his claim. After\njourneying seven days and nights we were overtaken by thirst. He stopped\nand cried: \u2018O Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm, they trumpet thy praise throughout the world. Now\nlet me see what privileges of intimacy (_gust\u00e1kh\u00edh\u00e1_) thou hast in this\ncourt (i.e. to what extent thou art a favourite with God), for I can\nendure no more.\u2019 I laid my head on the earth and cried: \u2018O Lord, do not\nshame me before this unbeliever, who thinks well of me!\u2019 When I raised\nmy head I saw a dish on which were placed two loaves of bread and two\ncups of water. We ate and drank and went on our way. After seven days\nhad passed I resolved to test him ere he should again put me to the\nproof. \u2018O monk,\u2019 I said, \u2018now it is thy turn. Let me see the fruits of\nthy mortification.\u2019 He laid his head on the earth and muttered\nsomething. Immediately a dish appeared containing four loaves and four\ncups of water. I was amazed and grieved, and I despaired of my state.\n\u2018This has appeared,\u2019 I said, \u2018for the sake of an unbeliever: how can I\neat or drink thereof?\u2019 He bade me taste, but I refused, saying, \u2018Thou\nart not worthy of this, and it is not in harmony with thy spiritual\ncondition. If I regard it as a miracle (_kar\u00e1mat_), miracles are not\nvouchsafed to unbelievers; and if I regard it as a contribution\n(_ma`\u00fanat_) from thee, I must suspect thee of being an impostor.\u2019 He\nsaid: \u2018Taste, O Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm! I give thee joy of two things: firstly, of my\nconversion to Islam (here he uttered the profession of faith), and\nsecondly, of the great honour in which thou art held by God.\u2019 \u2018How so?\u2019\nI asked. He answered: \u2018I have no miraculous powers, but my shame on\naccount of thee made me lay my head on the earth and beg God to give me\ntwo loaves and two cups of water if the religion of Mu\u1e25ammad is true,\nand two more loaves and cups if Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 is one of God\u2019s\nsaints.\u2019\u201d Then Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm ate and drank, and the man who had been a monk\nrose to eminence in Islam.\n\nNow, this violation of custom, although attached to the _kar\u00e1mat_ of a\nsaint, is identical with the evidentiary miracles which are wrought by\nprophets, but it is rare that in a prophet\u2019s absence an evidence should\nbe vouchsafed to another person, or that in the presence of a saint some\nportion of his miraculous powers should be transferred to another\nperson. In fact, the end of saintship is only the beginning of prophecy.\nThat monk was one of the hidden (saints), like Pharaoh\u2019s magicians.\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm confirmed the Prophet\u2019s power to violate custom, and his\ncompanion also was endeavouring both to confirm prophecy and to glorify\nsaintship; a purpose which God in His eternal providence fulfilled. This\nis a clear difference between _kar\u00e1mat_ and _i`j\u00e1z_. The manifestation\nof miracles to the saints is a second miracle, for they ought to be kept\nsecret, not intentionally divulged. My Shaykh used to say that if a\nsaint reveals his saintship and claims to be a saint, the soundness of\nhis spiritual state is not impaired thereby, but if he takes pains to\nobtain publicity he is led astray by self-conceit.\n\n _Discourse on the performance of miracles belonging to the evidentiary\n                class by those who pretend to godship._\n\nThe Shaykhs of this sect and all orthodox Moslems are agreed that an\nextraordinary act resembling a prophetic miracle (_mu`jizat_) may be\nperformed by an unbeliever, in order that by means of his performance he\nmay be shown beyond doubt to be an impostor. Thus, for example, Pharaoh\nlived four hundred years without once falling ill; and when he climbed\nup to any high ground the water followed him, and stopped when he\nstopped, and moved when he moved. Nevertheless, intelligent men did not\nhesitate to deny his pretensions to godship, inasmuch as every\nintelligent person acknowledges that God is not incarnate (_mujassam_)\nand composite (_murakkab_). You will judge by analogy the wondrous acts\nrelated of Shadd\u00e1d, who was the lord of Iram, and Nimrod. Similarly, we\nare told on trustworthy authority that in the last days Dajj\u00e1l will come\nand will claim godship, and that two mountains will go with him, one on\nhis right hand and the other on his left; and that the mountain on his\nright hand will be the place of felicity, and the mountain on his left\nhand will be the place of torment; and that he will call the people to\nhimself and will punish those who refuse to join him. But though he\nshould perform a hundredfold amount of such extraordinary acts, no\nintelligent person would doubt the falsity of his claim, for it is well\nknown that God does not sit on an ass and is not blind. Such things fall\nunder the principle of Divine deception (_istidr\u00e1j_). So, again, one who\nfalsely pretends to be an apostle may perform an extraordinary act,\nwhich proves him an impostor, just as a similar act performed by a true\napostle proves him genuine. But no such act can be performed if there be\nany possibility of doubt or any difficulty in distinguishing the true\nclaimant from the impostor, for in that case the principle of allegiance\n(_bay`at_) would be nullified. It is possible, moreover, that something\nof the same kind as a miracle (_kar\u00e1mat_) may be performed by a\npretender to saintship who, although his conduct is bad, is blameless in\nhis religion, inasmuch as by that miraculous act he confirms the truth\nof the Apostle and manifests the grace of God vouchsafed to him and does\nnot attribute the act in question to his own power. One who speaks the\ntruth, without evidence, in the fundamental matter of faith (_\u00edm\u00e1n_),\nwill always speak the truth, with evidence and firm belief, in the\nmatter of saintship, because his belief is of the same quality as the\nbelief of the saint; and though his actions do not square with his\nbelief, his claim of saintship is not demonstrably contradicted by his\nevil conduct, any more than his claim of faith could be. In fact,\nmiracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) and saintship are Divine gifts, not things acquired\nby Man, so that human actions (_kasb_) cannot become the cause of Divine\nguidance.\n\nI have already said that the saints are not preserved from sin\n(_ma`\u1e63\u00fam_), for sinlessness belongs to the prophets, but they are\nprotected (_ma\u1e25f\u00fa\u1e95_) from any evil that involves the denial of their\nsaintship; and the denial of saintship, after it has come into being,\ndepends on something inconsistent with faith, namely, apostasy\n(_riddat_): it does not depend on sin. This is the doctrine of Mu\u1e25ammad\nb. `Al\u00ed \u1e24ak\u00edm of Tirmidh, and also of Junayd, Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed, \u1e24\u00e1rith\nMu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, and many other mystics (_ahl-i \u1e25aq\u00e1\u00b4iq_). But those who attach\nimportance to conduct (_ahl-i mu`\u00e1mal\u00e1t_), like Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h of\nTustar, Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed, \u1e24amd\u00fan Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r, and others, maintain that\nsaintship involves unceasing obedience (_\u1e6d\u00e1`at_), and that when a great\nsin (_kab\u00edra_) occurs to the mind of a saint he is deposed from his\nsaintship. Now, as I have stated before, there is a consensus of opinion\n(_ijm\u00e1`_) among Moslems that a great sin does not put anyone outside the\npale of faith; and one saintship (_wil\u00e1yat_) is no better than another.\nTherefore, since the saintship of knowledge of God (_ma`rifat_), which\nis the foundation of all miracles vouchsafed by Divine grace\n(_kar\u00e1math\u00e1_), is not lost through sin, it is impossible that what is\ninferior to that in excellence and grace (_kar\u00e1mat_) should disappear\nbecause of sin. The controversy among the Shaykhs on this matter has run\nto great length, and I do not intend to record it here.\n\nIt is most important, however, that you should know with certainty in\nwhat state this miraculous grace is manifested to the saint: in sobriety\nor intoxication, in rapture (_ghalabat_) or composure (_tamk\u00edn_). I have\nfully explained the meaning of intoxication and sobriety in my account\nof the doctrine of Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd. He and Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian and\nMu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf and \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) and Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh\nR\u00e1z\u00ed and others hold that miracles are not vouchsafed to a saint except\nwhen he is in the state of intoxication, whereas the miracles of the\nprophets are wrought in the state of sobriety. Hence, according to their\ndoctrine, this is a clear distinction between _mu`jiz\u00e1t_ and _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_,\nfor the saint, being enraptured, pays no heed to the people and does not\ncall upon them to follow him, while the prophet, being sober, exerts\nhimself to attain his object and challenges the people to rival what he\nhas done. Moreover, the prophet may choose whether he will manifest or\nconceal his extraordinary powers, but the saints have no such choice;\nsometimes a miracle is not granted to them when they desire it, and\nsometimes it is bestowed when they do not desire it, for the saint has\nno propaganda, so that his attributes should be subsistent, but he is\nhidden and his proper state is to have his attributes annihilated. The\nprophet is a man of law (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib shar`_), and the saint is a man of\ninward feeling (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib sirr_). Accordingly, a miracle (_kar\u00e1mat_) will\nnot be manifested to a saint unless he is in a state of absence from\nhimself and bewilderment, and unless his faculties are entirely under\nthe control of God. While saints are with themselves and maintain the\nstate of humanity (_bashariyyat_), they are veiled; but when the veil is\nlifted they are bewildered and amazed through realizing the bounties of\nGod. A miracle cannot be manifested except in the state of unveiledness\n(_kashf_), which is the rank of proximity (_qurb_); and whoever is in\nthat state, to him worthless stones appear even as gold. This is the\nstate of intoxication with which no human being, the prophets alone\nexcepted, is permanently endowed. Thus, one day, \u1e24\u00e1ritha was transported\nfrom this world and had the next world revealed to him; he said: \u201cI have\ncut myself loose from this world, so that its stones and its gold and\nits silver and its clay are all one to me.\u201d Next day he was seen tending\nasses, and on being asked what he was doing, he said: \u201cI am trying to\nget the food that I need.\u201d Therefore, the saints, while they are sober,\nare as ordinary men, but while they are intoxicated their rank is the\nsame as that of the prophets, and the whole universe becomes like gold\nunto them. Shibl\u00ed says\u2014\n\n              \u201c_Gold wherever we go, and pearls\n              Wherever we turn, and silver in the waste._\u201d\n\nI have heard the Master and Im\u00e1m Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Qushayr\u00ed say: \u201cOnce I\nasked \u1e6c\u00e1bar\u00e1n\u00ed about the beginning of his spiritual experience. He told\nme that on one occasion he wanted a stone from the river-bed at Sarakhs.\nEvery stone that he touched turned into a gem, and he threw them all\naway.\u201d This was because stones and gems were the same to him, or rather,\ngems were of less value, since he had no desire for them. And I have\nheard Khw\u00e1ja Im\u00e1m Khaz\u00e1\u00b4in\u00ed at Sarakhs relate as follows: \u201cIn my boyhood\nI went to a certain place to get mulberry leaves for silkworms. When it\nwas midday I climbed a tree and began to shake the branches. While I was\nthus employed Shaykh Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl b. al-\u1e24asan passed by, but he did not\nsee me, and I had no doubt that he was beside himself and that his heart\nwas with God. Suddenly he raised his head and cried with the boldness of\nintimacy: \u2018O Lord, it is more than a year since Thou hast given me a\nsmall piece of silver (_d\u00e1ng\u00ed_) that I might have my hair cut. Is this\nthe way to treat Thy friends?\u2019 No sooner had he spoken than I saw all\nthe leaves and boughs and roots of the trees turned to gold. Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl\nexclaimed: \u2018How strange! The least hint that I utter is a backsliding\n(_hama ta`r\u00ed\u1e0d-i m\u00e1 \u00ed`r\u00e1\u1e0d ast_). One cannot say a word to Thee for the\nsake of relieving one\u2019s mind.\u2019\u201d It is related that Shibl\u00ed cast four\nhundred d\u00edn\u00e1rs into the Tigris. When asked what he was doing, he\nreplied: \u201cStones are better in the water.\u201d \u201cBut why,\u201d they said, \u201cdon\u2019t\nyou give the money to the poor?\u201d He answered: \u201cGlory to God! what plea\ncan I urge before Him if I remove the veil from my own heart only to\nplace it on the hearts of my brother Moslems? It is not religious to\nwish them worse than myself.\u201d All these cases belong to the state of\nintoxication, which I have already explained.\n\nOn the other hand, Junayd and Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Sayy\u00e1r\u00ed and Ab\u00fa Bakr W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed\nand Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed of Tirmidh, the author of the doctrine, hold that\nmiracles are manifested in the state of sobriety and composure (_\u1e63a\u1e25w \u00fa\ntamk\u00edn_), not in the state of intoxication. They argue that the saints\nof God are the governors of His kingdom and the overseers of the\nuniverse, which God has committed absolutely to their charge: therefore\ntheir judgments must be the soundest of all, and their hearts must be\nthe most tenderly disposed of all towards the creatures of God. They are\nmature (_ras\u00eddag\u00e1n_); and whereas agitation and intoxication are marks\nof inexperience, with maturity agitation is transmuted into composure.\nThen, and only then, is one a saint in reality, and only then are\nmiracles genuine. It is well known among \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds that every night the\n_Awt\u00e1d_ must go round the whole universe, and if there should be any\nplace on which their eyes have not fallen, next day some imperfection\nwill appear in that place; and they must then inform the _Qu\u1e6db_, in\norder that he may fix his attention on the weak spot, and that by his\nblessing the imperfection may be removed. As regards the assertion that\ngold and earth are one to the saint, this indifference is a sign of\nintoxication and failure to see truly. More excellent is the man of true\nsight and sound perception, to whom gold is gold and earth is earth, but\nwho recognizes the evil of the former and says: \u201cO yellow ore! O white\nore! beguile some one else, for I am aware of your corruptedness.\u201d He\nwho sees the corruptedness of gold and silver perceives them to be a\nveil (between himself and God), and God will reward him for having\nrenounced them. Contrariwise, he to whom gold is even as earth is not\nmade perfect by renouncing earth. \u1e24\u00e1ritha, being intoxicated, declared\nthat stones and gold were alike to him, but Ab\u00fa Bakr, being sober,\nperceived the evil of laying hands on worldly wealth, and knew that God\nwould reward him for rejecting it. Therefore he renounced it, and when\nthe Apostle asked him what he had left for his family he answered, \u201cGod\nand His Apostle.\u201d And the following story is related by Ab\u00fa Bakr Warr\u00e1q\nof Tirmidh: \u201cOne day Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed (al-\u1e24ak\u00edm) said that he would take\nme somewhere. I replied: \u2018It is for the Shaykh to command.\u2019 Soon after\nwe set out I saw an exceedingly dreadful wilderness, and in the midst\nthereof a golden throne placed under a green tree beside a fountain of\nrunning water. Seated on the throne was a person clad in beautiful\nraiment, who rose when Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed approached, and bade him sit on\nthe throne. After a while, people came from every side until forty were\ngathered together. Then Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed waved his hand, and immediately\nfood appeared from heaven, and we ate. Afterwards Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed asked\na question of a man who was present, and he in reply made a long\ndiscourse of which I did not understand a single word. At last the\nShaykh begged leave and took his departure, saying to me: \u2018Go, for thou\nart blest.\u2019 On our return to Tirmidh, I asked him what was that place\nand who was that man. He told me that the place was the Desert of the\nIsraelites (_t\u00edh-i Ban\u00ed Isr\u00e1\u00b4\u00edl_) and that the man was the _Qu\u1e6db_ on\nwhom the order of the universe depends. \u2018O Shaykh,\u2019 I said, \u2018how did we\nreach the Desert of the Israelites from Tirmidh in such a brief time?\u2019\nHe answered: \u2018O Ab\u00fa Bakr, it is thy business to arrive (_ras\u00eddan_), not\nto ask questions (_purs\u00eddan_).\u2019\u201c This is a mark, not of intoxication,\nbut of sanity.\n\nNow I will mention some miracles and stories of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and link\nthereto certain evidence which is to be found in the Book (the Koran).\n\n                 _Discourse concerning their Miracles._\n\nThe reality of miracles having been established by logical argument, you\nmust now become acquainted with the evidence of the Koran and the\ngenuine Traditions of the Apostle. Both Koran and Tradition proclaim the\nreality of miracles and extraordinary acts wrought by saints. To deny\nthis is to deny the authority of the sacred texts. One example is the\ntext, \u201d_And We caused the clouds to overshadow you and the manna and the\nquails to descend upon you_\u201d (Kor. ii, 54). If any sceptic should assert\nthat this was an evidentiary miracle (_mu`jizat_) of Moses, I raise no\nobjection, because all the miracles of the saints are an evidentiary\nmiracle of Mu\u1e25ammad; and if he says that this miracle was wrought in the\nabsence of Moses, although it occurred in his time, and that therefore\nit was not necessarily wrought by him, I reply that the same principle\nholds good in the case of Moses, when he quitted his people and went to\nMount Sinai, as in the case of Mu\u1e25ammad; for there is no difference\nbetween being absent in time and being absent in space. We are also told\nof the miracle of \u00c1\u1e63af b. Barkhiy\u00e1, who brought the throne of Bilq\u00eds to\nSolomon in the twinkling of an eye (Kor. xxvii, 40). This cannot have\nbeen a _mu`jizat_, for \u00c1\u1e63af was not an apostle; had it been a\n_mu`jizat_, it must have been wrought by Solomon: therefore it was a\n_kar\u00e1mat_. We are told also of Mary that whenever Zacharias went into\nher chamber he found winter fruits in summer and summer fruits in\nwinter, so that he said: \u201c_\u2018Whence hadst thou this?\u2019 She answered, \u2018It\nis from God\u2019_\u201d (Kor. iii, 32). Everyone admits that Mary was not an\napostle. Furthermore, we have the story of the men of the cave (_a\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b\nal-kahf_), how their dog spoke to them, and how they slept and turned\nabout in the cave (Kor. xviii, 17). All these were extraordinary acts,\nand since they certainly were not a _mu`jizat_, they must have been a\n_kar\u00e1mat_. Such miracles (_kar\u00e1mat_) may be, for example, the answering\nof prayers through the accomplishment of wishes conceived by one who is\nsubject to the religious law (_ba-\u1e25u\u1e63\u00fal-i um\u00far-i mawh\u00fam andar zam\u00e1n-i\ntakl\u00edf_), or the traversing of great distances in a short time, or the\nappearance of food from an unaccustomed place, or power to read the\nthoughts of others, etc.\n\nAmong the genuine Traditions is the story of the cave (_\u1e25ad\u00edth\nal-gh\u00e1r_), which is told as follows. One day the Companions of the\nApostle begged him to relate to them some marvellous tale of the ancient\npeoples. He said: \u201cOnce three persons were going to a certain place. At\neventide they took shelter in a cave, and while they were asleep a rock\nfell from the mountain and blocked the mouth of the cave. They said to\none another, \u2018We shall never escape from here unless we make our\ndisinterested actions plead for us before God.\u2019 So one of them began: \u2018I\nhad a father and mother and I had no worldly goods except a goat, whose\nmilk I used to give to them; and every day I used to gather a bundle of\nfirewood and sell it and spend the money in providing food for them and\nmyself. One night I came home rather late, and before I milked the goat\nand steeped their food in the milk they had fallen asleep. I kept the\nbowl in my hand and stood there, without having eaten anything, until\nmorning, when they awoke and ate; then I sat down.\u2019 \u2018O Lord\u2019 (he\ncontinued), \u2018if I speak the truth concerning this matter, send us\ndeliverance and come to our aid!\u2019\u201d The Apostle said: \u201cThereupon the rock\nmoved a little and a crevice appeared. The next man said: \u2018There was a\nbeautiful blind girl, with whom I was deeply in love, but she would not\nlisten to my suit. I managed to send to her a hundred and twenty d\u00edn\u00e1rs\nwith a promise that she should keep the money if she would be mine for\none night. When she came the fear of God seized my heart. I turned from\nher and let her keep the money.\u2019 He added, \u2018O God, if I speak the truth,\ndeliver us!\u2019\u201d The Apostle said: \u201cThen the rock moved a little further\nand the crevice widened, but they could not yet go forth. The third man\nsaid: \u2018I had some labourers working for me. When the work was done they\nall received their wages except one, who disappeared. With his wages I\nbought a sheep. Next year there were two, and in the year after that\nthere were four, and they soon became a large flock. After several years\nthe labourer returned and asked me for his wages. I said to him, \u201cGo and\ntake all these sheep; they are your property.\u201d He thought I must be\nmocking him, but I assured him that it was true, and he went off with\nthe whole flock.\u2019 The narrator added, \u2018O Lord, if I speak the truth,\ndeliver us!\u2019\u201d \u201cHe had scarcely finished,\u201d said the Apostle, \u201cwhen the\nrock moved away from the mouth of the cave and let the three men come\nforth.\u201d[122] It is related that Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z said: \u201cFor a long time\nI used to eat only once in three days. I was journeying in the desert,\nand on the third day I felt weak through hunger. A voice from heaven\ncried to me, \u2018Dost thou prefer food that will quiet thy lower nature, or\nan expedient that will enable thee to overcome thy weakness without\nfood?\u2019 I replied, \u2018O God, give me strength!\u2019 Then I rose and travelled\ntwelve stages without meat or drink.\u201d It is well known that at the\npresent day the house of Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h at Tustar is called the House\nof the Wild Beasts (_bayt al-sib\u00e1`_), and the people of Tustar are\nagreed that many wild beasts used to come to him, and that he fed and\ntended them. Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim of Merv tells the following story: \u201cAs I was\nwalking on the seashore with Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z, I saw a youth clad in a\npatched frock and carrying a bucket (_rakwa_), to which an ink-bottle\nwas fastened. Kharr\u00e1z said: \u2018When I look at this youth he seems to be\none of the adepts (_ras\u00eddag\u00e1n_), but when I look at his ink-bottle I\nthink he is a student. Let me question him.\u2019 So he accosted the youth\nand said, \u2018What is the way to God?\u2019 The youth answered: \u2018There are two\nways to God: the way of the vulgar and the way of the elect. Thou hast\nno knowledge of the latter, but the way of the vulgar, which thou\npursuest, is to regard thine own actions as the cause of attaining to\nGod, and to suppose that an ink-bottle is one of the things that\ninterfere with attainment.\u2019\u201d Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian says: \u201cOnce I\nembarked in a ship voyaging from Egypt to Jidda. Among the passengers\nwas a youth wearing a patched frock. I was eager to be his companion,\nbut he inspired me with such awe that I did not venture to address him,\nfor his spiritual state was very exalted and he was constantly engaged\nin devotion. One day a certain man lost a purse of jewels, and suspicion\nfell on this youth. They were about to maltreat him, but I said, \u2018Let me\nquestion him courteously.\u2019 I told him that he was suspected of theft and\nthat I had saved him from maltreatment. \u2018And now,\u2019 I said, \u2018what is to\nbe done?\u2019 He looked towards Heaven and spoke a few words. The fishes\ncame to the surface of the sea, each with a jewel in its mouth. He took\na jewel and gave it to his accuser; then he set his foot on the water\nand walked away. Thereupon the real thief dropped the purse, and the\npeople in the ship repented.\u201d Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Raqq\u00ed[123] is related to have\nsaid: \u201cIn my novitiate I set out to visit Muslim Maghrib\u00ed. I found him\nin his mosque, acting as precentor. He pronounced _al-\u1e25amd_ incorrectly.\nI said to myself, \u2018My trouble has been wasted.\u2019 Next day, when I was\ngoing to the bank of the Euphrates to perform the religious ablution, I\nsaw a lion asleep on the road. I turned back, and was faced by another\nlion which had been following me. Hearing my cry of despair, Muslim came\nforth from his cell. When the lions saw him they humbled themselves\nbefore him. He took the ear of each one and rubbed it, saying, \u2018O dogs\nof God, have not I told you that you must not interfere with my guests?\u2019\nThen he said to me: \u2018O Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q, thou hast busied thyself with\ncorrecting thy exterior for the sake of God\u2019s creatures, hence thou art\nafraid of them; but it has been my business to correct my interior for\nGod\u2019s sake, hence His creatures are afraid of me.\u2019\u201d One day my Shaykh\nset out from Bayt al-Jinn to Damascus. Heavy rain had begun to fall, and\nI was walking with difficulty in the mire. I noticed that the Shaykh\u2019s\nshoes and clothes were perfectly dry. On my pointing this out to him, he\nsaid: \u201cYes; God has preserved me from mud ever since I put unquestioning\ntrust in Him and guarded my interior from the desolation of cupidity.\u201d\nOnce an experience occurred to me which I could not unravel. I set out\nto visit Shaykh Abu `l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed at \u1e6c\u00fas. I found him alone in his\nchamber in the mosque, and he was expounding precisely the same\ndifficulty to a pillar, so that I was answered without having asked the\nquestion. \u201cO Shaykh,\u201d I cried, \u201cto whom art thou saying this?\u201d He\nreplied: \u201cO son, God just now caused this pillar to speak and ask me\nthis question.\u201d In Fargh\u00e1na, at a village called Ashl\u00e1tak,[124] there\nwas an old man, one of the _Awt\u00e1d_ of the earth. His name was B\u00e1b\n`Umar[125]\u2014all the dervishes in that country give the title of B\u00e1b to\ntheir great Shaykhs\u2014and he had an old wife called F\u00e1\u1e6dima. I went from\nUzkand to see him. When I entered his presence he said: \u201cWhy have you\ncome?\u201d I replied: \u201cIn order that I might see the Shaykh in person and\nthat he might look on me with kindness.\u201d He said: \u201cI have been seeing\nyou continually since such and such a day, and I wish to see you as long\nas you are not removed from my sight.\u201d I computed the day and year: it\nwas the very day on which my conversion began. The Shaykh said: \u201cTo\ntraverse distance (_sipardan-i mas\u00e1fat_) is child\u2019s play: henceforth pay\nvisits by means of thought (_himmat_); it is not worth while to visit\nany person (_shakh\u1e63_), and there is no virtue in bodily presence\n(_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far-i ashb\u00e1\u1e25_).\u201d Then he bade F\u00e1\u1e6dima bring something to eat. She\nbrought a dish of new grapes, although it was not the season for them,\nand some fresh ripe dates, which cannot possibly be procured in\nFargh\u00e1na. On another occasion, while I was sitting alone, as is my\ncustom, beside the tomb of Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd at Mihna, I saw a white\npigeon fly under the cloth (_f\u00fa\u1e6da_) covering the sepulchre. I supposed\nthat the bird had escaped from its owner, but when I looked under the\ncloth nothing was to be seen. This happened again next day, and also on\nthe third day. I was at a loss to understand it, until one night I\ndreamed of the saint and asked him about my experience. He answered:\n\u201cThat pigeon is my good conduct (_\u1e63af\u00e1-yi mu`\u00e1malat_), which comes every\nday to my tomb to feast with me (_ba-mun\u00e1damat-i man_).\u201d[126] I might\nadduce many more of these tales without exhausting them, but my purpose\nin this book is to establish the principles of \u1e62\u00fafiism. As regards\nderivatives and matters of conduct books have been compiled by the\ntraditionists (_naqq\u00e1l\u00e1n_), and these topics are disseminated from the\npulpit by preachers (_mudhakkir\u00e1n_). Now I will give, in one or two\nsections, an adequate account of certain points bearing on the present\ndiscussion, in order that I may not have to return to it again.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Here follow (1) a Tradition, related by Ab\u00fa Hurayra, of three infants\n  who were miraculously endowed with speech: (_a_) Jesus, (_b_) a child\n  who exculpated the monk Jurayj (George) when he was falsely accused by\n  a harlot, (_c_) a child who divined the characters of a horseman and a\n  woman. (2) A story of Z\u00e1\u00b4ida, the handmaid of the Caliph `Umar: how a\n  knight descended from heaven and gave her a message from Ri\u1e0dw\u00e1n, the\n  keeper of Paradise, to the Prophet; and how, when she could not lift a\n  bundle of firewood from a rock on which she had laid it, the Prophet\n  bade the rock go with her and carry the firewood to `Umar\u2019s house. (3)\n  A story of `Al\u00e1 b. al-\u1e24a\u1e0dram\u00ed, who, having been sent on a warlike\n  expedition by the Prophet, walked dry-shod across a river with his\n  company. (4) A story of `Abdall\u00e1h b. `Umar, at whose bidding a lion\n  decamped and left the way open for a party of travellers. (5) A story\n  of a man who was seen sitting in the air, and when Abraham asked him\n  by what means he had obtained such power, replied that he had\n  renounced the world and that God had bestowed on him an aerial\n  dwelling-place where he was not disturbed by any thought of mankind.\n  (6) A story of the Caliph `Umar, who was on the point of being killed\n  by a Persian, when two lions suddenly appeared and caused the assassin\n  to desist. (7) A story of Kh\u00e1lid b. Wal\u00edd, who said \u201cBismillah\u201d and\n  drank a deadly poison, which did him no harm. (8) A story, related by\n  \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra, of a negro who turned the walls of a tavern into gold.\n  (9) A story, related by Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham, of a shepherd who smote a\n  rock with his staff and caused water to gush forth. (10) A story of a\n  cup which pronounced the words \u201cGlory to God\u201d in the hearing of Ab\u00fa\n  Dard\u00e1 and Salm\u00e1n F\u00e1ris\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Died in 326 A.H. See Abu \u00b4l-Ma\u1e25\u00e1sin, _Nuj\u00fam_, ii, 284, 13.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  L. \u0633\u0644\u0627\u062a\u06a9. IJ. \u0627\u0633\u0644\u0627\u062a\u06a9.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 351.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  Here the author tells the story, which has already been related (p.\n  142 _supra_), of Ab\u00fa Bakr Warr\u00e1q, who was commanded by Mu\u1e25ammad b.\n  `Al\u00ed of Tirmidh to throw some of the latter\u2019s mystical writings into\n  the Oxus.\n\n     _Discourse on the Superiority of the Prophets to the Saints._\n\nYou must know that, by universal consent of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, the saints\nare at all times and in all circumstances subordinate to the prophets,\nwhose missions they confirm. The prophets are superior to the saints,\nbecause the end of saintship is only the beginning of prophecy. Every\nprophet is a saint, but some saints are not prophets. The prophets are\nconstantly exempt from the attributes of humanity, while the saints are\nso only temporarily; the fleeting state (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) of the saint is the\npermanent station (_maq\u00e1m_) of the prophet; and that which to the saints\nis a station (_maq\u00e1m_) is to the prophets a veil (_\u1e25ij\u00e1b_). This view is\nheld unanimously by the Sunn\u00ed divines and the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed mystics, but it is\nopposed by a sect of the \u1e24ashwiyya\u2014the Anthropomorphists (_mujassima_)\nof Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n\u2014who discourse in a self-contradictory manner concerning the\nprinciples of Unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), and who, although they do not know\nthe fundamental doctrine of \u1e62\u00fafiism, call themselves saints. Saints they\nare indeed, but saints of the Devil. They maintain that the saints are\nsuperior to the prophets, and it is a sufficient proof of their error\nthat they declare an ignoramus to be more excellent than Mu\u1e25ammad, the\nChosen of God. The same vicious opinion is held by another sect of\nAnthropomorphists (_mushabbiha_), who pretend to be \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and admit the\ndoctrines of the incarnation of God and His descent (into the human\nbody) by transmigration (_intiq\u00e1l_), and the division (_tajziya_) of His\nessence. I will treat fully of these matters when I give my promised\naccount of the two reprobated sects (of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds). The sects to which I am\nnow referring claim to be Moslems, but they agree with the Brahmans in\ndenying special privileges to the prophets; and whoever believes in this\ndoctrine becomes an infidel. Moreover, the prophets are propagandists\nand Im\u00e1ms, and the saints are their followers, and it is absurd to\nsuppose that the follower of an Im\u00e1m is superior to the Im\u00e1m himself. In\nshort, the lives, experiences, and spiritual powers of all the saints\ntogether appear as nothing compared with one act of a true prophet,\nbecause the saints are seekers and pilgrims, whereas the prophets have\narrived and have found and have returned with the command to preach and\nto convert the people. If any one of the above-mentioned heretics should\nurge that an ambassador sent by a king is usually inferior to the person\nto whom he is sent, as e.g. Gabriel is inferior to the Apostles, and\nthat this is against my argument, I reply that an ambassador sent to a\nsingle person should be inferior to him, but when an ambassador is sent\nto a large number of persons or to a people, he is superior to them, as\nthe Apostles are superior to the nations. Therefore one moment of the\nprophets is better than the whole life of the saints, because when the\nsaints reach their goal they tell of contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_) and\nobtain release from the veil of humanity (_bashariyyat_), although they\nare essentially men. On the other hand, contemplation is the first step\nof the apostle; and since the apostle\u2019s starting-place is the saint\u2019s\ngoal, they cannot be judged by the same standard. Do not you perceive\nthat, according to the unanimous opinion of all the saints who seek God,\nthe station of union (_jam`_) belongs to the perfection of saintship?\nNow, in this station, a man attains such a degree of rapturous love that\nhis intelligence is enraptured in gazing upon the act of God (_fi`l_),\nand in his longing for the Divine Agent (_f\u00e1`il_) he regards the whole\nuniverse as that and sees nothing but that. Thus Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed says:\n\u201cWere the vision of that which we serve to vanish from us, we should\nlose the name of servantship (_`ub\u00fadiyyat_)\u201d for we derive the glory of\nworship (_`ib\u00e1dat_) solely from vision of Him. This is the beginning of\nthe state of the prophets, inasmuch as separation (_tafriqa_) is\ninconceivable in relation to them. They are entirely in the essence of\nunion, whether they affirm or deny, whether they approach or turn away,\nwhether they are at the beginning or at the end. Abraham, in the\nbeginning of his state, looked on the sun and said: \u201c_This is my Lord_,\u201d\nand he looked on the moon and stars and said: \u201c_This is my Lord_\u201d (Kor.\nvi, 76-8), because his heart was overwhelmed by the Truth and he was\nunited in the essence of union. Therefore he saw naught else, or if he\nsaw aught else he did not see it with the eye of \u201cotherness\u201d (_ghayr_),\nbut with the eye of union (_jam`_), and in the reality of that vision he\ndisavowed his own and said: \u201c_I love not those that set_\u201d (Kor. vi, 76).\nAs he began with union, so he ended with union. Saintship has a\nbeginning and an end, but prophecy has not. The prophets were prophets\nfrom the first, and shall be to the last, and before they existed they\nwere prophets in the knowledge and will of God. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd was asked\nabout the state of the prophets. He replied: \u201cFar be it from me to say!\nWe have no power to judge of them, and in our notions of them we are\nwholly ourselves. God has placed their denial and affirmation in such an\nexalted degree that human vision cannot reach unto it.\u201d Accordingly, as\nthe rank of the saints is hidden from the perception of mankind, so the\nrank of the prophets is hidden from the judgment of the saints. Ab\u00fa\nYaz\u00edd was the proof (_\u1e25ujjat_) of his age, and he says: \u201cI saw that my\nspirit (_sirr_) was borne to the heavens. It looked at nothing and gave\nno heed, though Paradise and Hell were displayed to it, for it was freed\nfrom phenomena and veils. Then I became a bird, whose body was of\nOneness and whose wings were of Everlastingness, and I continued to fly\nin the air of the Absolute (_huwiyyat_), until I passed into the sphere\nof Purification (_tanz\u00edh_), and gazed upon the field of Eternity\n(_azaliyyat_) and beheld there the tree of Oneness. When I looked I\nmyself was all those. I cried: \u2018O Lord, with my egoism (_man\u00ed-yi man_) I\ncannot attain to Thee, and I cannot escape from my selfhood. What am I\nto do?\u2019 God spake: \u2018O Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, thou must win release from thy\n\u201cthou-ness\u201d by following My beloved i.e. (Mu\u1e25ammad). Smear thine eyes\nwith the dust of his feet and follow him continually.\u2018\u201d This is a long\nnarrative. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds call it the Ascension (_mi`r\u00e1j_) of B\u00e1yaz\u00edd;[127]\nand the term \u201cascension\u201d denotes proximity to God (_qurb_). The\nascension of prophets takes place outwardly and in the body, whereas\nthat of saints takes place inwardly and in the spirit. The body of an\napostle resembles the heart and spirit of a saint in purity and nearness\nto God. This is a manifest superiority. When a saint is enraptured and\nintoxicated he is withdrawn from himself by means of a spiritual ladder\nand brought near to God; and as soon as he returns to the state of\nsobriety all those evidences have taken shape in his mind and he has\ngained knowledge of them. Accordingly, there is a great difference\nbetween one who is carried thither in person and one who is carried\nthither only in thought (_fikrat_), for thought involves duality.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  A full account of B\u00e1yaz\u00edd\u2019s ascension is given in the _Tadhkirat\n  al-Awliy\u00e1_, i, 172 ff.\n\n_Discourse on the Superiority of the Prophets and Saints to the Angels._\n\nThe whole community of orthodox Moslems and all the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs agree\nthat the prophets and such of the saints as are guarded from sin\n(_ma\u1e25f\u00fa\u1e95_) are superior to the angels. The opposite view is held by the\nMu`tazilites, who declare that the angels are superior to the prophets,\nbeing of more exalted rank, of more subtle constitution, and more\nobedient to God. I reply that this is not as you imagine, for an\nobedient body, an exalted rank, and a subtle constitution cannot be\ncauses of superiority, which belongs only to those on whom God has\nbestowed it. Ibl\u00eds had all the qualities that you mention, yet he is\nuniversally acknowledged to have become accursed. The superiority of the\nprophets is indicated by the fact that God commanded the angels to\nworship Adam; for the state of one who is worshipped is higher than the\nstate of the worshipper. If they argue that, just as a true believer is\nsuperior to the Ka`ba, an inanimate mass of stone, although he bows down\nbefore it, so the angels may be superior to Adam, although they bowed\ndown before him, I reply: \u201cNo one says that a believer bows down to a\nhouse or an altar or a wall, but all say that he bows down to God, and\nit is admitted by all that the angels bowed down to Adam (Kor. ii, 32).\nHow, then, can the Ka`ba be compared to Adam? A traveller may worship\nGod on the back of the animal which he is riding, and he is excused if\nhis face be not turned towards the Ka`ba; and, in like manner, one who\nhas lost his bearings in a desert, so that he cannot tell the direction\nof the Ka`ba, will have done his duty in whatever direction he may turn\nto pray. The angels offered no excuse when they bowed down to Adam, and\nthe one who made an excuse for himself became accursed.\u201d These are clear\nproofs to any person of insight.\n\nAgain, the angels are equal to the prophets in knowledge of God, but not\nin rank. The angels are without lust, covetousness, and evil; their\nnature is devoid of hypocrisy and guile, and they are instinctively\nobedient to God; whereas lust is an impediment in human nature; and men\nhave a propensity to commit sins and to be impressed by the vanities of\nthis world; and Satan has so much power over their bodies that he\ncirculates with the blood in their veins; and closely attached to them\nis the lower soul (_nafs_), which incites them to all manner of\nwickedness. Therefore, one whose nature has all these characteristics\nand who, in spite of the violence of his lust, refrains from immorality,\nand notwithstanding his covetousness renounces this world, and, though\nhis heart is still tempted by the Devil, turns back from sin and averts\nhis face from sensual depravity in order to occupy himself with devotion\nand persevere in piety and mortify his lower soul and contend against\nthe Devil, such a one is in reality superior to the angel who is not the\nbattle-field of lust, and is naturally without desire of food and\npleasures, and has no care for wife and child and kinsfolk, and need not\nhave recourse to means and instruments, and is not absorbed in corrupt\nambitions. A Gabriel, who worships God so many thousands of years in the\nhope of gaining a robe of honour, and the honour bestowed on him was\nthat of acting as Mu\u1e25ammad\u2019s groom on the night of the Ascension\u2014how\nshould he be superior to one who disciplines and mortifies his lower\nsoul by day and night in this world, until God looks on him with favour\nand grants to him the grace of seeing Himself and delivers him from all\ndistracting thoughts? When the pride of the angels passed all bounds,\nand every one of them vaunted the purity of his conduct and spoke with\nan unbridled tongue in blame of mankind, God resolved that He would show\nto them their real state. He therefore bade them choose three of the\nchief among them, in whom they had confidence, to go to the earth and be\nits governors and reform its people. So three angels were chosen, but\nbefore they came to the earth one of them perceived its corruption and\nbegged God to let him return. When the other two arrived on the earth\nGod changed their nature so that they felt a desire for food and drink\nand were inclined to lust, and God punished them on that account, and\nthe angels were forced to recognize the superiority of mankind to\nthemselves.[128] In short, the elect among the true believers are\nsuperior to the elect among the angels, and the ordinary believers are\nsuperior to the ordinary angels. Accordingly those men who are preserved\n(_ma`\u1e63\u00fam_) and protected (_ma\u1e25f\u00fa\u1e95_) from sin are more excellent than\nGabriel and Michael, and those who are not thus preserved are better\nthan the Recording Angels (_\u1e25afa\u1e95a_) and the noble Scribes (_kir\u00e1m-i\nk\u00e1tib\u00edn_).\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  See Kor. ii, 96 ff.\n\nSomething has been said on this subject by every one of the Shaykhs. God\nawards superiority to whom He pleases, over whom He pleases. You must\nknow that saintship is a Divine mystery which is revealed only through\nconduct (_rawish_). A saint is known only to a saint. If this matter\ncould be made plain to all reasonable men it would be impossible to\ndistinguish the friend from the foe or the spiritual adept from the\ncareless worldling. Therefore God so willed that the pearl of His love\nshould be set in the shell of popular contempt and be cast into the sea\nof affliction, in order that those who seek it may hazard their lives on\naccount of its preciousness and dive to the bottom of this ocean of\ndeath, where they will either win their desire or bring their mortal\nstate to an end.\n\n\n                            8.THE KHARR\u00c1Z\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z, who wrote brilliant works\non \u1e62\u00fafiism and attained a high degree in detachment from the world. He\nwas the first to explain the state of annihilation and subsistence\n(_fan\u00e1 \u00fa baq\u00e1_), and he comprehended his whole doctrine in these two\nterms. Now I will declare their meaning and show the errors into which\nsome have fallen in this respect, in order that you may know what his\ndoctrine is and what the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds intend when they employ these current\nexpressions.\n\n      _Discourse on Subsistence_ (baq\u00e1) _and Annihilation_ (fan\u00e1).\n\nYou must know that annihilation and subsistence have one meaning in\nscience and another meaning in mysticism, and that formalists\n(_\u1e95\u00e1hiriy\u00e1n_) are more puzzled by these words than by any other\ntechnical terms of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. Subsistence in its scientific and\netymological acceptation is of three kinds: (1) a subsistence that\nbegins and ends in annihilation, e.g. this world, which had a beginning\nand will have an end, and is now subsistent; (2) a subsistence that came\ninto being and will never be annihilated, viz. Paradise and Hell and the\nnext world and its inhabitants; (3) a subsistence that always was and\nalways will be, viz. the subsistence of God and His eternal attributes.\nAccordingly, knowledge of annihilation lies in your knowing that this\nworld is perishable, and knowledge of subsistence lies in your knowledge\nthat the next world is everlasting.\n\nBut the subsistence and annihilation of a state (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) denotes, for\nexample, that when ignorance is annihilated knowledge is necessarily\nsubsistent, and that when sin is annihilated piety is subsistent, and\nthat when a man acquires knowledge of his piety his forgetfulness\n(_ghaflat_) is annihilated by remembrance of God (_dhikr_), i.e., when\nanyone gains knowledge of God and becomes subsistent in knowledge of Him\nhe is annihilated from (entirely loses) ignorance of Him, and when he is\nannihilated from forgetfulness he becomes subsistent in remembrance of\nHim, and this involves the discarding of blameworthy attributes and the\nsubstitution of praiseworthy attributes. A different signification,\nhowever, is attached to the terms in question by the elect among the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. They do not refer these expressions to \u201cknowledge\u201d (_`ilm_) or to\n\u201cstate\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1l_), but apply them solely to the degree of perfection\nattained by the saints who have become free from the pains of\nmortification and have escaped from the prison of \u201cstations\u201d and the\nvicissitude of \u201cstates\u201d, and whose search has ended in discovery, so\nthat they have seen all things visible, and have heard all things\naudible, and have discovered all the secrets of the heart; and who,\nrecognizing the imperfection of their own discovery, have turned away\nfrom all things and have purposely become annihilated in the object of\ndesire, and in the very essence of desire have lost all desires of their\nown, for when a man becomes annihilated from his attributes he attains\nto perfect subsistence, he is neither near nor far, neither stranger nor\nintimate, neither sober nor intoxicated, neither separated nor united;\nhe has no name, or sign, or brand, or mark.\n\nIn short, real annihilation from anything involves consciousness of its\nimperfection and absence of desire for it, not merely that a man should\nsay, when he likes a thing, \u201cI am subsistent therein,\u201d or when he\ndislikes it, that he should say, \u201cI am annihilated therefrom\u201d; for these\nqualities are characteristic of one who is still seeking. In\nannihilation there is no love or hate, and in subsistence there is no\nconsciousness of union or separation. Some wrongly imagine that\nannihilation signifies loss of essence and destruction of personality,\nand that subsistence indicates the subsistence of God in Man; both these\nnotions are absurd. In India I had a dispute on this subject with a man\nwho claimed to be versed in Koranic exegesis and theology. When I\nexamined his pretensions I found that he knew nothing of annihilation\nand subsistence, and that he could not distinguish the eternal from the\nphenomenal. Many ignorant \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds consider that total annihilation\n(_fan\u00e1-yi kulliyyat_) is possible, but this is a manifest error, for\nannihilation of the different parts of a material substance (_\u1e6d\u00ednat\u00ed_)\ncan never take place. I ask these ignorant and mistaken men: \u201cWhat do\nyou mean by this kind of annihilation?\u201d If they answer, \u201cAnnihilation of\nsubstance\u201d (_fan\u00e1-yi `ayn_), that is impossible; and if they answer,\n\u201cAnnihilation of attributes,\u201d that is only possible in so far as one\nattribute may be annihilated through the subsistence of another\nattribute, both attributes belonging to Man; but it is absurd to suppose\nthat anyone can subsist through the attributes of another individual.\nThe Nestorians of R\u00fam and the Christians hold that Mary annihilated by\nself-mortification all the attributes of humanity (_aw\u1e63\u00e1f-i n\u00e1s\u00fat\u00ed_) and\nthat the Divine subsistence became attached to her, so that she was made\nsubsistent through the subsistence of God, and that Jesus was the result\nthereof, and that he was not originally composed of the stuff of\nhumanity, because his subsistence is produced by realization of the\nsubsistence of God; and that, in consequence of this, he and his mother\nand God are all subsistent through one subsistence, which is eternal and\nan attribute of God. All this agrees with the doctrine of the\nanthropomorphistic sects of the \u1e24ashwiyya, who maintain that the Divine\nessence is a _locus_ of phenomena (_ma\u1e25all-i \u1e25aw\u00e1dith_) and that the\nEternal may have phenomenal attributes. I ask all who proclaim such\ntenets: \u201cWhat difference is there between the view that the Eternal is\nthe _locus_ of the phenomenal and the view that the phenomenal is the\n_locus_ of the Eternal, or between the assertion that the Eternal has\nphenomenal attributes and the assertion that the phenomenal has eternal\nattributes?\u201d Such doctrines involve materialism (_dahr_) and destroy the\nproof of the phenomenal nature of the universe, and compel us to say\nthat both the Creator and His creation are eternal or that both are\nphenomenal, or that what is created may be commingled with what is\nuncreated, and that what is uncreated may descend into what is created.\nIf, as they cannot help admitting, the creation is phenomenal, then\ntheir Creator also must be phenomenal, because the _locus_ of a thing is\nlike its substance; if the _locus_ (_ma\u1e25all_) is phenomenal, it follows\nthat the contents of the _locus_ (_\u1e25\u00e1ll_) are phenomenal too. In fine,\nwhen one thing is linked and united and commingled with another, both\nthings are in principle as one.\n\nAccordingly, our subsistence and annihilation are attributes of\nourselves, and resemble each other in respect of their being our\nattributes. Annihilation is the annihilation of one attribute through\nthe subsistence of another attribute. One may speak, however, of an\nannihilation that is independent of subsistence, and also of a\nsubsistence that is independent of annihilation: in that case\nannihilation means \u201cannihilation of all remembrance of other\u201d, and\nsubsistence means \u201csubsistence of the remembrance of God\u201d (_baq\u00e1-yi\ndhikr-i \u1e25aqq_). Whoever is annihilated from his own will subsists in the\nwill of God, because thy will is perishable and the will of God is\neverlasting: when thou standest by thine own will thou standest by\nannihilation, but when thou art absolutely controlled by the will of God\nthou standest by subsistence. Similarly, the power of fire transmutes to\nits own quality anything that falls into it, and surely the power of\nGod\u2019s will is greater than that of fire; but fire affects only the\nquality of iron without changing its substance, for iron can never\nbecome fire.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nAll the Shaykhs have given subtle indications on this subject. Ab\u00fa Sa\u2019\u00edd\nKharr\u00e1z, the author of the doctrine, says: \u201cAnnihilation is annihilation\nof consciousness of manhood (_`ub\u00fadiyyat_), and subsistence is\nsubsistence in the contemplation of Godhead (_il\u00e1hiyyat_),\u201d i.e., it is\nan imperfection to be conscious in one\u2019s actions that one is a man, and\none attains to real manhood (_bandag\u00ed_) when one is not conscious of\nthem, but is annihilated so as not to see them, and becomes subsistent\nthrough beholding the action of God. Hence all one\u2019s actions are\nreferred to God, not to one\u2019s self, and whereas a man\u2019s actions that are\nconnected with himself are imperfect, those which are attached to him by\nGod are perfect. Therefore, when anyone becomes annihilated from things\nthat depend on himself, he becomes subsistent through the beauty of\nGodhead. Ab\u00fa Ya`q\u00fab Nahraj\u00far\u00ed says: \u201cA man\u2019s true servantship\n(_`ub\u00fadiyyat_) lies in annihilation and subsistence,\u201d because no one is\ncapable of serving God with sincerity until he renounces all\nself-interest: therefore to renounce humanity (_\u00e1damiyyat_) is\nannihilation, and to be sincere in servantship is subsistence. And\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Shayb\u00e1n says: \u201cThe science of annihilation and subsistence\nturns on sincerity (_ikhl\u00e1\u1e63_) and unity (_w\u00e1\u1e25id\u2014iyyat_) and true\nservantship; all else is error and heresy,\u201d i.e., when anyone\nacknowledges the unity of God he feels himself overpowered by the\nomnipotence of God, and one who is overpowered (_maghl\u00fab_) is\nannihilated in the might of his vanquisher; and when his annihilation is\nrightly fulfilled on him, he confesses his weakness and sees no resource\nexcept to serve God, and tries to gain His satisfaction (_ri\u1e0d\u00e1_). And\nwhoever explains these terms otherwise, i.e. annihilation as meaning\n\u201cannihilation of substance\u201d and subsistence as meaning \u201csubsistence of\nGod (in Man)\u201d, is a heretic and a Christian, as has been stated above.\n\nNow I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, declare that all these sayings are\nnear to each other in meaning, although they differ in expression; and\ntheir real gist is this, that annihilation comes to a man through vision\nof the majesty of God and through the revelation of Divine omnipotence\nto his heart, so that in the overwhelming sense of His majesty this\nworld and the next world are obliterated from his mind, and \u201cstates\u201d and\n\u201cstations\u201d appear contemptible in the sight of his aspiring thought, and\nwhat is shown to him of miraculous grace vanishes into nothing: he\nbecomes dead to reason and passion alike, dead even to annihilation\nitself; and in that annihilation of annihilation his tongue proclaims\nGod, and his mind and body are humble and abased, as in the beginning\nwhen Adam\u2019s posterity were drawn forth from his loins without admixture\nof evil and took the pledge of servantship to God (Kor. vii, 171).\n\nSuch are the principles of annihilation and subsistence. I have\ndiscussed a portion of the subject in the chapter on Poverty and\n\u1e62\u00fafiism, and wherever these terms occur in the present work they bear\nthe meaning which I have explained.\n\n\n                            9.THE KHAF\u00cdF\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf of Sh\u00edr\u00e1z, an\neminent mystic in his time and the author of celebrated treatises on\nvarious branches of \u1e62\u00fafiism. He was a man of great spiritual influence,\nand was not led by his lusts. I have heard that he contracted four\nhundred marriages. This was due to the fact that he was of royal\ndescent, and that after his conversion the people of Sh\u00edr\u00e1z paid great\ncourt to him, and the daughters of kings and nobles desired to marry him\nfor the sake of the blessing which would accrue to them. He used to\ncomply with their wishes, and then divorce them before consummation of\nthe marriage. But in the course of his life forty wives, who were\nstrangers to him (_b\u00e9g\u00e1na_), two or three at a time, used to serve him\nas bed-makers (_kh\u00e1dim\u00e1n-i fir\u00e1sh_), and one of them\u2014she was the\ndaughter of a vizier\u2014lived with him for forty years. I have heard from\nAbu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. Bakr\u00e1n of Sh\u00edr\u00e1z that one day several of his wives\nwere gathered together, and each one was telling some story about him.\nThey all agreed _sese nunquam eum vidisse libidini obsequentem_.\nHitherto each of them had believed that she was peculiarly treated in\nthis respect, and when they learned that the Shaykh\u2019s behaviour was the\nsame towards them all, they were astonished and doubted whether such was\ntruly the case. Accordingly, they sent two of their number to question\nthe vizier\u2019s daughter, who was his favourite, as to his dealings with\nher. She replied: \u201cWhen the Shaykh wedded me and I was informed that he\nwould visit me that night, I prepared a fine repast and adorned myself\nassiduously. As soon as he came and the food was brought in, he called\nme to him and looked for a while first at me and then at the food. Then\nhe took my hand and drew it into his sleeve. From his breast to his\nnavel there were fifteen knots (_`aqd_) growing out of his belly. He\nsaid, \u2018Ask me what these are\u2019; so I asked him and he replied, \u2018They are\nknots made by the tribulation and anguish of my abstinence in renouncing\na face like this and viands like these.\u2019 He said no more, but departed;\nand that is all my intimacy with him.\u201d\n\nThe form of his doctrine in \u1e62\u00fafiism is \u201cabsence\u201d (_ghaybat_) and\n\u201cpresence\u201d (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_). I will explain it as far as possible.\n\n        _Discourse on Absence_ (ghaybat) _and Presence_ (\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far).\n\nThese terms, although apparently opposed to each other, express the same\nmeaning from different points of view. \u201cPresence\u201d is \u201cpresence of the\nheart\u201d, as a proof of intuitive faith (_yaq\u00edn_), so that what is hidden\nfrom it has the same force as what is visible to it. \u201cAbsence\u201d is\n\u201cabsence of the heart from all things except God\u201d to such an extent that\nit becomes absent from itself and absent even from its absence, so that\nit no longer regards itself; and the sign of this state is withdrawal\nfrom all formal authority (_\u1e25ukm-i rus\u00fam_), as when a prophet is\ndivinely preserved from what is unlawful. Accordingly, absence from\none\u2019s self is presence with God, and _vice vers\u00e2_. God is the lord of\nthe human heart: when a divine rapture (_jadhbat_) overpowers the heart\nof the seeker, the absence of his heart becomes equivalent to its\npresence (with God); partnership (_shirkat_) and division (_qismat_)\ndisappear, and relationship to \u201cself\u201d comes to an end, as one of the\nShaykhs has said in verse\u2014\n\n          \u201c_Thou art the Lord of my heart,\n          Without any partner: how, then, can it be divided?_\u201d\n\nInasmuch as God is sole lord of the heart, He has absolute power to keep\nit absent or present as He will, and, in regard to the essence of the\ncase, this is the whole argument for the doctrine of His favourites; but\nwhen a distinction is made, the Shaykhs hold various opinions on the\nsubject, some preferring \u201cpresence\u201d to \u201cabsence\u201d, while others declare\nthat \u201cabsence\u201d is superior to \u201cpresence\u201d. There is the same controversy\nas that concerning sobriety and intoxication, which I have explained\nabove; but these terms indicate that the human attributes are still\nsubsistent, whereas \u201cabsence\u201d and \u201cpresence\u201d indicate that the human\nattributes are annihilated: therefore the latter terms are in reality\nmore sublime. \u201cAbsence\u201d is preferred to \u201cpresence\u201d by Ibn `A\u1e6d\u00e1, \u1e24usayn\nb. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j), Ab\u00fa Bakr Shibl\u00ed, Bund\u00e1r b. al-\u1e24usayn, Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza\nof Baghd\u00e1d, Sumn\u00fan Mu\u1e25ibb, and a number of the Shaykhs of `Ir\u00e1q. They\nsay: \u201cThou thyself art the greatest of all veils between thee and God:\nwhen thou hast become absent from thyself, the evils implicit in thy\nbeing are annihilated in thee, and thy state undergoes a fundamental\nchange: the \u2018stations\u2019 of novices become a veil to thee, and the\n\u2018states\u2019 of those who seek God become a source of mischief to thee;\nthine eye is closed to thyself and to all that is other than God, and\nthy human attributes are consumed by the flame of proximity to God\n(_qurbat_). This is the same state of \u2018absence\u2019 in which God drew thee\nforth from the loins of Adam, and caused thee to hear His exalted word,\nand distinguished thee by the honorary robe of Unification and the\ngarment of contemplation; so long as thou wert absent from thyself, thou\nwert present with God face to face, but when thou becamest present with\nthine own attributes, thou becamest absent from thy proximity to God.\nTherefore thy \u2018presence\u2019 is thy perdition. This is the meaning of God\u2019s\nword, \u2018_And now are ye come unto us alone, as We created you at first_\u2019\u201d\n(Kor. vi, 94). On the other hand, \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, Junayd, Sahl b.\n`Abdall\u00e1h, Ab\u00fa Ja`far \u1e24add\u00e1d,[129] \u1e24amd\u00fan Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r, Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Jurayr\u00ed,\n\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed, Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf, who is the author of the doctrine, and others\nhold that \u201cpresence\u201d is superior to \u201cabsence\u201d. They argue that inasmuch\nas all excellences are bound up with \u201cpresence\u201d, and as \u201cabsence\u201d from\none\u2019s self is a way leading to \u201cpresence\u201d with God, the way becomes an\nimperfection after you have arrived at the goal. \u201cPresence\u201d is the fruit\nof \u201cabsence\u201d, but what light is to be found in \u201cabsence\u201d without\n\u201cpresence\u201d? A man must needs renounce heedlessness in order that, by\nmeans of this \u201cabsence\u201d, he may attain to \u201cpresence\u201d; and when he has\nattained his object, the means by which he attained it has no longer any\nworth.\n\n      \u201c_The \u2018absent\u2019 one is not he who is absent from his country,\n      But he who is absent from all desire.\n      The \u2018present\u2019 one is not he who hath no desire,\n      But he who hath no heart (no thought of worldly things),\n      So that his desire is ever fixed on God._\u201d\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 201.\n\nIt is a well-known story that one of the disciples of Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan set out\nto visit Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd. When he came to Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd\u2019s cell and knocked at the\ndoor Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cWho art thou, and whom dost thou wish to see?\u201d He\nanswered: \u201cAb\u00fa Yaz\u00edd.\u201d Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cWho is Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd, and where is\nhe, and what thing is he? I have been seeking Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd for a long\nwhile, but I have not found him.\u201d When the disciple returned to Dhu\n\u00b4l-N\u00fan and told him what had passed, Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan said: \u201cMy brother Ab\u00fa\nYaz\u00edd is lost with those who are lost in God.\u201d A certain man came to\nJunayd and said: \u201cBe present with me for a moment that I may speak to\nthee.\u201d Junayd answered: \u201cO young man, you demand of me something that I\nhave long been seeking. For many years I have been wishing to become\npresent with myself a moment, but I cannot; how, then, can I become\npresent with you just now?\u201d Therefore, \u201cabsence\u201d involves the sorrow of\nbeing veiled, while \u201cpresence\u201d involves the joy of revelation, and the\nformer state can never be equal to the latter. Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd says on\nthis subject\u2014\n\n            _Taqashsha`a ghaymu \u00b4l-hajri `an qamari \u00b4l-\u1e25ubbi\n            Wa-asfara n\u00faru \u00b4l-\u1e63ub\u1e25i `an \u1e95ulmati \u00b4l-ghaybi._\n\n \u201cThe clouds of separation have been cleared away from the moon of love,\n And the light of morning has shone forth from the darkness of the\n    Unseen.\u201d\n\nThe distinction made by the Shaykhs between these two terms is mystical,\nand on the surface merely verbal, for they seem to be approximately the\nsame. To be present with God is to be absent from one\u2019s self\u2014what is the\ndifference?\u2014and one who is not absent from himself is not present with\nGod. Thus, forasmuch as the impatience of Job in his affliction did not\nproceed from himself, but on the contrary he was then absent from\nhimself, God did not distinguish his impatience from patience, and when\nhe cried, \u201c_Evil hath befallen me_\u201d (Kor. xxi, 83), God said, \u201c_Verily,\nhe was patient_.\u201d This is evidently a judgment founded on the essential\nnature of the case (_\u1e25ukm ba-`ayn_). It is related that Junayd said:\n\u201cFor a time I was such that the inhabitants of heaven and earth wept\nover my bewilderment (_\u1e25ayrat_); then, again, I became such that I wept\nover their absence (_ghaybat_); and now my state is such that I have no\nknowledge either of them or of myself.\u201d This is an excellent indication\nof \u201cpresence\u201d.\n\nI have briefly explained the meaning of \u201cpresence\u201d and \u201cabsence\u201d in\norder that you may be acquainted with the doctrine of the Khaf\u00edf\u00eds, and\nmay also know in what sense these terms are used by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds.\n\n\n                             10. SAYY\u00c1R\u00cdS.\n\nThey are the followers of Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Sayy\u00e1r\u00ed, the Im\u00e1m of Merv. He\nwas learned in all the sciences and associated with Ab\u00fa Bakr W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed. At\nthe present day he has numerous followers in Nas\u00e1 and Merv. His school\nof \u1e62\u00fafiism is the only one that has kept its original doctrine\nunchanged, and the cause of this fact is that Nas\u00e1 and Merv have never\nbeen without some person who acknowledged his authority and took care\nthat his followers should maintain the doctrine of their founder. The\nSayy\u00e1r\u00eds of Nas\u00e1 carried on a discussion with those of Merv by means of\nletters, and I have seen part of this correspondence at Merv; it is very\nfine. Their expositions are based on \u201cunion\u201d (_jam`_) and \u201cseparation\u201d\n(_tafriqa_). These words are common to all scientists and are employed\nby specialists in every branch of learning as a means of rendering their\nexplanations intelligible, but they bear different meanings in each\ncase. Thus, in arithmetic _jam`_ denotes the addition and _tafriqa_ the\nsubtraction of numbers; in grammar _jam`_ is the agreement of words in\nderivation, while _tafriqa_ is the difference in meaning; in law _jam`_\nis analogy (_qiy\u00e1s_) and _tafriqa_ the characteristics of an\nauthoritative text (_\u1e63if\u00e1t-i nu\u1e63\u1e63_), or _jam`_ is the text and _tafriqa_\nthe analogy; in divinity _jam`_ denotes the essential and _tafriqa_ the\nformal attributes of God.[130] But the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds do not use these terms in\nany of the significations which I have mentioned. Now, therefore, I will\nexplain the meaning attached to them by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and the various\nopinions of the Shaykhs on this subject.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  For the distinction between _\u1e63if\u00e1t-i dh\u00e1t_ and _\u1e63if\u00e1t-i fi`l_ see\n  Dozy, _Suppl\u00e9ment_, ii, 810.\n\n        _Discourse on Union_ (jam`) _and Separation_ (tafriqa).\n\nGod united all mankind in His call, as He says, \u201c_And God calls to the\nabode of peace_\u201d; then He separated them in respect of Divine guidance,\nand said, \u201c_and guides whom He willeth into the right way_\u201d (Kor. x,\n26). He called them all, and banished some in accordance with the\nmanifestation of His will; He united them all and gave a command, and\nthen separated them, rejecting some and leaving them without succour,\nbut accepting others and granting to them Divine aid; then once more he\nunited a certain number and separated them, giving to some immunity from\nsin and to others a propensity towards evil. Accordingly the real\nmystery of union is the knowledge and will of God, while separation is\nthe manifestation of that which He commands and forbids: e.g., He\ncommanded Abraham to behead Ishmael, but willed that he should not do\nso; and He commanded Ibl\u00eds to worship Adam, but willed the contrary; and\nHe commanded Adam not to eat the corn, but willed that he should eat it;\nand so forth. Union is that which He unites by His attributes, and\nseparation is that which He separates by His acts. All this involves\ncessation of human volition and affirmation of the Divine will so as to\nexclude all personal initiative. As regards what has been said on the\nsubject of union and separation, all the Sunn\u00eds, except the\nMu`tazilites, are in agreement with the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, but at this point\nthey begin to diverge, some applying the terms in question to the Divine\nUnity (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), some to the Divine attributes, and some to the Divine\nacts. Those who refer to the Divine Unity say that there are two degrees\nof union, one in the attributes of God and the other in the attributes\nof Man. The former is the mystery of Unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), in which\nhuman actions have no part whatever; the latter denotes acknowledgment\nof the Divine Unity with sincere conviction and unfailing resolution.\nThis is the opinion of Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed. Those, again, who refer these\nterms to the Divine attributes say that union is an attribute of God,\nand separation an act of God in which Man does not co-operate, because\nGod has no rival in Godhead. Therefore union can be referred only to His\nsubstance and attributes, for union is equality in the fundamental\nmatter (_al-taswiyat fi \u00b4l-a\u1e63l_), and no two things are equal in respect\nof eternity except His substance and His attributes, which, when they\nare separated by expository analysis (_`ib\u00e1rat \u00fa taf\u1e63\u00edl_), are not\nunited. This means that God has eternal attributes, which are peculiar\nto Him and subsist through Him; and that He and His attributes are not\ntwo, for His Unity does not admit difference and number. On this ground,\nunion is impossible except in the sense indicated above.\n\nSeparation in predicament (_al-tafriqat fi \u00b4l-\u1e25ukm_) refers to the\nactions of God, all of which are separate in this respect. The\npredicament of one is being (_wuj\u00fad_); of another, not-being\n(_`adam_), but a not-being that is capable of being; of another,\nannihilation (_fan\u00e1_), and of another subsistence (_baq\u00e1_). There are\nsome, again, who refer these terms to knowledge (_`ilm_) and say that\nunion is knowledge of the Divine Unity and separation knowledge of the\nDivine ordinances: hence theology is union and jurisprudence is\nseparation. One of the Shaykhs has said, to the same effect: \u201cUnion is\nthat on which theologians (_ahl al-`ilm_) are agreed, and separation\nis that on which they differ.\u201d Again, all the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed mystics, whenever\nthey use the term \u201cseparation\u201d in the course of their expositions and\nindications, attach to it the meaning of \u201chuman actions\u201d (_mak\u00e1sib_),\ne.g. self-mortification, and by \u201cunion\u201d they signify \u201cdivine gifts\u201d\n(_maw\u00e1hib_), e.g. contemplation. Whatever is gained by means of\nmortification is \u201cseparation\u201d, and whatever is solely the result of\nDivine favour and guidance is \u201cunion\u201d. It is Man\u2019s glory that, while\nhis actions exist and mortification is possible, he should escape by\nGod\u2019s goodness from the imperfection of his own actions, and should\nfind them to be absorbed in the bounties of God, so that he depends\nentirely on God and commits all his attributes to His charge and\nrefers all his actions to Him and none to himself, as Gabriel told the\nApostle that God said: \u201cMy servant continually seeks access to Me by\nmeans of works of supererogation until I love him; and when I love\nhim, I am his ear and his eye and his hand and his heart and his\ntongue: through Me he hears and sees and speaks and grasps,\u201d i.e., in\nremembering Me he is enraptured by the remembrance (_dhikr_) of Me,\nand his own \u201cacquisition\u201d (_kasb_) is annihilated so as to have no\npart in his remembrance, and My remembrance overpowers his\nremembrance, and the relationship of humanity (_\u00e1damiyyat_) is\nentirely removed from his remembrance: then My remembrance is his\nremembrance, and in his rapture he becomes even as Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd in the\nhour when he said: \u201cGlory to me! how great is my majesty!\u201d These words\nwere the outward sign of his speech, but the speaker was God.\nSimilarly, the Apostle said: \u201cGod speaks by the tongue of `Umar.\u201d The\nfact is that when the Divine omnipotence manifests its dominion over\nhumanity, it transports a man out of his own being, so that his speech\nbecomes the speech of God. But it is impossible that God should be\nmingled (_imtiz\u00e1j_) with created beings or made one (_itti\u1e25\u00e1d_) with\nHis works or become incarnate (_\u1e25\u00e1ll_) in things: God is exalted far\nabove that, and far above that which the heretics ascribe to Him.\n\nIt may happen, then, that God\u2019s love holds absolute sway over the heart\nof His servant, and that his reason and natural faculties are too weak\nto sustain its rapture and intensity, and that he loses all control of\nhis power to act (_kasb_). This state is called \u201cunion\u201d.[131] Herewith\nare connected all extraordinary miracles (_i`j\u00e1z_) and acts of\nmiraculous grace (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_). All ordinary actions are \u201cseparation\u201d, and\nall acts which violate custom are \u201cunion\u201d. God bestows these miracles on\nHis prophets and saints, and refers His actions to them and theirs to\nHimself, as He hath said: \u201c_Verily, they who swear fealty unto thee,\nswear fealty unto God_\u201d (Kor. xlviii, 10), and again: \u201c_Whosoever obeys\nthe Apostle has obeyed God_\u201d (Kor. iv, 82). Accordingly, His saints are\nunited (_mujtami`_) by their inward feelings (_asr\u00e1r_) and separated\n(_muftariq_) by their outward behaviour, so that their love of God is\nstrengthened by the internal union, and the right fulfilment of their\nduty as servants of God is assured by their external separation. A\ncertain great Shaykh says\u2014\n\n \u201c_I have realized that which is within me, and my tongue hath conversed\n    with Thee in secret,\n And we are united in one respect, but we are separated in another.\n Although awe has hidden Thee from the glances of mine eye,\n Ecstasy has made Thee near to my inmost parts._\u201d[132]\n\nThe state of being inwardly united he calls \u201cunion\u201d, and the secret\nconversation of the tongue he calls \u201cseparation\u201d; then he indicates that\nboth union and separation are in himself, and attributes the basis\n(_q\u00e1`ida_) of them to himself. This is very subtle.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Here the author illustrates the meaning of \u201cunion\u201d and \u201cseparation\u201d by\n  the action of Mu\u1e25ammad when he threw gravel in the eyes of the\n  unbelievers at Badr, and by that of David when he slew Goliath. See p.\n  185 _supra_.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  The last words are corrupt and unmetrical in all the texts. I have\n  found the true reading, \u0645\u0646 \u0627\u0644\u0623\u064e\u062d\u0652\u0634\u0622\u0621\u0650 \u062f\u0627\u0646\u0649, in a MS. of the _Kit\u00e1b\n  al-Luma`_ by Ab\u00fa Na\u1e63r al-Sarr\u00e1j, which has recently come into the\n  possession of Mr. A. G. Ellis.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nHere I must notice a matter of controversy between us and those who\nmaintain that the manifestation of union is the denial of separation,\nbecause the two terms contradict each other, and that when anyone passes\nunder the absolute sway of Divine guidance he ceases to act and to\nmortify himself. This is sheer nullification (_ta`\u1e6d\u00edl_), for a man must\nnever cease to practise devotion and mortify himself as long as he has\nthe possibility and power of doing so. Moreover, union is not apart from\nseparation, as light is apart from the sun, and accident from substance,\nand attribute from object: therefore, neither is self-mortification\napart from Divine guidance, nor the Truth from the Law, nor discovery\nfrom search. But mortification may precede or follow Divine guidance. In\nthe former case a man\u2019s tribulation is increased, because he is in\n\u201cabsence\u201d (_ghaybat_), while in the latter case he has no trouble or\npain, because he is in \u201cpresence\u201d (_ha\u1e0drat_). Those to whom negation is\nthe source (_mashrab_) of actions, and to whom it seems to be the\nsubstance (_`ayn_) of action, commit a grave error. A man, however, may\nattain such a degree that he regards all his qualities as faulty and\ndefective, for when he sees that his praiseworthy qualities are vicious\nand imperfect, his blameworthy qualities will necessarily appear more\nvicious. I adduce these considerations because some ignorant persons,\nwho have fallen into an error that is closely akin to infidelity, assert\nthat no result whatever depends upon our exertion, and that inasmuch as\nour actions and devotions are faulty and our mortifications are\nimperfect a thing left undone is better than a thing done. To this\nargument I reply: \u201cYou are agreed in supposing that everything done by\nus has an energy (_fi`l_), and you declare that our energies are a\ncentre of defect and a source of evil and corruption: consequently you\nmust also suppose that things left undone by us have an energy; and\nsince in both cases there is an energy involving defect, how can you\nregard that which we leave undone as better than that which we do?\u201d This\nnotion evidently is a noxious delusion. Here we have an excellent\ncriterion to distinguish the believer from the infidel. Both agree that\ntheir energies are inherently defective, but the believer, in accordance\nwith God\u2019s command, deems a thing done to be better than a thing left\nundone, while the infidel, in accordance with his denial of the Creator\n(_t`a\u1e6d\u00edl_), deems a thing left undone to be better than a thing done.\n\nUnion, then, involves this\u2014that, although the imperfection of\nseparation is recognized, its authority (_\u1e25ukm_) should not be let go;\nand separation involves this\u2014that, although one is veiled from the\nsight of union, he nevertheless thinks that separation is union.\nMuzayyin the Elder[133] says in this sense: \u201cUnion is the state of\nprivilege (_khu\u1e63\u00fa\u1e63iyyat_) and separation is the state of a servant\n(_`ub\u00fadiyyat_), these states being indissolubly combined with each\nother,\u201d because it is a work of the privileged state to fulfil the\nduties of servantship; therefore, although the tediousness and\npainfulness of self-mortification and personal effort may be removed\nfrom one who performs all that is required of him in this respect, it\nis impossible that the substance (_`ayn_) of self-mortification and\nreligious obligation should be removed from anyone, even though he be\nin the essence of union, unless he has an evident excuse that is\ngenerally acknowledged by the authority of the religious law. Now I\nwill explain this matter in order that you may better understand it.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 188.\n\nUnion is of two kinds: (1) sound union (_jam`-i sal\u00e1mat_), and (2)\nbroken union (_jam`-i taks\u00edr_). Sound union is that which God produces\nin a man when he is in the state of rapture and ecstasy, and when God\ncauses him to receive and fulfil His commandments and to mortify\nhimself. This was the state of Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h and Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 \u1e24add\u00e1d and\nAbu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Sayy\u00e1r\u00ed, the author of the doctrine. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd of Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m,\nAb\u00fa Bakr Shibl\u00ed, Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed, and a number of great Shaykhs were\ncontinually in a state of rapture until the hour of prayer arrived; then\nthey returned to consciousness, and after performing their prayers\nbecame enraptured again. While thou art in the state of separation, thou\nart thou, and thou fulfillest the command of God; but when God\ntransports thee He has the best right to see that thou performest His\ncommand, for two reasons: firstly, in order that the token of\nservantship may not be removed from thee, and secondly, in order that He\nmay keep His promise that He will never let the law of Mu\u1e25ammad be\nabrogated. \u201cBroken union\u201d (_jam`-i taks\u00edr_) is this: that a man\u2019s\njudgment becomes distraught and bewildered, so that it is like the\njudgment of a lunatic: then he is either excused from performing his\nreligious obligations or rewarded (_mashk\u00far_) for performing them; and\nthe state of him who is rewarded is sounder than the state of him who is\nexcused.\n\nYou must know, in short, that union does not involve any peculiar\n\u201cstation\u201d (_maq\u00e1m_) or any peculiar \u201cstate\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1l_), for union is the\nconcentration of one\u2019s thoughts (_jam`-i himmat_) upon the object of\none\u2019s desire. According to some the revelation of this matter takes\nplace in the \u201cstations\u201d (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_), according to others in the \u201cstates\u201d\n(_a\u1e25w\u00e1l_), and in either case the desire of the \u201cunited\u201d person (_\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib\njam`_) is attained by negating his desire. This holds good in\neverything, e.g., Jacob concentrated his thoughts on Joseph, so that he\nhad no thought but of him; and Majn\u00fan concentrated his thoughts on\nLayl\u00e1, so that he saw only her in the whole world, and all created\nthings assumed the form of Layl\u00e1 in his eyes. One day, when Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd\nwas in his cell, some one came and asked: \u201cIs Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd here?\u201d He\nanswered: \u201cIs anyone here except God?\u201d And a certain Shaykh relates that\na dervish came to Mecca and remained in contemplation of the Ka`ba for a\nwhole year, during which time he neither ate nor drank, nor slept, nor\ncleansed himself, because of the concentration of his thoughts upon the\nKa`ba, which thereby became the food of his body and the drink of his\nsoul. The principle in all these cases is the same, viz. that God\ndivided the one substance of His love and bestows a particle thereof, as\na peculiar gift, upon every one of His friends in proportion to their\nenravishment with Him; then He lets down upon that particle the shrouds\nof humanity and nature and temperament and spirit, in order that by its\npowerful working it may transmute to its own quality all the particles\nthat are attached to it, until the lover\u2019s clay is wholly converted into\nlove, and all his actions and looks become so many indispensable\nconditions of love. This state is named \u201cunion\u201d alike by those who\nregard the inward meaning and those who regard the outward expression.\n\u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) says in this sense:\n\n             \u201c_Thy will be done, O my Lord and Master!\n             Thy will be done, O my purpose and meaning!\n             O essence of my being, O goal of my desire,\n             O my speech and my hints and my gestures!\n             O all of my all, O my hearing and my sight,\n             O my whole and my element and my particles!_\u201d\n\nTherefore, to one whose qualities are only borrowed from God, it is a\ndisgrace to affirm his own existence, and an act of dualism (_zunn\u00e1r_)\nto pay any heed to the phenomenal universe; and all created objects are\ndespicable to his soaring thought. Some have been led by their\ndialectical subtlety and their admiration of phraseology to speak of\n\u201cthe union of union\u201d (_jam` al-jam`_). This is a good expression as\nphrases go, but if you consider the meaning, it is better not to\npredicate union of union, because the term \u201cunion\u201d cannot properly be\napplied except to separation. Before union can be united it must first\nhave been separated, whereas the fact is that union does not change its\nstate. The expression, therefore, is liable to be misunderstood, because\none who is \u201cunited\u201d does not look forth from himself to what is above or\nto what is below him. Do not you perceive that when the two worlds were\ndisplayed to the Apostle on the night of the Ascension he paid no heed\nto anything? He was in \u201cunion\u201d, and one who is \u201cunited\u201d does not behold\n\u201cseparation\u201d. Hence God said: \u201c_His gaze swerved not, nor did it stray_\u201d\n(Kor. liii, 17). In my early days I composed a book on this subject and\nentitled it _Kit\u00e1b al-bay\u00e1n li-ahl al-`iy\u00e1n_,[134] and I have also\ndiscussed the matter at length in the _Ba\u1e25r al-qul\u00fab_[135] in the\nchapter on \u201cUnion\u201d. I will not now burden my readers by adding to what I\nhave said here.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  \u201cThe Book of Exposition for Persons of Intuition.\u201d\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  \u201cThe Sea of Hearts.\u201d\n\nThis sketch of the doctrine of the Sayy\u00e1r\u00eds concludes my account of\nthose \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed sects which are approved and follow the path of true\ntheosophy. I now turn to the opinions of those heretics who have\nconnected themselves with the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds and have adopted \u1e62\u00fafiistic\nphraseology as a means of promulgating their heresy. My aim is to expose\ntheir errors in order that novices may not be deceived by their\npretensions and may guard themselves from mischief.\n\n\n                            11. THE \u1e24UL\u00daL\u00cdS.\n\nOf those two reprobate sects which profess to belong to \u1e62\u00fafiism and make\nthe \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds partners in their error, one follows Ab\u00fa \u1e24ulm\u00e1n of\nDamascus.[136] The stories which his adherents relate of him do not\nagree with what is written about him in the books of the Shaykhs, for,\nwhile the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds regard him as one of themselves, these sectaries impute\nto him the doctrines of incarnation (_\u1e25ul\u00fal_) and commixture (_imtiz\u00e1j_)\nand transmigration of spirits (_naskh-i arw\u00e1\u1e25_). I have seen this\nstatement in the book of Muqaddas\u00ed,[137] who attacks him; and the same\nnotion of him has been formed by theologians, but God knows best what is\nthe truth. The other sect refer their doctrine to F\u00e1ris,[138] who\npretends to have derived it from \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j), but he is\nthe only one of \u1e24usayn\u2019s followers who holds such tenets. I saw Ab\u00fa\nJa`far \u1e62aydal\u00e1n\u00ed[139] with four thousand men, dispersed throughout\n`Ir\u00e1q, who were \u1e24all\u00e1j\u00eds; and they all cursed F\u00e1ris on account of this\ndoctrine. Moreover, in the compositions of al-\u1e24all\u00e1j himself there is\nnothing but profound theosophy.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  See note, p. 131.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  The _nisba_ Muqaddas\u00ed or Maqdis\u00ed belongs to a number of Moslem\n  writers. I do not know which of them is intended here.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 178.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  This person, whom the author has already mentioned at the beginning of\n  Chapter XIII, is not identical with the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed of the same name who was\n  a contemporary of Junayd (_Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 197).\n\nI, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, say that I do not know who F\u00e1ris and Ab\u00fa\nHulm\u00e1n were or what they said, but anyone who holds a doctrine\nconflicting with Unification and true theosophy has no part in religion\nat all. If religion, which is the root, is not firmly based, \u1e62\u00fafiism,\nwhich is the branch and offspring of religion, must with more reason be\nunsound, for it is inconceivable that miracles and evidences should be\nmanifested except to religious persons and Unitarians. All the errors of\nthese sectaries are in regard to the spirit (_r\u00fa\u1e25_). Now, therefore, I\nwill explain its nature and principles according to the Sunn\u00ed canon, and\nin the course of my explanation I will notice the erroneous and delusive\nopinions of the heretics in order that your faith may be strengthened\nthereby.\n\n                  _Discourse on the Spirit_ (al-r\u00fa\u1e25).\n\nYou must know that knowledge concerning the existence of the spirit is\nintuitive (_dar\u00far\u00ed_), and the intelligence is unable to apprehend its\n(the spirit\u2019s) nature. Every Moslem divine and sage has expressed some\nconjectural opinion on this point, which has also been debated by\nunbelievers of various sorts. When the unbelievers of Quraysh, prompted\nby the Jews, sent Na\u1e0dr b. al-\u1e24\u00e1rith to question the Apostle concerning\nthe nature and essence of the spirit, God in the first place affirmed\nits substance and said, \u201c_And they will ask thee concerning the\nspirit_\u201d; then He denied its eternity, saying, \u201c_Answer, \u2018The spirit\nbelongs to that which_ (i.e. the creation of which) _my Lord\ncommanded\u2019_\u201d (Kor. xvii, 87). And the Apostle said: \u201cThe spirits are\nhosts gathered together: those that know one another agree, and those\nthat do not know one another disagree.\u201d There are many similar proofs of\nthe existence of the spirit, but they contain no authoritative statement\nas to its nature. Some have said that the spirit is the life whereby the\nbody lives, a view which is also held by a number of scholastic\nphilosophers. According to this view the spirit is an accident\n(_`ara\u1e0d_), which at God\u2019s command keeps the body alive, and from which\nproceed conjunction, motion, cohesion. and similar accidents by which\nthe body is changed from one state to another. Others, again, declare\nthat the spirit is not life, but that life does not exist without it,\njust as the spirit does not exist without the body, and that the two are\nnever found apart, because they are inseparable, like pain and the\nknowledge of pain. According to this view also the spirit is an\naccident, like life. All the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, however, and most orthodox\nMoslems hold that the spirit is a substance, and not an attribute; for,\nso long as it is connected with the body, God continually creates life\nin the body, and the life of Man is an attribute and by it he lives, but\nthe spirit is deposited in his body and may be separated from him while\nhe is still living, as in sleep. But when it leaves him, intelligence\nand knowledge can no longer remain with him, for the Apostle has said\nthat the spirits of martyrs are in the crops of birds: consequently it\nmust be a substance; and the Apostle has said that the spirits are hosts\n(_jun\u00fad_), and hosts are subsistent (_b\u00e1q\u00ed_), and no accident can\nsubsist, for an accident does not stand by itself.\n\nThe spirit, then, is a subtle body (_jism\u00ed la\u1e6d\u00edf_), which comes and goes\nby the command of God. On the night of the Ascension, when the Apostle\nsaw in Heaven Adam, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Jesus, and Abraham, it was\ntheir spirits that he saw; and if the spirit were an accident, it would\nnot stand by itself so as to become visible, for it would need a _locus_\nin substances, and substances are gross (_kath\u00edf_). Accordingly, it has\nbeen ascertained that the spirit is subtle and corporeal (_jas\u00edm_), and\nbeing corporeal, it is visible, but visible only to the eye of\nintelligence (_chashm-i dil_). And spirits may reside in the crops of\nbirds or may be armies that move to and fro, as the Apostolic Traditions\ndeclare.\n\nHere we are at variance with the heretics, who assert that the spirit is\neternal (_qad\u00edm_), and worship it, and regard it as the sole agent and\ngovernor of things, and call it the uncreated spirit of God, and aver\nthat it passes from one body to another. No popular error has obtained\nsuch wide acceptance as this doctrine, which is held by the Christians,\nalthough they express it in terms that appear to conflict with it, and\nby all the Indians, Tibetans, and Chinese, and is supported by the\nconsensus of opinion among the Sh\u00ed`ites, Carmathians, and Ism\u00e1`\u00edl\u00eds\n(_B\u00e1\u1e6diniy\u00e1n_), and is embraced by the two false sects abovementioned.\nAll these sectaries base their belief on certain propositions and bring\nforward proofs in defence of their assertion. I ask them this question:\n\u201cWhat do you mean by \u2018eternity\u2019 (_qidam_)? Do you mean the pre-existence\nof a non-eternal thing, or an eternal thing that never came into being?\u201d\nIf they mean the pre-existence of a non-eternal thing, then there is no\ndifference between us in principle, for we too say that the spirit is\nnon-eternal (_mu\u1e25dath_), and that it existed before the body, as the\nApostle said: \u201cGod created the spirits two thousand years before the\nbodies.\u201d Accordingly, the spirit is one sort of God\u2019s creatures, and He\njoins it to another sort of His creatures, and in joining them together\nHe produces life through His predestination. But the spirit cannot pass\nfrom body to body, because, just as a body cannot have two lives, so a\nspirit cannot have two bodies. If these facts were not affirmed in\nApostolic Traditions by an Apostle who speaks the truth, and if the\nmatter were considered purely from the standpoint of a reasonable\nintelligence, then the spirit would be life and nothing else, and it\nwould be an attribute, not a substance. Now suppose, on the other hand,\nthey say that the spirit is an eternal thing that never came into being.\nIn this case, I ask: \u201cDoes it stand by itself or by something else?\u201d If\nthey say, \u201cBy itself,\u201d I ask them, \u201cIs God its world (_`\u00e1lam_) or not?\u201d\nIf they answer that God is not its world, they affirm the existence of\ntwo eternal beings, which is contrary to reason, for the eternal is\ninfinite, and the essence of one eternal being would limit the other.\nBut if they answer that God is its world, then I say that God is eternal\nand His creatures are non-eternal: it is impossible that the eternal\nshould be commingled with the non-eternal or made one with it, or become\nimmanent in it, or that the non-eternal should be the place of the\neternal or that the eternal should carry it; for whatever is joined to\nanything must be like that to which it is joined, and only homogeneous\nthings are capable of being united and separated. And if they say that\nthe spirit does not stand by itself, but by something else, then it must\nbe either an attribute (_\u1e63ifat_) or an accident (_`ara\u1e0d_). If it is an\naccident, it must either be in a _locus_ or not. If it is in a _locus_,\nits _locus_ must be like itself, and neither can be called eternal; and\nto say that it has no _locus_ is absurd, for an accident cannot stand by\nitself. If, again, they say that the spirit is an eternal attribute\u2014and\nthis is the doctrine of the \u1e24ul\u00fahs and those who believe in\nmetempsychosis (_tan\u00e1sukhiy\u00e1n_)\u2014and call it an attribute of God, I reply\nthat an eternal attribute of God cannot possibly become an attribute of\nHis creatures; for, if His life could become the life of His creatures,\nsimilarly His power could become their power; and inasmuch as an\nattribute stands by its object, how can an eternal attribute stand by a\nnon-eternal object? Therefore, as I have shown, the eternal has no\nconnexion with the non-eternal, and the doctrine of the heretics who\naffirm this is false. The spirit is created and is under God\u2019s command.\nAnyone who holds another belief is in flagrant error and cannot\ndistinguish what is non-eternal from what is eternal. No saint, if his\nsaintship be sound, can possibly be ignorant of the attributes of God. I\ngive praise without end to God, who hath guarded us from heresies and\ndangers, and hath bestowed on us intelligence to examine and refute them\nby our arguments, and hath given us faith in order that we may know Him.\nWhen men who see only the exterior hear stories of this kind from\ntheologians, they imagine that this is the doctrine of all aspirants to\n\u1e62\u00fafiism. They are grossly mistaken and utterly deceived, and the\nconsequence is that they are blinded to the beauty of our mystic\nknowledge and to the loveliness of Divine saintship and to the flashes\nof spiritual illumination, because eminent \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds regard popular applause\nand popular censure with equal indifference.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nOne of the Shaykhs says: \u201cThe spirit in the body is like fire in fuel;\nthe fire is created (_makhl\u00faq_) and the coal is made (_ma\u1e63n\u00fa`_).\u201d\nNothing can be described as eternal except the essence and attributes of\nGod. Ab\u00fa Bakr W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed has discoursed on the spirit more than any of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs. It is related that he said: \u201cThere are ten stations\n(_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) of spirits: (1) the spirits of the sincere (_mukhli\u1e63\u00e1n_),\nwhich are imprisoned in a darkness and know not what will befall them;\n(2) the spirits of pious men (_p\u00e1rs\u00e1-mard\u00e1n_), which in the heaven of\nthis world rejoice in the fruits of their actions and take pleasure in\ndevotions, and walk by the strength thereof; (3) the spirits of\ndisciples (_mur\u00edd\u00e1n_), which are in the fourth heaven and dwell with the\nangels in the delights of veracity, and in the shadow of their good\nworks; (4) the spirits of the beneficent (_ahl-i minan_) which are hung\nin lamps of light from the Throne of God, and their food is mercy, and\ntheir drink is favour and proximity; (5) the spirits of the faithful\n(_ahl-i waf\u00e1_), which thrill with joy in the veil of purity and the\nstation of electness (_i\u1e63\u1e6dif\u00e1_); (6) the spirits of martyrs\n(_shah\u00edd\u00e1n_), which are in Paradise in the crops of birds, and go where\nthey will in its gardens early and late; (7) the spirits of those who\nyearn (_musht\u00e1q\u00e1n_), which stand on the carpet of respect (_adab_) clad\nin the luminous veils of the Divine attributes; (8) the spirits of\ngnostics (_`\u00e1rif\u00e1n_), which, in the precincts of holiness, listen at\nmorn and eve to the word of God and see their places in Paradise and in\nthis world; (9) the spirits of lovers (_d\u00fast\u00e1n_), which have become\nabsorbed in contemplation of the Divine beauty and the station of\nrevelation (_kashf_), and perceive nothing but God and rest content with\nno other thing; (10) the spirits of dervishes, which have found favour\nwith God in the abode of annihilation, and have suffered a\ntransformation of quality and a change of state.\u201d\n\nIt is related concerning the Shaykhs that they have seen the spirit in\ndifferent shapes, and this may well be, because, as I have said, it is\ncreated, and a subtle body (_jism\u00ed la\u1e6d\u00edf_) is necessarily visible. God\nshows it to every one of His servants, when and as it pleases Him.\n\nI, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, declare that our life is wholly through\nGod, and our stability is through Him, and our being kept alive is the\nact of God in us, and we live through His creation, not through His\nessence and attributes. The doctrine of the animists (_r\u00fa\u1e25iy\u00e1n_) is\nentirely false. Belief in the eternity of the spirit is one of the grave\nerrors which prevail among the vulgar, and is expressed in different\nways, e.g. they use the terms \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cmatter\u201d (_nafs \u00fa hay\u00fal\u00e1_), or\n\u201clight\u201d and \u201cdarkness\u201d (_n\u00far \u00fa \u1e95ulmat_), and those \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed impostors speak\nof \u201cannihilation\u201d and \u201csubsistence\u201d (_fan\u00e1 \u00fa baq\u00e1_), or \u201cunion\u201d and\n\u201cseparation\u201d (_jam` \u00fa tafriqa_), or adopt similar phrases as a fair mask\nfor their infidelity. But the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds abjure these heretics, for the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\nhold that saintship and true love of God depend on knowledge of Him, and\nanyone who does not know the eternal from the non-eternal is ignorant in\nwhat he says, and the intelligent pay no attention to what is said by\nthe ignorant. Now I will unveil the portals of the practice and theory\nof the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, furnishing my explanation with evident proofs, in order\nthat you may the more easily comprehend my meaning, and that any sceptic\npossessed of insight may be led back into the right way, and that I may\nthereby gain a blessing and a Divine reward.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XV.\n     THE UNCOVERING OF THE FIRST VEIL: CONCERNING THE GNOSIS OF GOD\n                          (_ma`rifat Allah_).\n\n\nThe Apostle said: \u201cIf ye knew God as He ought to be known, ye would walk\non the seas, and the mountains would move at your call.\u201d Gnosis of God\nis of two kinds: cognitional (_`ilm\u00ed_) and emotional (_\u1e25\u00e1l\u00ed_).\nCognitional gnosis is the foundation of all blessings in this world and\nin the next, for the most important thing for a man at all times and in\nall circumstances is knowledge of God, as God hath said: \u201c_I only\ncreated the genii and mankind that they might serve Me_\u201d (Kor. li, 56),\ni.e. that they might know Me. But the greater part of men neglect this\nduty, except those whom God hath chosen and whose hearts He hath\nvivified with Himself. Gnosis is the life of the heart through God, and\nthe turning away of one\u2019s inmost thoughts from all that is not God. The\nworth of everyone is in proportion to gnosis, and he who is without\ngnosis is worth nothing. Theologians, lawyers, and other classes of men\ngive the name of gnosis (_ma`rifat_) to right cognition (_`ilm_) of God,\nbut the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs call right feeling (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) towards God by that\nname. Hence they have said that gnosis (_ma`rifat_) is more excellent\nthan cognition (_`ilm_), for right feeling (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) is the result of\nright cognition, but right cognition is not the same thing as right\nfeeling, i.e. one who has not cognition of God is not a gnostic\n(_`\u00e1rif_), but one may have cognition of God without being a gnostic.\nThose of either class who were ignorant of this distinction engaged in\nuseless controversy, and the one party disbelieved in the other party.\nNow I will explain the matter in order that both may be instructed.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nYou must know that there is a great difference of opinion touching the\ngnosis and right cognition of God. The Mu`tazilites assert that gnosis\nis intellectual and that only a reasonable person (_`\u00e1qil_) can possibly\nhave it. This doctrine is disproved by the fact that madmen, within\nIslam, are deemed to have gnosis, and that children, who are not\nreasonable, are deemed to have faith. Were the criterion of gnosis an\nintellectual one, such persons must be without gnosis, while unbelievers\ncould not be charged with infidelity, provided only that they were\nreasonable beings. If reason were the cause of gnosis, it would follow\nthat every reasonable person must know God, and that all who lack reason\nmust be ignorant of Him; which is manifestly absurd. Others pretend that\ndemonstration (_istidl\u00e1l_) is the cause of knowledge of God, and that\nsuch knowledge is not gained except by those who deduce it in this\nmanner. The futility of this doctrine is exemplified by Ibl\u00eds, for he\nsaw many evidences, such as Paradise, Hell, and the Throne of God, yet\nthey did not cause him to have gnosis. God hath said that knowledge of\nHim depends on His will (Kor. vi, 111). According to the view of\northodox Moslems, soundness of reason and regard to evidences are a\nmeans (_sabab_) to gnosis, but not the cause (_`illat_) thereof: the\nsole cause is God\u2019s will and favour, for without His favour (_`in\u00e1yat_)\nreason is blind. Reason does not even know itself: how, then, can it\nknow another? Heretics of all sorts use the demonstrative method, but\nthe majority of them do not know God. On the other hand, whenever one\nenjoys the favour of God, all his actions are so many tokens of gnosis;\nhis demonstration is search (_\u1e6dalab_), and his neglect of demonstration\nis resignation to God\u2019s will (_tasl\u00edm_); but, in reference to perfect\ngnosis, resignation is no better than search, for search is a principle\nthat cannot be neglected, while resignation is a principle that excludes\nthe possibility of agitation (_i\u1e0d\u1e6dir\u00e1b_), and these two principles do\nnot essentially involve gnosis. In reality Man\u2019s only guide and\nenlightener is God. Reason and the proofs adduced by reason are unable\nto direct anyone into the right way. If the infidels were to return from\nthe place of Judgment to this world, they would bring their infidelity\nback with them (cf. Kor. vi, 28). When the Commander of the Faithful,\n`Al\u00ed, was asked concerning gnosis, he said: \u201cI know God by God, and I\nknow that which is not God by the light of God.\u201d God created the body\nand committed its life to the spirit (_j\u00e1n_), and He created the soul\n(_dil_) and committed its life to Himself. Hence, inasmuch as reason and\nhuman faculties and evidences have no power to make the body live, they\ncannot make the soul live, as God hath said: \u201c_Shall he who was dead and\nwhom We have restored to life and to whom We have given a light whereby\nhe may walk among men...?_\u201d (Kor. vi, 122), i.e. \u201cI am the Creator of\nthe light in which believers are illumined\u201d. It is God that opens and\nseals the hearts of men (Kor. xxxix, 23; ii, 6): therefore He alone is\nable to guide them. Everything except Him is a cause or a means, and\ncauses and means cannot possibly indicate the right way without the\nfavour of the Causer. He it is that imposes the obligation of piety,\nwhich is essentially gnosis; and those on whom that obligation is laid,\nso long as they are in the state of obligation, neither bring it upon\nthemselves nor put it away from themselves by their own choice:\ntherefore Man\u2019s share in gnosis, unless God makes him know, is mere\nhelplessness. Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan N\u00far\u00ed says: \u201cThere is none to point out the\nway to God except God Himself: knowledge is sought only for due\nperformance of His worship.\u201d No created being is capable of leading\nanyone to God. Those who rely on demonstration are not more reasonable\nthan was Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1lib, and no guide is greater than was Mu\u1e25ammad; yet since\nAb\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1lib was preordained to misery, the guidance of Mu\u1e25ammad did not\navail him. The first step of demonstration is a turning away from God,\nbecause demonstration involves the consideration of some other thing,\nwhereas gnosis is a turning away from all that is not God. Ordinary\nobjects of search are found by means of demonstration, but knowledge of\nGod is extraordinary. Therefore, knowledge of Him is attained only by\nunceasing bewilderment of the reason, and His favour is not procured by\nany act of human acquisition, but is miraculously revealed to men\u2019s\nhearts. What is not God is phenomenal (_mu\u1e25dath_), and although a\nphenomenal being may reach another like himself he cannot reach his\nCreator and acquire Him while he exists, for in every act of acquisition\nhe who makes the acquisition is predominant and the thing acquired is\nunder his power. Accordingly, the miracle is not that reason should be\nled by the act to affirm the existence of the Agent, but that a saint\nshould be led by the light of the Truth to deny his own existence. The\nknowledge gained is in the one case a matter of logic, in the other it\nbecomes an inward experience. Let those who deem reason to be the cause\nof gnosis consider what reason affirms in their minds concerning the\nsubstance of gnosis, for gnosis involves the negation of whatever is\naffirmed by reason, i.e. whatever notion of God can be formed by reason,\nGod is in reality something different. How, then, is there any room for\nreason to arrive at gnosis by means of demonstration? Reason and\nimagination are homogeneous, and where _genus_ is affirmed gnosis is\ndenied. To infer the existence of God from intellectual proofs is\nassimilation (_tashb\u00edh_), and to deny it on the same grounds is\nnullification (_ta`\u1e6d\u00edl_). Reason cannot pass beyond these two\nprinciples, which in regard to gnosis are agnosticism, since neither of\nthe parties professing them is Unitarian (_muwa\u1e25\u1e25id_).\n\nTherefore, when reason is gone as far as possible, and the souls of His\nlovers must needs search for Him, they rest helplessly without their\nfaculties, and while they so rest they grow restless and stretch their\nhands in supplication and seek a relief for their souls; and when they\nhave exhausted every manner of search in their power, the power of God\nbecomes theirs, i.e. they find the way from Him to Him, and are eased of\nthe anguish of absence and set foot in the garden of intimacy and win to\nrest. And reason, when it sees that the souls have attained their\ndesire, tries to exert its control, but fails; and when it fails it\nbecomes distraught; and when it becomes distraught it abdicates. Then\nGod clothes it in the garment of service (_khidmat_) and says to it:\n\u201cWhile thou wert independent thou wert veiled by thy faculties and their\nexercise, and when these were annihilated thou didst fail, and having\nfailed thou didst attain.\u201d Thus it is the allotted portion of the soul\nto be near unto God, and that of the reason is to do His service. God\ncauses Man to know Him through Himself with a knowledge that is not\nlinked to any faculty, a knowledge in which the existence of Man is\nmerely metaphorical. Hence to the gnostic egoism is utter perfidy; his\nremembrance of God is without forgetfulness, and his gnosis is not empty\nwords but actual feeling.\n\nOthers, again, declare that gnosis is the result of inspiration\n(_ilh\u00e1m_). This also is impossible, because gnosis supplies a criterion\nfor distinguishing truth from falsehood, whereas the inspired have no\nsuch criterion. If one says, \u201cI know by inspiration that God is in\nspace,\u201d and another says, \u201cI know by inspiration that He is not in\nspace,\u201d one of these contradictory statements must be true, but a proof\nis necessary in order to decide where the truth lies. Consequently, this\nview, which is held by the Brahmans and the inspirationists\n(_ilh\u00e1miy\u00e1n_), falls to the ground. In the present age I have met a\nnumber of persons who carried it to an extreme and who connected their\nown position with the doctrine of religious men, but they are altogether\nin error, and their assertion is repugnant to all reasonable Moslems and\nunbelievers. If it be said that whatever conflicts with the sacred law\nis not inspiration, I reply that this argument is fundamentally unsound,\nbecause, if inspiration is to be judged and verified by the standard of\nthe sacred law, then gnosis does not depend on inspiration, but on law\nand prophecy and Divine guidance.\n\nOthers assert that knowledge of God is intuitive (_\u1e0dar\u00far\u00ed_). This also\nis impossible. Everything that is known in this way must be known in\ncommon by all reasonable men, and inasmuch as we see that some\nreasonable men deny the existence of God and hold the doctrines of\nassimilation (_tashb\u00edh_) and nullification (_ta`\u1e6d\u00edl_), it is proved that\nknowledge of God is not intuitive. Moreover, if it were so, the\nprinciple of religious obligation (_takl\u00edf_) would be destroyed, for\nthat principle cannot possibly be applied to objects of intuitive\nknowledge, such as one\u2019s self, the heaven and the earth, day and night,\npleasure and pain, etc., concerning the existence of which no reasonable\nman can have any doubt, and which he must know even against his will.\nBut some aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism, considering the absolute certainty\n(_yaq\u00edn_) which they feel, say: \u201cWe know God intuitively,\u201d giving the\nname of intuition to this certainty. Substantially they are right, but\ntheir expression is erroneous, because intuitive knowledge cannot be\nexclusively restricted to those who are perfect; on the contrary, it\nbelongs to all reasonable men. Furthermore, it appears in the minds of\nliving creatures without any means or evidence, whereas the knowledge of\nGod is a means (_sabab\u00ed_). But Master Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Daqq\u00e1q and Shaykh Ab\u00fa\nSahl \u1e62u`l\u00fak\u00ed[140] and his father, who was a leading religious authority\nat N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, maintain that the beginning of gnosis is demonstrative and\nthat its end is intuitive, just as technical knowledge is first acquired\nand finally becomes instinctive. \u201cDo not you perceive,\u201d they say, \u201cthat\nin Paradise knowledge of God becomes intuitive? Why should it not become\nintuitive in this world too? And the Apostles, when they heard the word\nof God, either immediately or from the mouth of an angel or by\nrevelation, knew Him intuitively.\u201d I reply that the inhabitants of\nParadise know God intuitively in Paradise, because in Paradise no\nreligious obligation is imposed, and the Apostles have no fear of being\nseparated from God at the last, but enjoy the same security as those who\nknow Him intuitively. The excellence of gnosis and faith lies in their\nbeing hidden; when they are made visible, faith becomes compulsory\n(_jabr_), and there is no longer any free will in regard to its visible\nsubstance (_`ayn_), and the foundations of the religious law are shaken,\nand the principle of apostasy is annulled, so that Bal`am[141] and Ibl\u00eds\nand Bar\u1e63\u00ed\u1e63\u00e1[142] cannot properly be described as infidels, for it is\ngenerally allowed that they had knowledge of God. The gnostic, while he\nremains a gnostic, has no fear of being separated from God; separation\nis produced by the loss of gnosis, but intuitive knowledge cannot\nconceivably be lost. This doctrine is full of danger to the vulgar. In\norder that you may avoid its evil consequences you must know that Man\u2019s\nknowledge and his gnosis of God depend entirely on the information and\neternal guidance of the Truth. Man\u2019s certainty in gnosis may be now\ngreater and now less, but the principle of gnosis is neither increased\nnor diminished, since in either case it would be impaired. You must not\nlet blind conformity enter into your knowledge of God, and you must know\nHim through His attributes of perfection. This can be attained only\nthrough the providence and favour of God, who has absolute control of\nour minds. If He so will, He makes one of His actions a guide that shows\nus the way to Himself, and if He will otherwise, He makes that same\naction an obstacle that prevents us from reaching Him. Thus Jesus was to\nsome a guide that led them to gnosis, but to others he was an obstacle\nthat hindered them from gnosis; the former party said, \u201cThis is the\nservant of God,\u201d and the latter said, \u201cThis is the son of God.\u201d\nSimilarly, some were led to God by idols and by the sun and moon, while\nothers were led astray. Such guides are a means of gnosis, but not the\nimmediate cause of it, and one means is no better than another in\nrelation to Him who is the author of them all. The gnostic\u2019s affirmation\nof a means is a sign of dualism (_zunn\u00e1r_), and regard to anything\nexcept the object of knowledge is polytheism (_shirk_). When a man is\ndoomed to perdition in the Preserved Tablet, nay, in the will and\nknowledge of God, how can any proof and demonstration lead him aright?\nThe most high God, as He pleases and by whatever means He pleases, shows\nHis servant the way to Himself and opens to him the door of gnosis, so\nthat he attains to a degree where the very essence of gnosis appears\nalien (_ghayr_) and its attributes become noxious to him, and he is\nveiled by his gnosis from the object known and realizes that his gnosis\nis a pretension (_da`w\u00e1_). Dhu `l-N\u00fan the Egyptian says: \u201cBeware lest\nthou make pretensions to gnosis,\u201d and it has been said in verse\u2014\n\n             \u201c_The gnostics pretend to knowledge,\n             But I avow ignorance: that is my knowledge._\u201d\n\nTherefore do not claim gnosis, lest thou perish in thy pretension, but\ncleave to the reality thereof, that thou mayest be saved. When anyone is\nhonoured by the revelation of the Divine majesty, his existence becomes\na plague to him and all his attributes a source of corruption. He who\nbelongs to God and to whom God belongs is not connected with anything in\nthe universe. The real gist of gnosis is to recognize that to God is the\nkingdom. When a man knows that all possessions are in the absolute\ncontrol of God, what further business has he with mankind, that he\nshould be veiled from God by them or by himself? All such veils are the\nresult of ignorance. As soon as ignorance is annihilated, they vanish,\nand this life is made equal in rank to the life hereafter.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 373.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  See Bayd\u00e1w\u00ed on Kor. vii, 174.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  See Goldziher & Landberg, _Die Legende vom M\u00f6nch Bar\u1e63\u012b\u1e63\u0101_ (1896), and\n  M. Hartmann, _Der heilige Bar\u1e63\u012b\u1e63\u0101_ in _Der Islamische Orient_ (1905),\n  i, 23-8.]\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nNow, for instruction\u2019s sake, I will mention some of the numerous sayings\nwhich the Shaykhs have uttered on this subject.\n\n`Abdall\u00e1h b. Mub\u00e1rak says: \u201cGnosis consists in not being astonished by\nanything,\u201d because astonishment arises from an act exceeding the power\nof the doer, and inasmuch as God is omnipotent it is impossible that a\ngnostic should be astonished by His acts. If there be any room for\nastonishment, one must needs marvel that God exalts a handful of earth\nto such a degree that it receives His commands, and a drop of blood to\nsuch an eminence that it discourses of love and knowledge of Him, and\nseeks vision of Him, and desires union with Him. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian\nsays: \u201cGnosis is in reality God\u2019s providential communication of the\nspiritual light to our inmost hearts,\u201d i.e., until God, in His\nprovidence, illuminates the heart of Man and keeps it from\ncontamination, so that all created things have not even the worth of a\nmustard-seed in his heart, the contemplation of Divine mysteries, both\ninward and outward, does not overwhelm him with rapture; but when God\nhas done this, his every look becomes an act of contemplation\n(_mush\u00e1hadat_). Shibl\u00ed says: \u201cGnosis is continual amazement (_\u1e25ayrat_).\u201d\nAmazement is of two kinds: (1) amazement at the essence and (2)\namazement at the quality. The former is polytheism and infidelity,\nbecause no gnostic can possibly be in doubt concerning the essential\nnature of God; but the latter is gnosis, because the quality of God lies\nbeyond reason\u2019s scope. Hence a certain one said: \u201cO Guide of the amazed,\nincrease my amazement!\u201d In the first place, he affirmed the existence of\nGod and the perfection of His attributes, and recognized that He is the\nobject of men\u2019s search and the accomplisher of their prayers and the\nauthor of their amazement; then he asked for increase of amazement and\nrecognized that in seeking God the reason has no alternative between\namazement and polytheism. This sentiment is very fine. It may be, again,\nthat knowledge of God\u2019s being involves amazement at one\u2019s own being,\nbecause when a man knows God he sees himself entirely subdued by the\nDivine omnipotence; and since his existence depends on God and his\nnon-existence proceeds from God, and his rest and motion are produced by\nthe power of God, he becomes amazed, saying: \u201cWho and what am I?\u201d In\nthis sense the Apostle said: \u201cHe who knows himself has come to know his\nLord,\u201d i.e. he who knows himself to be annihilated knows God to be\neternally subsistent. Annihilation destroys reason and all human\nattributes, and when the substance of a thing is not accessible to\nreason it cannot possibly be known without amazement. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said:\n\u201cGnosis consists in knowing that the motion and rest of mankind depend\non God,\u201d and that without His permission no one has the least control of\nHis kingdom, and that no one can perform any action until He creates the\nability to act and puts the will to act in his heart, and that human\nactions are metaphorical and that God is the real agent. Mu\u1e25ammad b.\nW\u00e1si` says, describing the gnostic: \u201cHis words are few and his amazement\nperpetual,\u201d because only finite things admit of being expressed in\nwords, and since the infinite cannot be expressed it leaves no resource\nexcept perpetual amazement. Shibl\u00ed says: \u201cReal gnosis is the inability\nto attain gnosis,\u201d i.e. inability to know a thing, to the real nature of\nwhich a man has no clue except the impossibility of attaining it.\nTherefore, in attaining it, he will rightly take no credit to himself,\nbecause inability (_`ajz_) is search, and so long as he depends on his\nown faculties and attributes, he cannot properly be described by that\nterm; and when these faculties and attributes depart, then his state is\nnot inability, but annihilation. Some pretenders, while affirming the\nattributes of humanity and the subsistence of the obligation to decide\nwith sound judgment (_takl\u00edf ba-\u1e63i\u1e25\u1e25at-i khi\u1e6d\u00e1b_) and the authority\nmaintained over them by God\u2019s proof, declare that gnosis is impotence,\nand that they are impotent and unable to attain anything. I reply: \u201cIn\nsearch of what thing have you become so helpless?\u201d Impotence (_`ajz_)\nhas two signs, which are not to be found in you: firstly, the\nannihilation of the faculties of search, and secondly, the manifestation\nof the glory of God (_tajall\u00ed_). Where the annihilation of the faculties\ntakes place, there is no outward expression (_`ib\u00e1rat_); and where the\nglory of God is revealed, no clue can be given and no discrimination is\nconceivable. Hence one who is impotent does not know that he is so, or\nthat the state attributed to him is called impotence. How should he know\nthis? Impotence is other than God, and the affirmation of knowledge of\nother than God is not gnosis; and so long as there is room in the heart\nfor aught except God, or the possibility of expressing aught except God,\ntrue gnosis has not been attained. The gnostic is not a gnostic until he\nturns aside from all that is not God. Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 \u1e24add\u00e1d says: \u201cSince I\nhave known God, neither truth nor falsehood has entered my heart.\u201d When\na man feels desire and passion he turns to the soul (_dil_) in order\nthat it may guide him to the lower soul (_nafs_), which is the seat of\nfalsehood; and when he finds the evidence of gnosis, he also turns to\nthe soul in order that it may guide him to the spirit, which is the\nsource of truth and reality. But when aught except God enters the soul,\nthe gnostic, if he turns to it, commits an act of agnosticism. There is\na great difference between one who turns to the soul and one who turns\nto God. Ab\u00fa Bakr W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed says: \u201cHe who knows God is cut off from all\nthings, nay, he is dumb and abject (_kharisa wa-\u00b4nqama`a_),\u201d i.e. he is\nunable to express anything and all his attributes are annihilated. So\nthe Apostle, while he was in the state of absence, said: \u201cI am the most\neloquent of the Arabs and non-Arabs\u201d; but when he was borne to the\npresence of God, he said: \u201cI know not how to utter Thy praise.\u201d Answer\ncame: \u201cO Mu\u1e25ammad, if thou speakest not, I will speak; if thou deemest\nthyself unworthy to praise Me, I will make the universe thy deputy, that\nall its atoms may praise Me in thy name.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI.\n THE UNCOVERING OF THE SECOND VEIL: CONCERNING UNIFICATION (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_).\n\n\nGod said, \u201c_Your God is one_\u201d (Kor. xvi, 23); and again, \u201c_Say, \u2018God is\none\u2019_\u201d (Kor. cxii, 1). And the Apostle said: \u201cLong ago there was a man\nwho did no good work except that he pronounced God to be one. When he\nwas dying he said to his folk: \u2018After my death burn me and gather my\nashes and on a windy day throw half of them into the sea, and scatter\nhalf of them to the winds of the earth, that no trace of me may be\nleft.\u2019 As soon as he died and this was done, God bade the air and the\nwater keep the ashes which they had received until the Resurrection; and\nwhen He raises that man from the dead, He will ask him why he caused\nhimself to be burnt, and he will reply: \u2018O Lord, from shame of Thee, for\nI was a great sinner,\u2019 and God will pardon him.\u201d\n\nReal unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_) consists in asserting the unity of a thing\nand in having a perfect knowledge of its unity. Inasmuch as God is one,\nwithout any sharer in His essence and attributes, without any\nsubstitute, without any partner in His actions, and inasmuch as\nUnitarians (_muwa\u1e25\u1e25id\u00e1n_) have acknowledged that He is such, their\nknowledge of unity is called unification.\n\nUnification is of three kinds: (1) God\u2019s unification of God, i.e. His\nknowledge of His unity; (2) God\u2019s unification of His creatures, i.e. His\ndecree that a man shall pronounce Him to be one, and the creation of\nunification in his heart; (3) men\u2019s unification of God, i.e. their\nknowledge of the unity of God. Therefore, when a man knows God he can\ndeclare His unity and pronounce that He is one, incapable of union and\nseparation, not admitting duality; that His unity is not a number so as\nto be made two by the predication of another number; that He is not\nfinite so as to have six directions; that He has no space, and that He\nis not in space, so as to require the predication of space; that He is\nnot an accident, so as to need a substance, nor a substance, which\ncannot exist without another like itself, nor a natural constitution\n(_\u1e6dab`\u00ed_), in which motion and rest originate, nor a spirit so as to\nneed a frame, nor a body so as to be composed of limbs; and that He does\nnot become immanent (_\u1e25\u00e1ll_) in things, for then He must be homogeneous\nwith them; and that He is not joined to anything, for then that thing\nmust be a part of Him; and that He is free from all imperfections and\nexalted above all defects; and that He has no like, so that He and His\ncreature should make two; and that He has no child whose begetting would\nnecessarily cause Him to be a stock (_a\u1e63l_); and that His essence and\nattributes are unchangeable; and that He is endowed with those\nattributes of perfection which believers and Unitarians affirm, and\nwhich He has described Himself as possessing; and that He is exempt from\nthose attributes which heretics arbitrarily impute to Him; and that He\nis Living, Knowing, Forgiving, Merciful, Willing, Powerful, Hearing,\nSeeing, Speaking, and Subsistent; and that His knowledge is not a state\n(_\u1e25\u00e1l_) in Him, nor His power solidly planted (_\u1e63al\u00e1bat_) in Him, nor\nHis hearing and sight detached (_mutajarrid_) in Him, nor His speech\ndivided in Him; and that He together with His attributes exists from\neternity; and that objects of cognition are not outside of His\nknowledge, and that entities are entirely dependent on His will; and\nthat He does that which He has willed, and wills that which He has\nknown, and no creature has cognisance thereof; and that His decree is an\nabsolute fact, and that His friends have no resource except resignation;\nand that He is the sole predestinator of good and evil, and the only\nbeing that is worthy of hope or fear; and that He creates all benefit\nand injury; and that He alone gives judgment, and His judgment is all\nwisdom; and that no one has any possibility of attaining unto Him; and\nthat the inhabitants of Paradise shall behold Him; and that assimilation\n(_tashb\u00edh_) is inadmissible; and that such terms as \u201cconfronting\u201d and\n\u201cseeing face to face\u201d (_muq\u00e1balat \u00fa muw\u00e1jahat_) cannot be applied to His\nbeing; and that His saints may enjoy the contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_) of\nHim in this world.\n\nThose who do not acknowledge Him to be such are guilty of impiety. I,\n`Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, said at the beginning of this chapter that\nunification consists in declaring the unity of a thing, and that such a\ndeclaration cannot be made without knowledge. The Sunn\u00eds have declared\nthe unity of God with true comprehension, because, seeing a subtle work\nand a unique act, they recognized that it could not possibly exist by\nitself, and finding manifest evidences of origination (_\u1e25ud\u00fath_) in\nevery thing, they perceived that there must be an Agent who brought the\nuniverse into being\u2014the earth and heaven and sun and moon and land and\nsea and all that moves and rests and their knowledge and speech and life\nand death. For all these an artificer was indispensable. Accordingly,\nthe Sunn\u00eds, rejecting the notion that there are two or three artificers,\ndeclared themselves satisfied with a single artificer who is perfect,\nliving, knowing, almighty, and unpartnered. And inasmuch as an act\nrequires at least one agent, and the existence of two agents for one act\ninvolves the dependence of one on the other, it follows that the Agent\nis unquestionably and certainly one. Here we are at variance with the\ndualists, who affirm light and darkness, and with the Magians, who\naffirm Yazd\u00e1n and Ahriman, and with the natural philosophers\n(_\u1e6dab\u00e1\u00b4i`iy\u00e1n_), who affirm nature and potentiality (_quwwat_), and with\nthe astronomers (_falakiy\u00e1n_), who affirm the seven planets, and with\nthe Mu`tazilites, who affirm creators and artificers without end. I have\nbriefly refuted all these vain opinions in a book, entitled _Al-Ri`\u00e1yat\nli-\u1e25uq\u00faq Allah_,[143] to which or to the works of the ancient\ntheologians I must refer anyone who desires further information. Now I\nwill turn to the indications which the Shaykhs have given on this\nsubject.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  \u201cThe Observance of what is due to God.\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nIt is related that Junayd said: \u201cUnification is the separation of the\neternal from that which was originated in time,\u201d i.e. you must not\nregard the eternal as a _locus_ of phenomena, or phenomena as a _locus_\nof the eternal; and you must know that God is eternal and that you are\nphenomenal, and that nothing of your _genus_ is connected with Him, and\nthat nothing of His attributes is mingled in you, and that there is no\nhomogeneity between the eternal and the phenomenal. This is contrary to\nthe above-mentioned doctrine of those who hold the spirit to be eternal.\nWhen the eternal is believed to descend into phenomena, or phenomena to\nbe attached to the eternal, no proof remains of the eternity of God and\nthe origination of the universe; and this leads to materialism\n(_madhhab-i dahriy\u00e1n_). In all the actions of phenomena there are proofs\nof unification and evidences of the Divine omnipotence and signs which\nestablish the eternity of God, but men are too heedless to desire only\nHim or to be content only with keeping Him in remembrance. \u1e24usayn b.\nMan\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) says: \u201cThe first step in unification is the\nannihilation of separation (_tafr\u00edd_),\u201d because separation is the\npronouncement that one has become separated from imperfections (_\u00e1f\u00e1t_),\nwhile unification is the declaration of a thing\u2019s unity: therefore in\nisolation (_fard\u00e1niyyat_) it is possible to affirm that which is other\nthan God, and this quality may be ascribed to others besides God; but in\nunity (_wa\u1e25d\u00e1niyyat_) it is not possible to affirm other than God, and\nunity may not be ascribed to anything except Him. Accordingly, the first\nstep in unification is to deny (that God has) a partner (_shar\u00edk_) and\nto put admixture (_miz\u00e1j_) aside, for admixture on the way (to God) is\nlike seeking the highway with a lamp (_miz\u00e1j andar minh\u00e1j ch\u00fan \u1e6dalab-i\nminh\u00e1j b\u00e1shad ba-sir\u00e1j_). And \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed says: \u201cOur principles in unification\nare five: the removal of phenomenality, and the affirmation of eternity,\nand departure from familiar haunts, and separation from brethren, and\nforgetfulness of what is known and unknown.\u201d The removal of\nphenomenality consists in denying that phenomena have any connexion with\nunification or that they can possibly attain to His holy essence; and\nthe affirmation of eternity consists in being convinced that God always\nexisted, as I have already explained in discussing the saying of Junayd;\nand departure from familiar haunts means, for the novice, departure from\nthe habitual pleasures of the lower soul and the forms of this world,\nand for the adept, departure from lofty stations and glorious states and\nexalted miracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_); and separation from brethren means turning\naway from the society of mankind and turning towards the society of God,\nsince any thought of other than God is a veil and an imperfection, and\nthe more a man\u2019s thoughts are associated with other than God the more is\nhe veiled from God, because it is universally agreed that unification is\nthe concentration of thoughts (_jam`-i himam_), whereas to be content\nwith other than God is a sign of dispersion of thought (_tafriqa-i\nhimmat_); and forgetfulness of a thing which is known or unknown means\nthe unification of that thing, for unification denies whatever the\nknowledge of mankind affirms about it; and whatever their ignorance\naffirms about it is merely contrary to their knowledge, for ignorance is\nnot unification, and knowledge of the reality of unification cannot be\nattained without denying the personal initiative (_ta\u1e63arruf_) in which\nknowledge and ignorance consist. A certain Shaykh relates: \u201cWhile \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed\nwas speaking to an audience, I fell asleep and dreamed that two angels\ncame down from Heaven and listened for some time to his discourse. Then\none said to the other, \u2018What this man says is the theory (_`ilm_) of\nunification, not unification itself (_`ayn_).\u2019 When I awoke he was\nexplaining unification. He looked at me and said, \u2018O So-and-so, it is\nimpossible to speak of unification except theoretically.\u2019\u201d It is related\nthat Junayd said: \u201cUnification is this, that one should be a figure\n(_shakh\u1e63_) in the hands of God, a figure over which His decrees pass\naccording as He in His omnipotence determines, and that one should be\nsunk in the seas of His unity, self-annihilated and dead alike to the\ncall of mankind to him and his answer to them, absorbed by the reality\nof the Divine unity in true proximity, and lost to sense and action,\nbecause God fulfils in him what He hath willed of him, namely, that his\nlast state should become his first state, and that he should be as he\nwas before he existed.\u201d All this means that the Unitarian in the will of\nGod has no more a will of his own, and in the unity of God no regard to\nhimself, so that he becomes like an atom as he was in the eternal past\nwhen the covenant of unification was made, and God answered the question\nwhich He Himself had asked, and that atom was only the object of His\nspeech.[144] Mankind have no joy in such a one that they should call him\nto anything, and he has no friendship with anyone that he should respond\nto their call. This saying indicates the annihilation of human\nattributes and perfect resignation to God in the state when a man is\noverpowered by the revelation of His majesty, so that he becomes a\npassive instrument and a subtle substance that feels nothing, and his\nbody is a repository for the mysteries of God, to whom his speech and\nactions are attributed; but, unconscious of all as he is, he remains\nsubject to the ordinances of the religious law, to the end that the\nproof of God may be established. Such was the Apostle when on the night\nof the Ascension he was borne to the station of proximity; he desired\nthat his body should be destroyed and his personality be dissolved, but\nGod\u2019s purpose was to establish His proof. He bade the Apostle remain in\nthe state that he was in; whereupon he gained strength and displayed the\nexistence of God from out of his own non-existence and said, \u201cI am not\nas one of you. Verily, I pass the night with my Lord, and he gives me\nfood and drink\u201d; and he also said, \u201cI am with God in a state in which\nnone of the cherubim nor any prophet is capable of being contained with\nme.\u201d It is related that Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h said: \u201cUnification is this,\nthat you should recognize that the essence of God is endowed with\nknowledge, that it is not comprehensible nor visible to the eye in this\nworld, but that it exists in the reality of faith, infinite,\nincomprehensible, non-incarnate; and that He will be seen in the next\nworld, outwardly and inwardly in His kingdom and His power; and that\nmankind are veiled from knowledge of the ultimate nature of His essence;\nand that their hearts know Him, but their intellects cannot reach unto\nHim; and that believers shall behold Him with their (spiritual) eyes,\nwithout comprehending His infinity.\u201d This saying includes all the\nprinciples of unification. And Junayd said: \u201cThe noblest saying\nconcerning unification is that of Ab\u00fa Bakr: \u2018Glory to God, who has not\nvouchsafed to His creatures any means of attaining unto knowledge of Him\nexcept through impotence to attain unto knowledge of Him.\u2019\u201d Many have\nmistaken the meaning of these words of Ab\u00fa Bakr and suppose that\nimpotence to attain to gnosis is the same thing as agnosticism. This is\nabsurd, because impotence refers only to an existing state, not to a\nstate that is non-existent. For example, a dead man is not incapable of\nlife, but he cannot be alive while he is dead; and a blind man is not\nincapable of seeing, but he cannot see while he is blind. Therefore, a\ngnostic is not incapable of gnosis so long as gnosis is existent, for in\nthat case his gnosis resembles intuition. The saying of Ab\u00fa Bakr may be\nbrought into connexion with the doctrine of Ab\u00fa Sahl \u1e62u`l\u00fak\u00ed and Master\nAb\u00fa `Al\u00ed Daqq\u00e1q, who assert that gnosis is acquired in the first\ninstance, but finally becomes intuitive. The possessor of intuitive\nknowledge is compelled and incapable of putting it away or drawing it to\nhimself. Hence, according to what Ab\u00fa Bakr says, unification is the act\nof God in the heart of His creature. Shibl\u00ed says: \u201cUnification veils the\nUnitarian from the beauty of Oneness,\u201d because unification is said to be\nthe act of Man, and an act of Man does not cause the revelation of God,\nand in the reality of revelation that which does not cause revelation is\na veil. Man with all his attributes is other than God, for if his\nattributes are accounted Divine, then he himself must be accounted\nDivine, and then Unitarian, unification, and the One become, all three,\ncauses of the existence of one another; and this is precisely the\nChristian Trinity. If any attribute prevents the seeker of God from\nannihilating himself in unification, he is still veiled by that\nattribute, and while he is veiled he is not a Unitarian, for all except\nGod is vanity. This is the interpretation of \u201cThere is no god but\nGod\u201d.[145]\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  Kor. vii, 171.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Here the author cites an anecdote of Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 and al-\u1e24all\u00e1j\n  which has been related above. See p. 205.\n\nThe Shaykhs have discussed at large the terms by which unification is\ndenoted. Some say that it is an annihilation that cannot properly be\nattained unless the attributes subsist, while others say that it has no\nattribute whatever except annihilation. The analogy of union and\nseparation (_jam` \u00fa tafriqa_) must be applied to this question in order\nthat it may be understood. I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, declare that\nunification is a mystery revealed by God to His servants, and that it\ncannot be expressed in language at all, much less in high-sounding\nphrases. The explanatory terms and those who use them are other than\nGod, and to affirm what is other than God in unification is to affirm\npolytheism.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVII.\n      THE UNCOVERING OF THE THIRD VEIL: CONCERNING FAITH (_\u00edm\u00e1n_).\n\n\nThe Apostle said: \u201cFaith is belief in God and His angels and His\n(revealed) books.\u201d Etymologically, faith (_\u00edm\u00e1n_) means verification\n(_ta\u1e63d\u00edq_). Concerning its principles in their application to the\nreligious law there is great discussion and controversy. The\nMu`tazilites hold that faith includes all acts of devotion, theoretical\nas well as practical: hence they say that sin puts a man outside the\npale of faith. The Kh\u00e1rijites, who call a man an infidel because he\ncommits a sin, are of the same opinion. Some declare that faith is\nsimply a verbal profession, while others say it is only knowledge of\nGod, and a party of Sunn\u00ed scholastics assert that it is mere\nverification. I have written a separate work explaining this subject,\nbut my present purpose is to establish what the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs believe.\nThey are divided on this question in the same way as the lawyers of the\ntwo opposite sects. Some of them, e.g. Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d and Bishr \u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed\nand Khayr al-Nass\u00e1j and Sumn\u00fan al-Mu\u1e25ibb and Ab\u00fa \u1e24amza of Baghd\u00e1d and\nMu\u1e25ammad Jurayr\u00ed and a great number of others, hold that faith is verbal\nprofession and verification and practice; but others, e.g. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b.\nAdham and Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian and Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd of Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m and Ab\u00fa\nSulaym\u00e1n D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed and \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed and Junayd and Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h of\nTustar and Shaq\u00edq of Balkh and \u1e24\u00e1tim A\u1e63amm and Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Fa\u1e0dl of\nBalkh and a number besides, hold that faith is verbal profession and\nverification. Some lawyers, i.e. M\u00e1lik and Sh\u00e1fi`\u00ed and A\u1e25mad b. \u1e24anbal,\nmaintain the former view, while the latter opinion is supported by Ab\u00fa\n\u1e24an\u00edfa and \u1e24usayn b. Fa\u1e0dl of Balkh and the followers of Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa, such\nas Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan, D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed, and Ab\u00fa Y\u00fasuf. The difference\nbetween them is entirely one of expression and is devoid of substance,\nas I will now briefly explain, in order that no one may be charged with\ncontradicting the principle of faith because he takes the one view or\nthe other in this dispute.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nYou must know that the orthodox Moslems and the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are agreed that\nfaith has a principle (_a\u1e63l_) and a derivative (_far`_), the principle\nbeing verification in the heart, and the derivative being observance of\nthe (Divine) command. Now the Arabs commonly and customarily transfer\nthe name of a principle to a derivative by way of metaphor, e.g. they\ncall the light of the sun \u201cthe sun\u201d. In this sense the former of the two\nparties mentioned above apply the name of faith to that obedience\n(_\u1e6d\u00e1`at_) by which alone a man is made secure from future punishment.\nMere verification (i.e. belief), without performance of the Divine\ncommands, does not involve security. Therefore, since security is in\nproportion to obedience, and obedience together with verification and\nverbal profession is the cause of security, they bestowed on obedience\nthe name of faith. The other party, however, asserted that gnosis, not\nobedience, is the cause of security. Obedience, they said, is of no\navail without gnosis, whereas one who has gnosis but lacks obedience\nwill be saved at the last, although it depends on the will of God\nwhether he shall be pardoned by Divine grace or through the intercession\nof the Apostle, or whether he shall be punished according to the measure\nof his sin and then be delivered from Hell and transported to Paradise.\nTherefore, since those who have gnosis, although they are sinners, by\nreason of their gnosis do not remain for ever in Hell, while those who\nhave only works without gnosis do not enter Paradise, it follows that\nhere obedience is not the cause of security. The Apostle said: \u201cNone of\nyou shall be saved by his works.\u201d Hence in reality, without any\ncontroversy among Moslems, faith is gnosis and acknowledgment and\nacceptance of works. Whoever knows God knows Him by one of His\nattributes, and the most elect of His attributes are of three kinds:\nthose connected with His beauty (_jam\u00e1l_) and with His majesty (_jal\u00e1l_)\nand with His perfection (_kam\u00e1l_). His perfection is not attainable\nexcept by those whose perfection is established and whose imperfection\nis banished. There remain beauty and majesty. Those whose evidence in\ngnosis is the beauty of God are always longing for vision, and those\nwhose evidence is His majesty are always abhorring their own attributes\nand their hearts are stricken with awe. Now longing is an effect of\nlove, and so is abhorrence of human attributes, because the lifting of\nthe veil of human attributes is the very essence of love. Therefore\nfaith and gnosis are love, and obedience is a sign of love. Whoever\ndenies this neglects the command of God and knows nothing of gnosis.\nThis evil is manifest among the aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism at the present day.\nSome heretics, seeing their excellence and persuaded of their high\ndegree, imitate them and say: \u201cTrouble only lasts while you do not know\nGod: as soon as you know Him, all the labour of obedience is removed\nfrom the body.\u201d But they are wrong. I reply that when you know Him, the\nheart is filled with longing and His command is held in greater\nveneration than before. I admit that a pious man may reach a point where\nhe is relieved from the irksomeness of obedience through the increase of\nDivine aid (_tawf\u00edq_), so that he performs without trouble what is\ntroublesome to others; but this result cannot be achieved without a\nlonging that produces violent agitation. Some, again, say that faith\ncomes entirely from God, while others say that it springs entirely from\nMan. This has long been a matter of controversy among the people in\nTransoxania. To assert that faith comes entirely from God is sheer\ncompulsion (_jabr_), because Man must then have no choice; and to assert\nthat it springs entirely from Man is pure free-will, for Man does not\nknow God except through the knowledge that God gives him. The doctrine\nof unification is less than compulsion and more than free-will.\nSimilarly, faith is really the act of Man joined to the guidance of God,\nas God hath said: \u201c_Whomsoever God wishes to lead aright, He will open\nhis breast to receive Islam; and whomsoever He wishes to lead astray, He\nwill make his breast strait and narrow_\u201d (Kor. vi, 125). On this\nprinciple, inclination to believe (_girawish_) is the guidance of God,\nwhile belief (_giraw\u00eddan_) is the act of Man. The signs of belief are\nthese: in the heart, holding firmly to unification; in the eye,\nrefraining from forbidden sights and looking heedfully on evidences; in\nthe ear, listening to His word; in the belly, being empty of what is\nunlawful; in the tongue, veracity. Hence those persons (who assert that\nfaith comes entirely from God) maintain that gnosis and faith may\nincrease and diminish, which is generally admitted to be false, for if\nit were true, then the object of gnosis must also be liable to increase\nand diminution. Accordingly, the increase and diminution must be in the\nderivative, which is the act; and it is generally agreed that obedience\nmay diminish and increase. This does not please the anthropomorphists\n(_\u1e25ashwiy\u00e1n_) who imitate the two parties mentioned above, for some of\nthem hold that obedience is an element of faith, while others declare\nthat faith is a verbal profession and nothing else. Both these doctrines\nare unjust.\n\nIn short, faith is really the absorption of all human attributes in the\nsearch of God. This must be unanimously acknowledged by all believers.\nThe might of gnosis overwhelms the attributes of agnosticism, and where\nfaith exists agnosticism is banished, for, as it is said: \u201cA lamp is of\nno use when the dawn rises.\u201d God hath said: \u201c_Kings, when they enter a\ncity, ruin it_\u201d (Kor. xxvii, 34). When gnosis is established in the\nheart of the gnostic, the empire of doubt and scepticism and agnosticism\nis utterly destroyed, and the sovereignty of gnosis subdues his senses\nand passions so that in all his looks and acts and words he remains\nwithin the circle of its authority. I have read that when Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm\nKhaww\u00e1\u1e63 was asked concerning the reality of faith, he replied: \u201cI have\nno answer to this question just now, because whatever I say is a mere\nexpression, and it behoves me to answer by my actions; but I am setting\nout for Mecca: do thou accompany me that thou mayest be answered.\u201d The\nnarrator continues: \u201cI consented. As we journeyed through the desert,\nevery day two loaves and two cups of water appeared. He gave one to me\nand took the other for himself. One day an old man rode up to us and\ndismounted and conversed with Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm for a while; then he left us. I\nasked Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm to tell me who he was. He replied: \u2018This is the answer to\nthy question.\u2019 \u2018How so?\u2019 I asked. He said: \u2018This was Khi\u1e0dr, who begged\nme to let him accompany me, but I refused, for I feared that in his\ncompany I might put confidence in him instead of in God, and then my\ntrust in God (_tawakkul_) would have been vitiated. Real faith is trust\nin God.\u2019\u201d And Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf says: \u201cFaith is the belief of the heart\nin that knowledge which comes from the Unseen,\u201d because faith is in that\nwhich is hidden, and it can be attained only through Divine\nstrengthening of one\u2019s certainty, which is the result of knowledge\nbestowed by God.\n\nNow I will come to matters of practice and will explain their\ndifficulties.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII.\n    THE UNCOVERING OF THE FOURTH VEIL: CONCERNING PURIFICATION FROM\n                               FOULNESS.\n\n\nAfter faith, the first thing incumbent on everyone is purification\n(_\u1e6dah\u00e1rat_) and the performance of prayer, i.e. to cleanse the body from\nfilth and pollution, and to wash the three members,[146] and to wipe the\nhead with water as the law prescribes, or to use sand in the absence of\nwater or in severe illness. Purification is of two kinds: outward and\ninward. Thus prayer requires purification of the body, and gnosis\nrequires purification of the heart. As, in the former case, the water\nmust be clean, so in the latter case unification must be pure and belief\nundefiled. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are always engaged in purification outwardly and in\nunification inwardly. The Apostle said to one of his Companions: \u201cBe\nconstant in ablution, that thy two guardian angels may love thee,\u201d and\nGod hath said: \u201c_God loves those who often repent and those who purify\nthemselves_\u201d (Kor. ii, 222). And the Apostle used to say in his\ninvocations: \u201cO God, purify my heart from hypocrisy.\u201d Even consciousness\nof the miraculous grace (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_) vouchsafed to him he regarded as an\naffirmation of other than God, for in unification it is hypocrisy\n(_nif\u00e1q_) to affirm other than God. So long as a disciple\u2019s eye is\nobscured by a single atom of the miracles of the Shaykhs, from the\nstandpoint of perfection that atom is a potential veil (between him and\nGod). Hence Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cThe hypocrisy of gnostics is better than\nthe sincerity of disciples,\u201d i.e. that which is a \u201cstation\u201d (_maq\u00e1m_) to\nthe novice is a veil to the adept. The novice desires to gain miracles,\nbut the adept desires to gain the Giver of miracles. In short, the\naffirmation of miracles, or of anything that involves the sight of other\nthan God, appears hypocrisy to the people of the Truth (the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds).\nAccordingly, what is noxious to the friends of God is a means of\ndeliverance for all sinners, and what is noxious to sinners is a means\nof salvation for all infidels, because, if infidels knew, as sinners\nknow, that their sins are displeasing to God, they would all be saved\nfrom infidelity; and if sinners knew, as the friends of God know, that\nall their actions are defective, they would all be saved from sin and\npurged of contamination. Therefore, outward and inward purification must\ngo together; e.g., when a man washes his hands he must wash his heart\nclean of worldliness, and when he puts water in his mouth he must purify\nhis mouth from the mention of other than God, and when he washes his\nface he must turn away from all familiar objects and turn towards God,\nand when he wipes his head he must resign his affairs to God, and when\nhe washes his feet he must not form the intention of taking his stand on\nanything except according to the command of God. Thus he will be doubly\npurified. In all religious ordinances the external is combined with the\ninternal; e.g. in faith, the tongue\u2019s profession with the heart\u2019s\nbelief. The method of spiritual purification is to reflect and meditate\non the evil of this world and to perceive that it is false and fleeting,\nand to make the heart empty of it. This result can be attained only by\nmuch self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_), and the most important act of\nmortification is to observe the external rules of discipline (_\u00e1d\u00e1b-i\n\u1e95\u00e1hir_) assiduously in all circumstances. It is related that Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm\nKhaww\u00e1\u1e63 said: \u201cI desire God to give me an everlasting life in this\nworld, in order that, while mankind are engrossed in the pleasures of\nthe world and forget God, I may observe the rules of religion amidst the\naffliction of the world and remember God.\u201d And it is related that Ab\u00fa\n\u1e6c\u00e1hir \u1e24aram\u00ed lived forty years at Mecca, and went outside of the sacred\nterritory whenever he purified himself, because he would not pour the\nwater which he had used for that purpose on ground that God had called\nHis. When Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 was ill of dysentery in the congregational\nmosque at Rayy, he performed sixty complete ablutions in the course of a\nday and night, and he died in the water. Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed was for some\ntime afflicted with distracting thoughts (_wasw\u00e1s_) in purification.\n\u201cOne day,\u201d he said, \u201cI went into the sea at dawn and stayed there till\nsunrise. During that interval my mind was troubled. I cried out: \u2018O God,\nrestore me to spiritual health!\u2019 A voice answered from the sea: \u2018Health\nconsists in knowledge.\u2019\u201d It is related that when Sufy\u00e1n Thawr\u00ed was\ndying, he purified himself sixty times for one prayer and said: \u201cI shall\nat least be clean when I leave this world.\u201d They relate of Shibl\u00ed that\none day he purified himself with the intention of entering the mosque.\nHe heard a voice cry: \u201cThou hast washed thy outward self, but where is\nthy inward purity?\u201d He turned back and gave away all that he possessed,\nand during a year he put on no more clothes than were necessary for\nprayer. Then he came to Junayd, who said to him: \u201cO Ab\u00fa Bakr, that was a\nvery beneficial purification which you have performed; may God always\nkeep you purified!\u201d After that, Shibl\u00ed engaged in continual\npurification. When he was dying and could no longer purify himself, he\nmade a sign to one of his disciples that he should purify him. The\ndisciple did so, but forgot to let the water flow through his beard\n(_takhl\u00edl-i ma\u1e25\u00e1sin_). Shibl\u00ed was unable to speak. He seized the\ndisciple\u2019s hand and pointed to his beard, whereupon the rite was duly\nperformed. And it is also related of him that he said: \u201cWhenever I have\nneglected any rule of purification, some vain conceit has always arisen\nin my heart.\u201d And Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cWhenever a thought of this world\noccurs to my mind, I perform a purification (_\u1e6dah\u00e1rat\u00ed_); and whenever a\nthought of the next world occurs to me, I perform a complete ablution\n(_ghusl\u00ed_),\u201d because this world is non-eternal (_mu\u1e25dath_), and the\nresult of thinking of it is legal impurity (_\u1e25adath_), whereas the next\nworld is the place of absence and repose (_ghaybat \u00fa \u00e1r\u00e1m_), and the\nresult of thinking of it is pollution (_jan\u00e1bat_): hence legal impurity\ninvolves purification and pollution involves total ablution. One day\nShibl\u00ed purified himself. When he came to the door of the mosque a voice\nwhispered in his heart: \u201cArt thou so pure that thou enterest My house\nwith this boldness?\u201d He turned back, but the voice asked: \u201cDost thou\nturn back from My door? Whither wilt thou go?\u201d He uttered a loud cry.\nThe voice said: \u201cDost thou revile me?\u201d He stood silent. The voice said:\n\u201cDost thou pretend to endure My affliction?\u201d Shibl\u00ed exclaimed: \u201cO God, I\nimplore Thee to help me against Thyself.\u201d\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  The face, hands, and feet.\n\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have fully discussed the true meaning of purification,\nand have commanded their disciples not to cease from purifying\nthemselves both outwardly and inwardly. He who would serve God must\npurify himself outwardly with water, and he who would come nigh unto God\nmust purify himself inwardly with repentance. Now I will explain the\nprinciples of repentance (_tawbat_) and its corollaries.\n\n          _Chapter concerning Repentance and its Corollaries._\n\nYou must know that repentance (_tawbat_) is the first station of\npilgrims on the way to the Truth, just as purification (_\u1e6dah\u00e1rat_) is\nthe first step of those who desire to serve God. Hence God hath said:\n\u201c_O believers, repent unto God with a sincere repentance_\u201d (Kor. lxvi,\n8). And the Apostle said, \u201cThere is nothing that God loves more than a\nyouth who repents\u201d; and he also said, \u201cHe who repents of sin is even as\none who has no sin\u201d; then he added, \u201cWhen God loves a man, sin shall not\nhurt him,\u201d i.e. he will not become an infidel on account of sin, and his\nfaith will not be impaired. Etymologically _tawbat_ means \u201creturn\u201d, and\n_tawbat_ really involves the turning back from what God has forbidden\nthrough fear of what He has commanded. The Apostle said: \u201cPenitence is\nthe act of returning\u201d (_al-nadam al-tawbat_). This saying comprises\nthree things which are involved in _tawbat_, namely, (1) remorse for\ndisobedience, (2) immediate abandonment of sin, and (3) determination\nnot to sin again. As repentance (_tawbat_) involves these three\nconditions, so contrition (_nad\u00e1mat_) may be due to three causes: (1)\nfear of Divine chastisement and sorrow for evil actions, (2) desire of\nDivine favour and certainty that it cannot be gained by evil conduct and\ndisobedience, (3) shame before God. In the first case the penitent is\n_t\u00e1\u00b4ib_, in the second case he is _mun\u00edb_, in the third case he is\n_aww\u00e1b_. Similarly, _tawbat_ has three stations, viz., _tawbat_, through\nfear of Divine punishment; _in\u00e1bat_, through desire of Divine reward;\nand _awbat_, for the sake of keeping the Divine command. _Tawbat_ is the\nstation of the mass of believers, and implies repentance from great sins\n(_kab\u00edrat_);[147] and _in\u00e1bat_ is the station of the saints and\nfavourites of God (_awliy\u00e1 \u00fa muqarrab\u00e1n_);[148] and _awbat_ is the\nstation of the prophets and apostles.[149] _Tawbat_ is to return from\ngreat sins to obedience; _in\u00e1bat_ is to return from minor sins to love;\nand _awbat_ is to return from one\u2019s self to God. Repentance (_tawbat_)\nhas its origin in the stern prohibitions of God and in the heart\u2019s being\naroused from the slumber of heedlessness. When a man considers his evil\nconduct and abominable deeds he seeks deliverance therefrom, and God\nmakes it easy for him to repent and leads him back to the sweetness of\nobedience. According to the opinion of orthodox Moslems and all the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nShaykhs, a man who has repented of one sin may continue to commit other\nsins and nevertheless receive Divine recompense for having abstained\nfrom that one sin; and it may be that through the blessing of that\nrecompense he will abstain from other sins. But the Bahsham\u00ed[150] sect\nof the Mu`tazilites hold that no one can properly be called repentant\nunless he avoids all great sins, a doctrine which is absurd, because a\nman is not punished for the sins that he does not commit, but if he\nrenounces a certain kind of sin he has no fear of being punished for\nsins of that particular kind: consequently, he is repentant. Similarly,\nif he performs some religious duties and neglects others, he will be\nrewarded for those which he performed and will be punished for those\nwhich he neglected. Moreover, if anyone should have repented of a sin\nwhich he has not the means of committing at the moment, he is repentant,\nbecause through that past repentance he has gained contrition\n(_nad\u00e1mat_), which is a fundamental part of repentance (_tawbat_), and\nat the moment he has turned his back on that kind of sin and is resolved\nnot to commit it again, even though he should have the power and means\nof doing so at some future time. As regards the nature and property of\nrepentance, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs hold diverse opinions. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h\n(al-Tustar\u00ed) and others believe that repentance consists in not\nforgetting your sins, but always regretting them, so that, although you\nhave many good works to your credit, you will not be pleased with\nyourself on that account; since remorse for an evil action is superior\nto good works, and one who never forgets his sins will never become\nconceited. Junayd and others take the opposite view, that repentance\nconsists in forgetting the sin. They argue that the penitent is a lover\nof God, and the lover of God is in contemplation of God, and in\ncontemplation it is wrong to remember sin, for remembrance of sin is a\nveil between God and those who contemplate Him. This controversy goes\nback to the difference of opinion concerning mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_)\nand contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_), which has been discussed in my account\nof the doctrine of the Sahl\u00eds. Those who hold the penitent to be\nself-dependent regard his forgetfulness of sin as heedlessness, while\nthose who hold that he is dependent on God deem his remembrance of sin\nto be polytheism. Moses, while his attributes were subsistent, said, \u201c_I\nrepent towards Thee_\u201d (Kor. vii, 140), but the Apostle, while his\nattributes were annihilated, said, \u201cI cannot tell Thy praise.\u201d Inasmuch\nas it behoves the penitent not to remember his own selfhood, how should\nhe remember his sin? Indeed, remembrance of sin is a sin, for sin is an\noccasion of turning away from God, and so is the remembrance of it or\nthe forgetting of it, since both remembrance and forgetfulness are\nconnected with one\u2019s self. Junayd says: \u201cI have read many books, but I\nhave never found anything so instructive as this verse:\u2014\n\n              \u2018_Idh\u00e1 qultu m\u00e1 adhnabtu q\u00e1lat muj\u00edbat^{an}\n              \u1e25ay\u00e1tuka dhanb^{un} l\u00e1 yuq\u00e1su bihi dhanbu._\u2019\n\n   When I say: \u2018What is my sin?\u2019 she says in reply:\n   \u2018Thy existence is a sin with which no other sin can be compared.\u2019\u201c\n\nIn short, repentance is a Divine strengthening and sin is a corporeal\nact: when contrition (_nad\u00e1mat_) enters the heart the body has no means\nof expelling it; and as in the beginning no human act can expel\nrepentance, so in the end no human act can maintain it. God hath said:\n\u201d_And He turned_ (t\u00e1ba) _unto him_ (Adam), _for He is the Disposer\ntowards repentance_ (al\u2014taww\u00e1b), _the Merciful_\u201d (Kor. ii, 35). The\nKoran contains many texts to the same effect, which are too well known\nto require citation.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  Cf. Kor. lxvi, 8.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  Cf. Kor. l, 32.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  Cf. Kor. xxxviii, 44.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Text, \u0642\u0647\u0634\u0645\u064a\u0627\u0646. See Shahrist\u00e1n\u00ed, Haarbr\u00fccker\u2019s translation, i, 80.\n\nRepentance is of three kinds: (1) from what is wrong to what is right,\n(2) from what is right to what is more right, (3) from selfhood to God.\nThe first kind is the repentance of ordinary men; the second kind is the\nrepentance of the elect; and the third kind of repentance belongs to the\ndegree of Divine love (_ma\u1e25abbat_). As regards the elect, it is\nimpossible that they should repent of sin. Do not you perceive that all\nthe world feel regret for having lost the vision of God? Moses desired\nthat vision and repented (Kor. vii, 140), because he asked for it with\nhis own volition (_ikhtiy\u00e1r_), for in love personal volition is a taint.\nThe people thought he had renounced the vision of God, but what he\nreally renounced was his personal volition. As regards those who love\nGod, they repent not only of the imperfection of a station below the\nstation to which they have attained, but also of being conscious of any\n\u201cstation\u201d or \u201cstate\u201d whatsoever.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nRepentance does not necessarily continue after the resolution not to\nreturn to sin has been duly made. A penitent who in those circumstances\nreturns to sin has in principle earned the Divine reward for repentance.\nMany novices of this sect (the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds) have repented and gone back to\nwickedness and then once more, in consequence of an admonition, have\nreturned to God. A certain Shaykh relates that he repented seventy times\nand went back to sin on every occasion, until at the seventy-first time\nhe became steadfast. And Ab\u00fa `Amr b. Nujayd[151] tells the following\nstory: \u201cAs a novice, I repented in the assembly-room of Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n \u1e24\u00edr\u00ed\nand persevered in my repentance for some while. Then I fell into sin and\nleft the society of that spiritual director, and whenever I saw him from\nafar my remorse caused me to flee from his sight. One day I met him\nunexpectedly. He said to me: \u2018O son, do not associate with your enemies\nunless you are sinless (_ma`\u1e63\u00fam_), for an enemy will see your faults and\nrejoice. If you must sin, come to us, that we may bear your affliction.\u2019\nOn hearing his words, I felt surfeited with sin and my repentance was\nestablished.\u201d A certain man, having repented of sin, returned to it and\nthen repented once more. \u201cHow will it be,\u201d he said, \u201cif I now turn to\nGod?\u201d A heavenly voice answered, saying: \u201cThou didst obey Me and I\nrecompensed thee, then thou didst abandon Me and I showed indulgence\ntowards thee; and if thou wilt return to Me, I will receive thee.\u201d\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 281.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nDhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian says: \u201cOrdinary men repent of their sins, but\nthe elect repent of their heedlessness,\u201d because ordinary men shall be\nquestioned concerning their outward behaviour, but the elect shall be\nquestioned concerning the real nature of their conduct. Heedlessness,\nwhich to ordinary men is a pleasure, is a veil to the elect. Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63\n\u1e24add\u00e1d says: \u201cMan has no part in repentance, because repentance is from\nGod to Man, not from Man to God.\u201d According to this saying, repentance\nis not acquired by Man, but is one of God\u2019s gifts, a doctrine which is\nclosely akin to that of Junayd. Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan B\u00fashanj\u00ed says: \u201cWhen you\nfeel no delight in remembering a sin, that is repentance,\u201d because the\nrecollection of a sin is accompanied either by regret or by desire: one\nwho regrets that he has committed a sin is repentant, whereas one who\ndesires to commit a sin is a sinner. The actual sin is not so evil as\nthe desire of it, for the act is momentary, but the desire is perpetual.\nDhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the Egyptian says: \u201cThere are two kinds of repentance, the\nrepentance of return (_tawbat al-in\u00e1bat_) and the repentance of shame\n(_tawbat al-isti\u1e25y\u00e1_): the former is repentance through fear of Divine\npunishment, the latter is repentance through shame of Divine clemency.\u201d\nThe repentance of fear is caused by revelation of God\u2019s majesty, while\nthe repentance of shame is caused by vision of God\u2019s beauty. Those who\nfeel shame are intoxicated, and those who feel fear are sober.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX.\n   THE UNCOVERING OF THE FIFTH VEIL: CONCERNING PRAYER (_al-\u1e63al\u00e1t_).\n\n\nEtymologically, prayer (_nam\u00e1z_) means remembrance (of God) and\nsubmissiveness (_dhikr \u00fa inqiy\u00e1d_), but in the correct usage of lawyers\nthe term is specially applied to the five prayers which God has ordered\nto be performed at five different times, and which involve certain\npreliminary conditions, viz.: (1) purification outwardly from filth and\ninwardly from lust; (2) that one\u2019s outward garment should be clean and\none\u2019s inner garment undefiled by anything unlawful; (3) that the place\nwhere one purifies one\u2019s self should be outwardly free from\ncontamination and inwardly free from corruptness and sin; (4) turning\ntowards the _qibla_, the outward _qibla_ being the Ka`ba and the inward\n_qibla_ being the Throne of God, by which is meant the mystery of Divine\ncontemplation; (5) standing outwardly in the state of power (_qudrat_)\nand inwardly in the garden of proximity to God (_qurbat_); (6) sincere\nintention to approach unto God; (7) saying \u201c_Allah akbar_\u201d in the\nstation of awe and annihilation, and standing in the abode of union, and\nreciting the Koran distinctly and reverently, and bowing the head with\nhumility, and prostrating one\u2019s self with abasement, and making the\nprofession of faith with concentration, and saluting with annihilation\nof one\u2019s attributes. It is recorded in the Traditions that when the\nApostle prayed, there was heard within him a sound like the boiling of a\nkettle. And when `Al\u00ed was about to pray, his hair stood on end and he\ntrembled and said: \u201cThe hour has come to fulfil a trust which the\nheavens and the earth were unable to bear.\u201d[152]\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Here the author cites a description given by \u1e24\u00e1tim al-A\u1e63amm of his\n  manner of praying.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nPrayer is a term in which novices find the whole way to God, from\nbeginning to end, and in which their stations (_maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_) are revealed.\nThus, for novices, purification takes the place of repentance, and\ndependence on a spiritual director takes the place of ascertaining the\n_qibla_, and standing in prayer takes the place of self-mortification,\nand reciting the Koran takes the place of inward meditation (_dhikr_),\nand bowing the head takes the place of humility, and prostration takes\nthe place of self-knowledge, and profession of faith takes the place of\nintimacy (_uns_), and salutation takes the place of detachment from the\nworld and escape from the bondage of \u201cstations\u201d. Hence, when the Apostle\nbecame divested of all feelings of delight (_mash\u00e1rib_) in complete\nbewilderment, he used to say: \u201cO Bil\u00e1l, comfort us by the call to\nprayer.\u201d The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have discussed this matter and each of them\noccupies a position of his own. Some hold that prayer is a means of\nobtaining \u201cpresence\u201d with God (_\u1e25ud\u00far_), and others regard it as a means\nof obtaining \u201cabsence\u201d (_ghaybat_); some who have been \u201cabsent\u201d become\n\u201cpresent\u201d in prayer, while others who have been \u201cpresent\u201d become\n\u201cabsent\u201d. Similarly, in the next world where God is seen, some, who are\n\u201cabsent\u201d, when they see God shall become \u201cpresent\u201d, and _vice vers\u00e2_. I,\n`Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, assert that prayer is a Divine command and\nis not a means of obtaining either \u201cpresence\u201d or \u201cabsence\u201d, because a\nDivine command is not a means to anything. The cause of \u201cpresence\u201d is\n\u201cpresence\u201d itself, and the cause of \u201cabsence\u201d is \u201cabsence\u201d itself. If\nprayer were the cause or means of \u201cpresence\u201d, it could be performed only\nby one who was \u201cpresent\u201d, and if it were the cause of \u201cabsence\u201d, one who\nwas \u201cabsent\u201d would necessarily become \u201cpresent\u201d by neglecting to perform\nit. But inasmuch as it must be performed by all, whether they be\n\u201cpresent\u201d or \u201cabsent\u201d, prayer is sovereign in its essence and\nindependent.\n\nPrayer is mostly performed and prescribed by those who are engaged in\nself-mortification or who have attained to steadfastness (_istiq\u00e1mat_).\nThus the Shaykhs order their disciples to perform four hundred bowings\nin prayer during a day and night, that their bodies may be habituated to\ndevotion; and the steadfast likewise perform many prayers in\nthanksgiving for the favour which God has bestowed upon them. As regards\nthose who possess \u201cstates\u201d (_arb\u00e1b-i a\u1e25w\u00e1l_), their prayers, in the\nperfection of ecstasy, correspond to the \u201cstation\u201d of union, so that\nthrough their prayers they become united; or again, when ecstasy is\nwithdrawn, their prayers correspond to the \u201cstation\u201d of separation, so\nthat thereby they become separated. The former, who are united in their\nprayers, pray by day and night and add supererogatory prayers to those\nwhich are incumbent on them, but the latter, who are separated, perform\nno more prayers than they need. The Apostle said: \u201cIn prayer lies my\ndelight,\u201d because prayer is a source of joy to the steadfast. When the\nApostle was brought nigh unto God on the night of the Ascension, and his\nsoul was loosed from the fetters of phenomenal being, and his spirit\nlost consciousness of all degrees and stations, and his natural powers\nwere annihilated, he said, not of his own will, but inspired by longing:\n\u201cO God, do not transport me to yonder world of affliction! Do not throw\nme under the sway of nature and passion!\u201d God answered: \u201cIt is My decree\nthat thou shalt return to the world for the sake of establishing the\nreligious law, in order that I may give thee there what I have given\nthee here.\u201d When he returned to this world, he used to say as often as\nhe felt a longing for that exalted station: \u201cO Bil\u00e1l, comfort us by the\ncall to prayer!\u201d Thus to him every time of prayer was an Ascension and a\nnew nearness to God. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h says: \u201cIt is a sign of a man\u2019s\nsincerity that he has an attendant angel who urges him to pray when the\nhour of prayer is come, and wakes him if he be asleep.\u201d This mark (of\nsincerity) was apparent in Sahl himself, for although he had become\npalsied in his old age he used to recover the use of his limbs whenever\nthe hour of prayer arrived; and after having performed his prayers he\nwas unable to move from his place. One of the Shaykhs says: \u201cFour things\nare necessary to him who prays: annihilation of the lower soul (_nafs_),\nloss of the natural powers, purity of the inmost heart, and perfect\ncontemplation.\u201d Annihilation of the lower soul is to be attained only by\nconcentration of thought; loss of the natural powers only by affirmation\nof the Divine majesty, which involves the destruction of all that is\nother than God; purity of the inmost heart only by love; and perfect\ncontemplation only by purity of the inmost heart. It is related that\n\u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) used to lay upon himself the obligation of\nperforming four hundred bowings of prayer in a day and a night. On being\nasked why he took so much trouble in the high degree which he enjoyed,\nhe answered: \u201cPain and pleasure indicate your feelings, but those whose\nattributes are annihilated feel no effect either of pleasure or of pain.\nBeware lest you call remissness maturity and desire of the world search\nfor God.\u201d A certain man relates: \u201cI was praying behind Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan. When\nhe began to pronounce the _takb\u00edr_, he cried \u2018_Allah akbar_\u2019 and fell in\na swoon like a lifeless body.\u201d Junayd, after he had grown old, did not\nomit any item of the litanies (_awr\u00e1d_) of his youth. When he was urged\nto refrain from some of these supererogatory acts of devotion to which\nhis strength was unequal, he replied that he could not abandon at the\nlast those exercises which had been the means of his acquiring spiritual\nwelfare at the first. It is well known that the angels are ceaselessly\nengaged in worship, because they are spiritual and have no lower soul\n(_nafs_). The lower soul deters men from obedience, and the more it is\nsubdued the more easy does the performance of worship become; and when\nit is entirely annihilated, worship becomes the food and drink of Man,\neven as it is the food and drink of the angels. `Abdall\u00e1h b. Mub\u00e1rak\nsays: \u201cIn my boyhood I remember seeing a female ascetic who was bitten\nby a scorpion in forty places while she was praying, but no change of\nexpression was visible in her countenance. When she had finished, I\nsaid: \u2018O mother, why didst not thou fling the scorpion away from thee?\u2019\nShe answered: \u2018Ignorant boy! dost thou deem it right that while I am\nengaged in God\u2019s business I should attend to my own?\u2019\u201d\n\nAbu \u00b4l-Khayr Aq\u1e6da`[153] had a gangrene in his foot. The physicians\ndeclared that his foot must be amputated, but he would not allow this to\nbe done. His disciples said: \u201cCut it off while he is praying, for at\nthat time he is unconscious.\u201d The physicians acted on this advice. When\nAbu \u00b4l-Khayr finished his prayers he found that his foot had been\namputated.[154]\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 259.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Here follows a story, already related in the notice of Ab\u00fa Bakr (p.\n  70), concerning the different manner in which Ab\u00fa Bakr and `Umar\n  recited the Koran when they performed their prayers.\n\nSome \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds perform obligatory acts of devotion openly, but conceal those\nwhich are supererogatory in order that they may escape from ostentation\n(_riy\u00e1_). Anyone (they say) who desires that others should take notice\nof his religious practices becomes a hypocrite; and if he says that\nalthough other people see his devotions he himself is unconscious of\nthem, that too is hypocrisy. Other \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, however, exhibit both their\nobligatory and supererogatory acts of devotion, on the ground that\nostentation is unreal and piety real: therefore, it is absurd to hide\nreality for the sake of unreality. \u201cDo not let any thought of\nostentation (they say) enter your heart, and worship God wherever you\nwill.\u201d The Shaykhs have observed the true spirit of the rules of\ndevotional practice, and have enjoined their disciples to do the same.\nOne of them says: \u201cI travelled for forty years, and during that time I\ndid not miss a single public service of prayer, but was in some town\nevery Friday.\u201d\n\nThe corollaries of prayer belong to the stations of love, of which I\nwill now set forth the principles in full.\n\n       _Chapter concerning Love and matters connected therewith._\n\nGod hath said, \u201c_O believers, whosoever among you apostatize from their\nreligion, God will assuredly bring in their stead a people whom He will\nlove and who will love Him_\u201d (Kor. v, 59); and He hath also said, \u201c_Some\nmen take idols beside God and love them as they love God, but the\nbelievers love God best_\u201d (Kor. ii, 160). And the Apostle said: \u201cI heard\nGabriel say that God said, \u2018Whoever despises any of My friends has\ndeclared war against Me. I do not hesitate in anything as I hesitate to\nseize the soul of My faithful servant who dislikes death and whom I\ndislike to hurt, but he cannot escape therefrom; and no means whereby My\nservant seeks My favour is more pleasing to Me than the performance of\nthe obligations which I have laid upon him; and My servant continuously\nseeks My favour by works of supererogation until I love him, and when I\nlove him I am his hearing and his sight and his hand and his helper.\u2019\u201d\nAnd the Apostle also said, \u201cGod loves to meet those who love to meet\nHim, and dislikes to meet those who dislike to meet Him\u201d; and again,\n\u201cWhen God loves a man He says to Gabriel, \u2018O Gabriel, I love such and\nsuch a one, so do thou love him\u2019; then Gabriel loves him and says to the\ndwellers in Heaven, \u2018God loves such and such a one,\u2019 and they love him\ntoo; then he bestows on him favour in the earth, so that he is loved by\nthe inhabitants of the earth; and as it happens with regard to love, so\ndoes it happen with regard to hate.\u201d\n\n_Ma\u1e25abbat_ (love) is said to be derived from _\u1e25ibbat_, which are seeds\nthat fall to the earth in the desert. The name _\u1e25ubb_ (love) was given\nto such desert seeds (_\u1e25ibb_), because love is the source of life just\nas seeds are the origin of plants. As, when the seeds are scattered in\nthe desert, they become hidden in the earth, and rain falls upon them\nand the sun shines upon them and cold and heat pass over them, yet they\nare not corrupted by the changing seasons, but grow up and bear flowers\nand give fruit, so love, when it takes its dwelling in the heart, is not\ncorrupted by presence or absence, by pleasure or pain, by separation or\nunion. Others say that _ma\u1e25abbat_ is derived from _\u1e25ubb_, meaning \u201ca jar\nfull of stagnant water\u201d, because when love is collected in the heart and\nfills it, there is no room there for any thought except of the beloved,\nas Shibl\u00ed says: \u201cLove is called _ma\u1e25abbat_ because it obliterates\n(_tam\u1e25\u00fa_) from the heart everything except the beloved.\u201d Others say that\n_ma\u1e25abbat_ is derived from _\u1e25ubb_, meaning \u201cthe four conjoined pieces of\nwood on which a water-jug is placed, because a lover lightly bears\nwhatever his beloved metes out to him\u2014honour or disgrace, pain or\npleasure, fair treatment or foul\u201d. According to others, _ma\u1e25abbat_ is\nderived from _\u1e25abb_, the plural of _\u1e25abbat_, and _\u1e25abbat_ is the core of\nthe heart, where love resides. In this case, _ma\u1e25abbat_ is called by the\nname of its dwelling-place, a principle of which there are numerous\nexamples in Arabic. Others derive it from _\u1e25ab\u00e1b_, \u201cbubbles of water and\nthe effervescence thereof in a heavy rainfall,\u201d because love is the\neffervescence of the heart in longing for union with the beloved. As the\nbody subsists through the spirit, so the heart subsists through love,\nand love subsists through vision of, and union with, the beloved.\nOthers, again, declare that _\u1e25ubb_ is a name applied to pure love,\nbecause the Arabs call the pure white of the human eye _\u1e25abbat\nal-ins\u00e1n_, just as they call the pure black (core) of the heart _\u1e25abbat\nal-qalb_: the latter is the seat of love, the former of vision. Hence\nthe heart and the eye are rivals in love, as the poet says:\n\n       \u201c_My heart envies mine eye the pleasure of seeing,\n       And mine eye envies my heart the pleasure of meditating._\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nYou must know that the term \u201clove\u201d (_ma\u1e25abbat_) is used by theologians\nin three significations. Firstly, as meaning restless desire for the\nobject of love, and inclination and passion, in which sense it refers\nonly to created beings and their mutual affection towards one another,\nbut cannot be applied to God, who is exalted far above anything of this\nsort. Secondly, as meaning God\u2019s beneficence and His conferment of\nspecial privileges on those whom He chooses and causes to attain the\nperfection of saintship and peculiarly distinguishes by diverse kinds of\nHis miraculous grace. Thirdly, as meaning praise which God bestows on a\nman for a good action (_than\u00e1-yi jam\u00edl_).[155]\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  Cf. Qushayr\u00ed (Cairo, 1318 A.H.), 170, 14 sqq.\n\nSome scholastic philosophers say that God\u2019s love, which He has made\nknown to us, belongs to those traditional attributes, like His face and\nHis hand and His settling Himself firmly on His throne (_istiw\u00e1_), of\nwhich the existence from the standpoint of reason would appear to be\nimpossible if they had not been proclaimed as Divine attributes in the\nKoran and the Sunna. Therefore we affirm them and believe in them, but\nsuspend our own judgment concerning them. These scholastics mean to deny\nthat the term \u201clove\u201d can be applied to God in all the senses which I\nhave mentioned. I will now explain to you the truth of this matter.\n\nGod\u2019s love of Man is His good will towards him and His having mercy on\nhim. Love is one of the names of His will (_ir\u00e1dat_), like\n\u201csatisfaction\u201d, \u201canger\u201d, \u201cmercy\u201d, etc., and His will is an eternal\nattribute whereby He wills His actions. In short, God\u2019s love towards Man\nconsists in showing much favour to him, and giving him a recompense in\nthis world and the next, and making him secure from punishment and\nkeeping him safe from sin, and bestowing on him lofty \u201cstates\u201d and\nexalted \u201cstations\u201d and causing him to turn his thoughts away from all\nthat is other than God. When God peculiarly distinguishes anyone in this\nway, that specialization of His will is called love. This is the\ndoctrine of \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed and Junayd and a large number of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nShaykhs as well as of the lawyers belonging to both the sects; and most\nof the Sunn\u00ed scholastics hold the same opinion. As regards their\nassertion that Divine love is \u201cpraise given to a man for a good action\u201d\n(_than\u00e1-yi jam\u00edl bar banda_), God\u2019s praise is His word (_kal\u00e1m_), which\nis uncreated; and as regards their assertion that Divine love means\n\u201cbeneficence\u201d, His beneficence consists in His actions. Hence the\ndifferent views are substantially in close relation to each other.\n\nMan\u2019s love towards God is a quality which manifests itself in the heart\nof the pious believer, in the form of veneration and magnification, so\nthat he seeks to satisfy his Beloved and becomes impatient and restless\nin his desire for vision of Him, and cannot rest with anyone except Him,\nand grows familiar with the remembrance (_dhikr_) of Him, and abjures\nthe remembrance of everything besides. Repose becomes unlawful to him\nand rest flees from him. He is cut off from all habits and associations,\nand renounces sensual passion and turns towards the court of love and\nsubmits to the law of love and knows God by His attributes of\nperfection. It is impossible that Man\u2019s love of God should be similar in\nkind to the love of His creatures towards one another, for the former is\ndesire to comprehend and attain the beloved object, while the latter is\na property of bodies. The lovers of God are those who devote themselves\nto death in nearness to Him, not those who seek His nature\n(_kayfiyyat_), because the seeker stands by himself, but he who devotes\nhimself to death (_mustahlik_) stands by his Beloved; and the truest\nlovers are they who would fain die thus, and are overpowered, because a\nphenomenal being has no means of approaching the Eternal save through\nthe omnipotence of the Eternal. He who knows what is real love feels no\nmore difficulties, and all his doubts depart. Love, then, is of two\nkinds\u2014(1) the love of like towards like, which is a desire instigated by\nthe lower soul and which seeks the essence (_dh\u00e1t_) of the beloved\nobject by means of sexual intercourse; (2) the love of one who is unlike\nthe object of his love and who seeks to become intimately attached to an\nattribute of that object, e.g. hearing without speech or seeing without\neye. And believers who love God are of two kinds\u2014(1) those who regard\nthe favour and beneficence of God towards them, and are led by that\nregard to love the Benefactor; (2) those who are so enraptured by love\nthat they reckon all favours as a veil (between themselves and God) and\nby regarding the Benefactor are led to (consciousness of) His favours.\nThe latter way is the more exalted of the two.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nAmong the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs Sumn\u00fan al-Mu\u1e25ibb holds a peculiar doctrine\nconcerning love. He asserts that love is the foundation and principle of\nthe way to God, that all \u201cstates\u201d and \u201cstations\u201d are stages of love, and\nthat every stage and abode in which the seeker may be admits of\ndestruction, except the abode of love, which is not destructible in any\ncircumstances so long as the way itself remains in existence. All the\nother Shaykhs agree with him in this matter, but since the term \u201clove\u201d\nis current and well known, and they wished the doctrine of Divine love\nto remain hidden, instead of calling it \u201clove\u201d they gave it the name of\n\u201cpurity\u201d (_\u1e63afwat_), and the lover they called \u201c\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u201d; or they used the\nword \u201cpoverty\u201d (_faqr_) to denote the renunciation of the lover\u2019s\npersonal will in his affirmation of the Beloved\u2019s will, and they called\nthe lover \u201cpoor\u201d (_faq\u00edr_). I have explained the theory of \u201cpurity\u201d and\n\u201cpoverty\u201d in the beginning of this book.\n\n`Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n Makk\u00ed says in the _Kit\u00e1b-i Ma\u1e25abbat_[156] that God\ncreated the souls (_dilh\u00e1_) seven thousand years before the bodies and\nkept them in the station of proximity (_qurb_), and that he created the\nspirits (_j\u00e1nh\u00e1_) seven thousand years before the souls and kept them in\nthe degree of intimacy (_uns_), and that he created the hearts\n(_sirrh\u00e1_) seven thousand years before the spirits and kept them in the\ndegree of union (_wa\u1e63l_), and revealed the epiphany of His beauty to the\nheart three hundred and sixty times every day and bestowed on it three\nhundred and sixty looks of grace, and He caused the spirits to hear the\nword of love and manifested three hundred and sixty exquisite favours of\nintimacy to the soul, so that they all surveyed the phenomenal universe\nand saw nothing more precious than themselves and were filled with\nvanity and pride. Therefore God subjected them to probation: He\nimprisoned the heart in the spirit and the spirit in the soul and the\nsoul in the body; then He mingled reason (_`aql_) with them, and sent\nprophets and gave commands; then each of them began to seek its original\nstation. God ordered them to pray. The body betook itself to prayer, the\nsoul attained to love, the spirit arrived at proximity to God, and the\nheart found rest in union with Him. The explanation of love is not love,\nbecause love is a feeling (_\u1e25\u00e1l_), and feelings are never mere words\n(_q\u00e1l_). If the whole world wished to attract love, they could not; and\nif they made the utmost efforts to repel it, they could not. Love is a\nDivine gift, not anything that can be acquired.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  \u201cThe Book of Love.\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nConcerning excessive love (_`ishq_) there is much controversy among the\nShaykhs. Some \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds hold that excessive love towards God is allowable,\nbut that it does not proceed from God. Such love, they say, is the\nattribute of one who is debarred from his beloved, and Man is debarred\nfrom God, but God is not debarred from Man: therefore Man may love God\nexcessively, but the term is not applicable to God. Others, again, take\nthe view that God cannot be the object of Man\u2019s excessive love, because\nsuch love involves a passing beyond limits, whereas God is not limited.\nThe moderns assert that excessive love, in this world and the next, is\nproperly applied only to the desire of attaining the essence, and\ninasmuch as the essence of God is not attainable, the term (_`ishq_) is\nnot rightly used in reference to Man\u2019s love towards God, although the\nterms \u201clove\u201d (_ma\u1e25abbat_) and \u201cpure love\u201d (_\u1e63afwat_) are correct. They\nsay, moreover, that while love (_ma\u1e25abbat_) may be produced by hearing,\nexcessive love (_`ishq_) cannot possibly arise without actual vision:\ntherefore it cannot be felt towards God, who is not seen in this world.\nThe essence of God is not attainable or perceptible, that Man should be\nable to feel excessive love towards Him; but Man feels love (_ma\u1e25abbat_)\ntowards God, because God, through His attributes and actions, is a\ngracious benefactor to His friends. Since Jacob was absorbed in love\n(_ma\u1e25abbat_) for Joseph, from whom he was separated, his eyes became\nbright and clear as soon as he smelt Joseph\u2019s shirt; but since Zulaykh\u00e1\nwas ready to die on account of her excessive love (_`ishq_) for Joseph,\nher eyes were not opened until she was united with him. It has also been\nsaid that excessive love is applicable to God, on the ground that\nneither God nor excessive love has any opposite.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nI will now mention a few of the innumerable indications which the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\nShaykhs have given as to the true nature of love. Master Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim\nQushayr\u00ed says: \u201cLove is the effacement of the lover\u2019s attributes and the\nestablishment of the Beloved\u2019s essence,\u201d i.e. since the Beloved is\nsubsistent (_b\u00e1q\u00ed_) and the lover is annihilated (_f\u00e1n\u00ed_) the jealousy\nof love requires that the lover should make the subsistence of the\nBeloved absolute by negating himself, and he cannot negate his own\nattributes except by affirming the essence of the Beloved. No lover can\nstand by his own attributes, for in that case he would not need the\nBeloved\u2019s beauty; but when he knows that his life depends on the\nBeloved\u2019s beauty, he necessarily seeks to annihilate his own attributes,\nwhich veil him from his Beloved; and thus in love for his Friend he\nbecomes an enemy to himself. It is well known that the last words of\n\u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j) on the scaffold were _\u1e24asb al-w\u00e1jid ifr\u00e1d\nal-w\u00e1\u1e25id_, \u201cIt is enough for the lover that he should make the One\nsingle,\u201d i.e. that his existence should be cleared away from the path of\nlove and that the dominion of his lower soul should be utterly\ndestroyed. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed says: \u201cLove consists in regarding your own\nmuch as little and your Beloved\u2019s little as much.\u201d This is how God\nHimself deals with His servants, for He calls \u201clittle\u201d that which He has\ngiven to them in this world (Kor. iv, 79), but calls their praise of Him\n\u201cmuch\u201d\u2014\u201c_the men and women who praise God much_\u201d (Kor. xxxiii, 35)\u2014in\norder that all His creatures may know that He is the real Beloved,\nbecause nothing is little that God bestows on Man, and all is little\nthat Man offers to God. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Tustar\u00ed says: \u201cLove\nconsists in embracing acts of obedience (_mu`\u00e1naqat al-\u1e6d\u00e1`\u00e1t_) and in\navoiding acts of disobedience,\u201d because a man performs the command of\nhis beloved more easily in proportion to the strength of love in his\nheart. This is a refutation of those heretics who declare that a man may\nattain to such a degree of love that obedience is no longer required of\nhim, a doctrine which is sheer heresy. It is impossible that any person,\nwhile his understanding is sound, should be relieved of his religious\nobligations, because the law of Mu\u1e25ammad will never be abrogated, and if\none such person may be thus relieved why not all? The case of persons\novercome with rapture (_maghl\u00fab_) and idiots (_ma`t\u00fah_) is different. It\nis possible, however, that God in His love should bring a man to such a\ndegree that it costs him no trouble to perform his religious duties,\nbecause the more one loves Him who gives the command the less trouble\nwill he have in executing it. When the Apostle abandoned himself\nentirely to devotion both by day and night, so that his blessed feet\nbecame swollen, God said: \u201c_We have not sent down the Koran to thee in\norder that thou shouldst be miserable_\u201d (Kor. xx, 1). And it is also\npossible that one should be relieved of the consciousness of performing\nthe Divine command, as the Apostle said: \u201cVerily, a veil is drawn over\nmy heart, and I ask forgiveness of God seventy times daily,\u201d i.e. he\nasked to be forgiven for his actions, because he was not regarding\nhimself and his actions, that he should be pleased with his obedience,\nbut was paying regard to the majesty of God\u2019s command and was thinking\nthat his actions were not worthy of God\u2019s acceptance. Sumn\u00fan Mu\u1e25ibb\nsays: \u201cThe lovers of God have borne away the glory of this world and the\nnext, for the Prophet said, \u2018A man is with the object of his love.\u2019\u201d\nTherefore they are with God in both worlds, and those who are with God\ncan do no wrong. The glory of this world is God\u2019s being with them, and\nthe glory of the next world is their being with God. Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh\nal-R\u00e1z\u00ed says: \u201cReal love is neither diminished by unkindness nor\nincreased by kindness and bounty,\u201d because in love both kindness and\nunkindness are causes, and the cause of a thing is reduced to nothing\nwhen the thing itself actually exists. A lover delights in the\naffliction that his beloved makes him suffer, and having love he regards\nkindness and unkindness with the same indifference. The story is well\nknown how Shibl\u00ed was supposed to be insane and was confined in a\nmadhouse. Some persons came to visit him. \u201cWho are you?\u201d he asked. They\nanswered: \u201cThy friends,\u201d whereupon he pelted them with stones and put\nthem to flight. Then he said: \u201cHad you been my friends, you would not\nhave fled from my affliction.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XX.\n    THE UNCOVERING OF THE SIXTH VEIL: CONCERNING ALMS (_al-zak\u00e1t_).\n\n\nAlms is one of the obligatory ordinances of the faith. It becomes due on\nthe completion of a benefit; e.g., two hundred dirhems constitute a\ncomplete benefit (_ni`mat\u00ed tam\u00e1m_), and anyone who is in possession of\nthat sum ought to pay five dirhems; or if he possesses twenty d\u00edn\u00e1rs he\nought to pay half a d\u00edn\u00e1r; or if he possesses five camels he ought to\npay one sheep, and so forth. Alms is also due on account of dignity\n(_j\u00e1h_), because that too is a complete benefit. The Apostle said:\n\u201cVerily, God has made it incumbent upon you to pay the alms of your\ndignity, even as He has made it incumbent upon you to pay the alms of\nyour property\u201d; and he said also: \u201cEverything has its alms, and the alms\nof a house is the guest-room.\u201d\n\nAlms is really thanksgiving for a benefit received, the thanks being\nsimilar in kind to the benefit. Thus health is a great blessing, for\nwhich every limb owes alms. Therefore healthy persons ought to occupy\nall their limbs with devotion and not yield them to pleasure and\npastime, in order that the alms due for the blessing of health may be\nfully paid. Moreover, there is an alms for every spiritual blessing,\nnamely, outward and inward acknowledgment of that blessing in proportion\nto its worth. Thus, when a man knows that the blessings bestowed upon\nhim by God are infinite, he should render infinite thanks by way of\nalms. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds do not consider it praiseworthy to give alms on account\nof worldly blessings, because they disapprove of avarice, and a man must\nneeds be extremely avaricious to keep two hundred dirhems in his\npossession for a whole year and then give away five dirhems in alms.\nSince it is the custom of the generous to lavish their wealth, and since\nthey are disposed to be liberal, how should almsgiving be incumbent upon\nthem?\n\nI have read in the Anecdotes that a certain formal theologian, wishing\nto make trial of Shibl\u00ed, asked him what sum ought to be given in alms.\nShibl\u00ed replied: \u201cWhere avarice is present and property exists, five\ndirhems out of every two hundred dirhems, and half a d\u00edn\u00e1r out of every\ntwenty d\u00edn\u00e1rs. That is according to thy doctrine; but according to mine,\na man ought not to possess anything, in which case he will be saved from\nthe trouble of giving alms.\u201d The divine asked: \u201cWhose authority do you\nfollow in this matter?\u201d Shibl\u00ed said: \u201cThe authority of Ab\u00fa Bakr the\nVeracious, who gave away all that he possessed, and on being asked by\nthe Apostle what he had left behind for his family, answered, \u2018God and\nHis Apostle.\u2019\u201d And it is related that `Al\u00ed said in an ode\u2014\n\n         \u201c_Almsgiving is not incumbent on me,\n         For how can a generous man be required to give alms?_\u201d\n\nBut it is absurd for anyone to cultivate ignorance and to say that\nbecause he has no property he need not be acquainted with the theory of\nalmsgiving. To learn and obtain knowledge is an essential obligation,\nand to profess one\u2019s self independent of knowledge is mere infidelity.\nIt is one of the evils of the present age that many who pretend to be\npious dervishes reject knowledge in favour of ignorance. The author\nsays: \u201cOnce I was giving devotional instruction to some novices in\n\u1e62\u00fafiism and was discussing the chapter on the poor-rate of camels\n(_\u1e63adaqat al-ibil_) and explaining the rules in regard to she-camels\nthat have entered on their third or second or fourth year (_bint-i lab\u00fan\n\u00fa bint-i makh\u00e1\u1e0d \u00fa \u1e25iqqa_). An ignorant fellow, tired of listening to my\ndiscourse, rose and said: \u2018I have no camels: what use is this knowledge\nto me?\u2019 I answered: \u2018Knowledge is necessary in taking alms no less than\nin giving alms: if anyone should give you a she-camel in her third year\nand you should accept her, you ought to be informed on this point; and\neven though one has no property and does not want to have any property,\nhe is not thereby relieved from the obligation of knowledge.\u2019\u201d\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nSome of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have accepted alms, while others have declined\nto do so. Those whose poverty is voluntary (_ba-ikhtiy\u00e1r_) belong to the\nlatter class. \u201cWe do not amass property,\u201d they say, \u201ctherefore we need\nnot give alms; nor will we accept alms from worldlings, lest they should\nhave the upper hand (_yad-i `uly\u00e1_) and we the lower (_yad-i sufl\u00e1_).\u201c\nBut those who in their poverty are under Divine compulsion (_mu\u1e0dtarr_)\naccept alms, not for their own wants but with the purpose of relieving a\nbrother Moslem of his obligation. In this case the receiver of alms, not\nthe giver, has the upper hand; otherwise, the words of God, \u201d_And He\naccepteth the alms_\u201d (Kor. ix, 105), are meaningless, and the giver of\nalms must be superior to the receiver, a belief which is utterly false.\nNo; the upper hand belongs to him who takes something from a brother\nMoslem in order that the latter may escape from a heavy responsibility.\nDervishes are not of this world (_duny\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed_), but of the next world\n(_`uqb\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed_), and if a dervish fails to relieve a worldling of his\nresponsibility, the worldling will be held accountable and punished at\nthe Resurrection for having neglected to fulfil his obligation.\nTherefore God afflicts the dervish with a slight want in order that\nworldlings may be able to perform what is incumbent upon them. The upper\nhand is necessarily the hand of the dervish who receives alms in\naccordance with the requirement of the law, because it behoves him to\ntake that which is due to God. If the hand of the recipient were the\nlower hand, as some anthropomorphists (_ahl-i \u1e25ashw_) declare, then the\nhands of the Apostles, who often received alms due to God and delivered\nit to the proper authority, must have been lower (than the hands of\nthose who gave the alms to them). This view is erroneous; its adherents\ndo not see that the Apostles received alms in consequence of the Divine\ncommand. The religious Im\u00e1ms have acted in the same manner as the\nApostles, for they have always received payments due to the public\ntreasury. Those are in the wrong who assert that the hand of the\nreceiver is the lower and that of the giver is the higher.\n\n_Chapter on Liberality and Generosity._\n\nIn the opinion of theologians liberality (_j\u00fad_) and generosity\n(_sakh\u00e1_), when regarded as human attributes, are synonymous; but God,\nalthough He is called liberal (_jaw\u00e1d_), is not called generous\n(_sakh\u00ed_), because He has not called Himself by the latter name, nor is\nHe so called in any Apostolic Tradition. All orthodox Moslems are agreed\nthat it is not allowable to apply to God any name that is not proclaimed\nin the Koran and the Sunna: thus He may be called knowing (_`\u00e1lim_), but\nnot intelligent (_`\u00e1qil_) or wise (_faq\u00edh_), although the three terms\nbear the same signification. Hence God is called liberal, since that\nname is accompanied by His blessing; and He is not called generous,\nsince that name lacks His blessing. Men have made a distinction between\nliberality (_j\u00fad_) and generosity (_sakh\u00e1_), and have said that the\ngenerous man discriminates in his liberality, and that his actions are\nconnected with a selfish motive (_ghara\u1e0d_) and a cause (_sabab_). This\nis a rudimentary stage in liberality, for the liberal man does not\ndiscriminate, and his actions are devoid of self-interest and without\nany secondary cause. These two qualities were exhibited by two Apostles,\nviz., Abraham, the Friend of God (_Khal\u00edl_), and Mu\u1e25ammad, the Beloved\nof God (_\u1e24ab\u00edb_). It is related in the genuine Traditions that Abraham\nwas accustomed not to eat anything until a guest came to him. Once,\nafter three days had passed without the arrival of a guest, a\nfire\u2014worshipper appeared at the door, but Abraham, on hearing who he\nwas, refused to give him entertainment. God reproached him on this\naccount, saying: \u201cWilt not thou give a piece of bread to one whom I have\nnourished for seventy years?\u201d But Mu\u1e25ammad, when the son of \u1e24\u00e1tim\nvisited him, spread his own mantle on the ground for him and said:\n\u201cHonour the noble chieftain of a people when he comes to you.\u201d Abraham\u2019s\nposition was generosity, but our Apostle\u2019s was liberality.\n\nThe best rule in this matter is set forth in the maxim that liberality\nconsists in following one\u2019s first thought, and that it is a sign of\navarice when the second thought prevails over the first; for the first\nthought is unquestionably from God. I have read that at N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far there\nwas a merchant who used regularly to attend the meetings held by Shaykh\nAb\u00fa Sa`\u00edd. One day a dervish who was present begged the Shaykh to give\nhim something. The merchant had a d\u00edn\u00e1r and a small piece of clipped\nmoney (_qur\u00e1\u1e0da_). His first thought was: \u201cI will give the d\u00edn\u00e1r,\u201d but on\nsecond thoughts he gave the clipped piece. When the Shaykh finished his\ndiscourse the merchant asked: \u201cIs it right for anyone to contend with\nGod?\u201d The Shaykh answered: \u201cYou contended with Him: He bade you give the\nd\u00edn\u00e1r, but you gave the clipping.\u201d I have also read that Shaykh Ab\u00fa\n`Abdall\u00e1h R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed came to the house of a disciple in his absence, and\nordered that all the effects in the house should be taken to the bazaar.\nWhen the disciple returned he was delighted that the Shaykh had behaved\nwith such freedom, but he said nothing. His wife, however, tore off her\ndress and flung it down, saying: \u201cThis belongs to the effects of the\nhouse.\u201d The husband exclaimed: \u201cYou are doing more than is necessary and\nshowing self-will.\u201d \u201cO husband,\u201d said she, \u201cwhat the Shaykh did was the\nresult of his liberality: we too must exert ourselves (_takalluf kun\u00edm_)\nto display liberality.\u201d \u201cYes,\u201d replied the husband, \u201cbut if we allow the\nShaykh to be liberal, that is real liberality in us, whereas liberality,\nregarded as a human quality, is forced and unreal.\u201d A disciple ought\nalways to sacrifice his property and himself in obedience to the command\nof God. Hence Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h (al-Tustar\u00ed) said: \u201cThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\u2019s blood may\nbe shed with impunity, and his property may be seized.\u201d I have heard the\nfollowing story of Shaykh Ab\u00fa Muslim F\u00e1ris\u00ed: \u201cOnce (he said) I set out\nwith a number of people for the \u1e24ij\u00e1z. In the neighbourhood of \u1e24ulw\u00e1n we\nwere attacked by Kurds, who stripped us of our patched frocks. We\noffered no resistance. One man, however, became greatly excited,\nwhereupon a Kurd drew his scimitar and killed him, notwithstanding our\nentreaties that his life might be spared. On our asking why he had\nkilled him he answered: \u2018Because he is no \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed and acts disloyally in\nthe company of saints: such a one is better dead.\u2019 We said: \u2018How so?\u2019 He\nreplied: \u2018The first step in \u1e62\u00fafiism is liberality. This fellow, who was\nso desperately attached to these rags that he quarrelled with his own\nfriends, how should he be a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed? His own friends, I say, for it is a\nlong time since we have been doing as you do, and plundering you and\nstripping you of worldly encumbrances.\u2019\u201d[157] A man came to the house of\n\u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed and said that he owed four hundred dirhems. \u1e24asan gave him\nfour hundred d\u00edn\u00e1rs and went into the house, weeping. They asked him why\nhe wept. He answered: \u201cI have been remiss in making inquiry into the\ncircumstances of this man, and have reduced him to the humiliation of\nbegging.\u201d Ab\u00fa Sahl \u1e62u`l\u00fak\u00ed never put alms into the hand of a dervish,\nand always used to lay on the ground anything that he gave. \u201cWorldly\ngoods,\u201d he said, \u201care too worthless to be placed in the hand of a\nMoslem, so that my hand should be the upper and his the lower.\u201d[158] I\nonce met a dervish to whom a Sultan had sent three hundred drachms of\npure gold. He went to a bath-house, and gave the whole sum to the\nsuperintendent and immediately departed. I have already discussed the\nsubject of liberality in the chapter on preference (_\u00edth\u00e1r_), where I\nhave dealt with the doctrine of the N\u00far\u00eds.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  Here follows a story of `Abdall\u00e1h b. Ja`far and an Abyssinian slave,\n  who let a dog eat the whole of his daily portion of food.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Here the author relates three short anecdotes illustrating the\n  liberality of Mu\u1e25ammad.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXI.\n      THE UNCOVERING OF THE SEVENTH VEIL: ON FASTING (_al-\u1e63awm_).\n\n\nGod hath said: \u201c_O believers, fasting is prescribed unto you_\u201d (Kor. ii,\n179). And the Apostle said that he was informed by Gabriel that God\nsaid: \u201cFasting is mine, and I have the best right to give recompense for\nit\u201d (_al-\u1e63awm l\u00ed wa-ana ajz\u00e1 bihi_),[159] because the religious practice\nof fasting is a mystery unconnected with any external thing, a mystery\nin which none other than God participates: hence its recompense is\ninfinite. It has been said that mankind enter Paradise through God\u2019s\nmercy, and that their rank therein depends on their religious devotion,\nand that their abiding therein for ever is the recompense of their\nfasting, because God said: \u201cI have the best right to give recompense for\nit.\u201d Junayd said: \u201cFasting is half of the Way.\u201d I have seen Shaykhs who\nfasted without intermission, and others who fasted only during the month\nof Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n: the former were seeking recompense, and the latter were\nrenouncing self-will and ostentation. Again, I have seen others who\nfasted and were not conscious of anyone and ate only when food was set\nbefore them. This is more in accordance with the Sunna. It is related\nthat the Apostle came to `\u00c1\u00b4isha and \u1e24af\u1e63a, who said to him: \u201cWe have\nkept some dates and butter (_\u1e25ays_) for thee.\u201d \u201cBring it,\u201d said he; \u201cI\nwas intending to fast, but I will fast another day instead.\u201d I have seen\nothers who fasted on the \u201cwhite days\u201d (from the 13th to the 15th of\nevery month), and on the ten (last nights) of the blessed month\n(Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n), and also during Rajab, Sha`b\u00e1n, and Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n. Others I have\nseen who observed the fast of David, which the Apostle called the best\nof fasts, i.e. they fasted one day and broke their fast the next day.\nOnce I came into the presence of Shaykh A\u1e25mad Bukh\u00e1r\u00ed. He had a dish of\nsweetmeat (_\u1e25alw\u00e1_) before him, from which he was eating, and he made a\nsign to me that I should do the same. As is the way of young men, I\nanswered (without consideration) that I was fasting. He asked why. I\nsaid: \u201cIn conformity with such and such a one.\u201d He said: \u201cIt is not\nright for human beings to conform with human beings.\u201d I was about to\nbreak my fast, but he said: \u201cSince you wish to be quit of conformity\nwith him, do not conform with me, for I too am a human being.\u201d Fasting\nis really abstinence, and this includes the whole method of \u1e62\u00fafiism\n(_\u1e6dar\u00edqat_). The least degree in fasting is hunger, which is God\u2019s food\non earth, and is universally commended in the eye of the law and of\nreason. One month\u2019s continual fasting is incumbent on every reasonable\nMoslem who has attained to manhood. The fast begins on the appearance of\nthe moon of Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n, and continues until the appearance of the moon of\nShaww\u00e1l, and for every day a sincere intention and firm obligation are\nnecessary. Abstinence involves many obligations, e.g., keeping the belly\nwithout food and drink, and guarding the eye from lustful looks, and the\near from listening to evil speech about anyone in his absence, and the\ntongue from vain or foul words, and the body from following after\nworldly things and disobedience to God. One who acts in this manner is\ntruly keeping his fast, for the Apostle said to a certain man, \u201cWhen you\nfast, let your ear fast and your eye and your tongue and your hand and\nevery limb;\u201d and he also said, \u201cMany a one has no good of his fasting\nexcept hunger and thirst.\u201d\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  The usual reading is _ajz\u00ed_, \u201cI give recompense,\u201d but the Persian\n  translation, _ba-jaz\u00e1-yi \u00e1n man awl\u00e1taram_, is equivalent to _ana ajz\u00e1\n  bihi_.\n\nI dreamed that I saw the Apostle and asked him to give me a word of\ncounsel, and that he replied: \u201cImprison thy tongue and thy senses.\u201d To\nimprison the senses is complete self-mortification, because all kinds of\nknowledge are acquired through the five senses: sight, hearing, taste,\nsmell, and touch. Four of the senses have a particular _locus_, but the\nfifth, namely touch, is spread over the whole body. Everything that\nbecomes known to human beings passes through these five doors, except\nintuitive knowledge and Divine inspiration, and in each sense there is a\npurity and an impurity; for, just as they are open to knowledge, reason,\nand spirit, so they are open to imagination and passion, being organs\nwhich partake of piety and sin and of felicity and misery. Therefore it\nbehoves him who is keeping a fast to imprison all the senses in order\nthat they may return from disobedience to obedience. To abstain only\nfrom food and drink is child\u2019s play. One must abstain from idle\npleasures and unlawful acts, not from eating lawful food. I marvel at\nthose who say that they are keeping a voluntary fast and yet fail to\nperform an obligatory duty. Not to commit sin is obligatory, whereas\ncontinual fasting is an apostolic custom (which may be observed or\nneglected). When a man is divinely protected from sin all his\ncircumstances are a fast. It is related by Ab\u00fa \u1e6cal\u1e25a al-M\u00e1lik\u00ed that Sahl\nb. `Abdall\u00e1h of Tustar was fasting on the day of his birth and also on\nthe day of his death, because he was born in the forenoon and tasted no\nmilk until the evening prayer, and on the day of his decease he was\nkeeping a fast. But continual fasting (_r\u00faza-i wi\u1e63\u00e1l_) has been\nforbidden by the Apostle, for when he fasted continually, and his\nCompanions conformed with him in that respect, he forbade them, saying:\n\u201cI am not as one of you: I pass the night with my Lord, who gives me\nfood and drink.\u201d The votaries of self-mortification assert that this\nprohibition was an act of indulgence, not a veto declaring such fasts to\nbe unlawful, and others regard them as being contrary to the Sunna, but\nthe fact is that continuance (_wi\u1e63\u00e1l_) is impossible, because the day\u2019s\nfast is interrupted by night or, at any rate, does not continue beyond a\ncertain period. It is related that Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h of Tustar used to\neat only once in fifteen days, and when the month of Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n arrived he\nate nothing until the Feast, and performed four hundred bowings in\nprayer every night. This exceeds the limit of human endurance, and\ncannot be accomplished by anyone without Divine aid, which itself\nbecomes his nourishment. It is well known that Shaykh Ab\u00fa Na\u1e63r\nSarr\u00e1j,[160] the author of the _Luma`_,[161] who was surnamed the\nPeacock of the Poor (_\u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00fas al-fuqar\u00e1_), came to Baghd\u00e1d in the month of\nRama\u1e0d\u00e1n, and was given a private chamber in the Sh\u00fan\u00edziyya mosque, and\nwas appointed to preside over the dervishes until the Feast. During the\nnightly prayers of Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n (_tar\u00e1w\u00ed\u1e25_) he recited the whole Koran five\ntimes. Every night a servant brought a loaf of bread to his room. When\nhe departed, on the day of the Feast, the servant found all the thirty\nloaves untouched. `Al\u00ed b. Bakk\u00e1r relates that \u1e24af\u1e63 Mi\u1e63\u1e63\u00eds\u00ed ate nothing\nin Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n except on the fifteenth day of that month. We are told that\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm Adham fasted from the beginning to the end of Rama\u1e0d\u00e1n, and,\nalthough it was the month of Tamm\u00faz (July), worked every day as a\nharvester and gave his wages to the dervishes, and prayed from nightfall\nto daybreak; they watched him closely and saw that he neither ate nor\nslept. It is said that Shaykh Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Khaf\u00edf during his life kept\nforty uninterrupted fasts of forty days, and I have met with an old man\nwho used annually to keep two fasts of forty days in the desert. I was\npresent at the death-bed of D\u00e1nishmand Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad B\u00e1nghar\u00ed; he had\ntasted no food for eighty days and had not missed a single occasion of\npublic worship. At Merv there were two spiritual directors; one was\ncalled Mas`\u00fad and the other was Shaykh Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Siy\u00e1h. Mas`\u00fad sent a\nmessage to Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed, saying: \u201cHow long shall we make empty pretensions?\nCome, let us sit fasting for forty days.\u201d Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed replied: \u201cNo; let us\neat three times a day and nevertheless require only one purification\nduring these forty days.\u201d The difficulties of this question are not yet\nremoved. Ignorant persons conclude that continuance in fasting is\npossible, while physicians allege that such a theory is entirely\nbaseless. I will now explain the matter in full. To fast continuously,\nwithout infringing the Divine command, is a miracle (_kar\u00e1mat_).\nMiracles have a special, not a general, application: if they were\nvouchsafed to all, faith would be an act of necessity (_jabr_) and\ngnostics would not be recompensed on account of gnosis. The Apostle\nwrought evidentiary miracles (_mu`jiz\u00e1t_) and therefore divulged his\ncontinuance in fasting; but he forbade the saints (_ahl-i kar\u00e1mat_) to\ndivulge it, because a _kar\u00e1mat_ involves concealment, whereas a\n_mu`jizat_ involves revelation. This is a clear distinction between the\nmiracles performed by Apostles and those performed by saints, and will\nbe sufficient for anyone who is divinely guided. The forty days\u2019 fasts\n(_chilla_) of the saints are derived from the fast of Moses (Kor. vii,\n138). When the saints desire to hear the word of God spiritually, they\nremain fasting for forty days. After thirty days have passed they rub\ntheir teeth; then they fast ten days more, and God speaks to their\nhearts, because whatever the prophets enjoy openly the saints may enjoy\nsecretly. Now, hearing the word of God is not compatible with the\nsubsistence of the natural temperament: therefore the four humours must\nbe deprived of food and drink for forty days in order that they may be\nutterly subdued, and that the purity of love and the subtlety of the\nspirit may hold absolute sway.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 353.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  \u201cBrilliancies.\u201d _Naf._ entitles it \u0644\u0645\u0639\u0647.\n\n           _Chapter on Hunger and matters connected with it._\n\nHunger sharpens the intelligence and improves the mind and health. The\nApostle said: \u201cMake your bellies hungry and your livers thirsty and your\nbodies naked, that perchance your hearts may see God in this world.\u201d\nAlthough hunger is an affliction to the body, it illumines the heart and\npurifies the soul, and leads the spirit into the presence of God. To eat\none\u2019s fill is an act worthy of a beast. One who cultivates his spiritual\nnature by means of hunger, in order to devote himself entirely to God\nand detach himself from worldly ties, is not on the same level with one\nwho cultivates his body by means of gluttony, and serves his lusts. \u201cThe\nmen of old ate to live, but ye live to eat.\u201d For the sake of a morsel of\nfood Adam fell from Paradise, and was banished far from the\nneighbourhood of God.\n\nHe whose hunger is compulsory is not really hungry, because one who\ndesires to eat after God has decreed the contrary is virtually eating;\nthe merit of hunger belongs to him who abstains from eating, not to him\nwho is debarred from eating. Katt\u00e1n\u00ed[162] says: \u201cThe novice shall sleep\nonly when he is overpowered by slumber, and speak only when he must, and\neat only when he is starving.\u201d According to some, starvation (_f\u00e1qa_)\ninvolves abstention from food for two days and nights; others say three\ndays and nights, or a week, or forty days, because true mystics believe\nthat a sincere man (_\u1e63\u00e1diq_) is only once hungry in forty days; his\nhunger merely serves to keep him alive, and all hunger besides is\nnatural appetite and vanity. You must know that all the veins in the\nbodies of gnostics are evidences of the Divine mysteries, and that their\nhearts are tenanted by visions of the Most High. Their hearts are doors\nopened in their breasts, and at these doors are stationed reason and\npassion: reason is reinforced by the spirit, and passion by the lower\nsoul. The more the natural humours are nourished by food, the stronger\ndoes the lower soul become, and the more impetuously is passion diffused\nthrough the members of the body; and in every vein a different kind of\nveil (_\u1e25ij\u00e1b\u00ed_) is produced. But when food is withheld from the lower\nsoul it grows weak, and the reason gains strength, and the mysteries and\nevidences of God become more visible, until, when the lower soul is\nunable to work and passion is annihilated, every vain desire is effaced\nin the manifestation of the Truth, and the seeker of God attains to the\nwhole of his desire. It is related that Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1b said: \u201cMy\nobedience and disobedience depend on two cakes of bread: when I eat I\nfind in myself the stuff of every sin, but when I abstain from eating I\nfind in myself the foundation of every act of piety.\u201d The fruit of\nhunger is contemplation of God (_mush\u00e1hadat_), of which the forerunner\nis mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_). Repletion combined with contemplation is\nbetter than hunger combined with mortification, because contemplation is\nthe battle-field of men, whereas mortification is the playground of\nchildren.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  _Nafah\u00e1t_, No. 215.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXII.\n     THE UNCOVERING OF THE EIGHTH VEIL: CONCERNING THE PILGRIMAGE.\n\n\nThe pilgrimage (_\u1e25ajj_) is binding on every Moslem of sound mind who is\nable to perform it and has reached manhood. It consists in putting on\nthe pilgrim\u2019s garb at the proper place, in standing on `Araf\u00e1t, in\ncircumambulating the Ka`ba, and in running between \u1e62af\u00e1 and Marwa. One\nmust not enter the sacred territory without being clad as a pilgrim (_b\u00e9\ni\u1e25r\u00e1m_). The sacred territory (_\u1e25aram_) is so called because it contains\nthe Station of Abraham (_Maq\u00e1m-i Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm_). Abraham had two stations:\nthe station of his body, namely, Mecca, and the station of his soul,\nnamely, friendship (_khullat_). Whoever seeks his bodily station must\nrenounce all lusts and pleasures and put on the pilgrim\u2019s garb and\nclothe himself in a winding-sheet (_kafan_) and refrain from hunting\nlawful game, and keep all his senses under strict control, and be\npresent at `Araf\u00e1t and go thence to Muzdalifa and Mash`ar al-\u1e24ar\u00e1m, and\npick up stones and circumambulate the Ka`ba and visit Min\u00e1 and stay\nthere three days and throw stones in the prescribed manner and cut his\nhair and perform the sacrifice and put on his (ordinary) clothes. But\nwhoever seeks his spiritual station must renounce familiar associations\nand bid farewell to pleasures and take no thought of other than God (for\nhis looking towards the phenomenal world is interdicted); then he must\nstand on the `Araf\u00e1t of gnosis (_ma`rifat_) and from there set out for\nthe Muzdalifa of amity (_ulfat_) and from there send his heart to\ncircumambulate the temple of Divine purification (_tanz\u00edh_), and throw\naway the stones of passion and corrupt thoughts in the Min\u00e1 of faith,\nand sacrifice his lower soul on the altar of mortification and arrive at\nthe station of friendship (_khullat_). To enter the bodily station is to\nbe secure from enemies and their swords, but to enter the spiritual\nstation is to be secure from separation (from God) and its\nconsequences.[163]\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Here follows the story of Abraham and Nimrod which has occurred\n  before, p. 73.\n\nMu\u1e25ammad b. al-Fa\u1e0dl says: \u201cI wonder at those who seek His temple in this\nworld: why do not they seek contemplation of Him in their hearts? The\ntemple they sometimes attain and sometimes miss, but contemplation they\nmight enjoy always. If they are bound to visit a stone, which is looked\nat only once a year, surely they are more bound to visit the temple of\nthe heart, where He may be seen three hundred and sixty times in a day\nand night. But the mystic\u2019s every step is a symbol of the journey to\nMecca, and when he reaches the sanctuary he wins a robe of honour for\nevery step.\u201d Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd says: \u201cIf anyone\u2019s recompense for worshipping God\nis deferred until to-morrow he has not worshipped God aright to-day,\u201d\nfor the recompense of every moment of worship and mortification is\nimmediate. And Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd also says: \u201cOn my first pilgrimage I saw only\nthe temple; the second time, I saw both the temple and the Lord of the\ntemple; and the third time I saw the Lord alone.\u201d In short, where\nmortification is, there is no sanctuary: the sanctuary is where\ncontemplation is. Unless the whole universe is a man\u2019s trysting-place\nwhere he comes nigh unto God and a retired chamber where he enjoys\nintimacy with God, he is still a stranger to Divine love; but when he\nhas vision the whole universe is his sanctuary.\n\n \u201c_The darkest thing in the world is the Beloved\u2019s house without the\n    Beloved._\u201d\n\nAccordingly, what is truly valuable is not the Ka`ba, but contemplation\nand annihilation in the abode of friendship, of which things the sight\nof the Ka`ba is indirectly a cause. But we must recognize that every\ncause depends on the author of causes (_musabbib_), from whatever hidden\nplace the providence of God may appear, and whencesoever the desire of\nthe seeker may be fulfilled. The object of mystics (_mard\u00e1n_) in\ntraversing wildernesses and deserts is not the sanctuary itself, for to\na lover of God it is unlawful to look upon His sanctuary. No; their\nobject is mortification in a longing that leaves them no rest, and eager\ndissolution in a love that has no end. A certain man came to Junayd.\nJunayd asked him whence he came. He replied: \u201cI have been on the\npilgrimage.\u201d Junayd said: \u201cFrom the time when you first journeyed from\nyour home have you also journeyed away from all sins?\u201d He said: \u201cNo.\u201d\n\u201cThen,\u201d said Junayd, \u201cyou have made no journey. At every stage where you\nhalted for the night did you traverse a station on the way to God?\u201d He\nsaid: \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen,\u201d said Junayd, \u201cyou have not trodden the road stage by\nstage. When you put on the pilgrim\u2019s garb at the proper place did you\ndiscard the attributes of humanity as you cast off your ordinary\nclothes?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen you have not put on the pilgrim\u2019s garb. When you\nstood on `Araf\u00e1t did you stand one instant in contemplation of God?\u201d\n\u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen you have not stood on `Araf\u00e1t. When you went to Muzdalifa\nand achieved your desire did you renounce all sensual desires?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d\n\u201cThen you have not gone to Muzdalifa. When you circumambulated the\nTemple did you behold the immaterial beauty of God in the abode of\npurification?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen you have not circumambulated the Temple. When\nyou ran between \u1e62af\u00e1 and Marwa did you attain to the rank of purity\n(_\u1e63af\u00e1_) and virtue (_muruwwat_)?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen you have not run. When\nyou came to Min\u00e1 did all your wishes (_munyath\u00e1_) cease?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen\nyou have not yet visited Min\u00e1. When you reached the slaughter-place and\noffered sacrifice did you sacrifice the objects of sensual desire?\u201d\n\u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen you have not sacrificed. When you threw the stones did you\nthrow away whatever sensual thoughts were accompanying you?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen\nyou have not yet thrown the stones, and you have not yet performed the\npilgrimage. Return and perform the pilgrimage in the manner which I have\ndescribed in order that you may arrive at the station of Abraham.\u201d\nFu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d says: \u201cI saw at Mount `Araf\u00e1t a youth who stood silent\nwith bowed head while all the people were praying aloud, and I asked him\nwhy he did not pray like them. He answered that he was in great\ndistress, having lost the spiritual state (_waqt\u00ed_) which he formerly\nenjoyed, and that he could by no means cry aloud unto God. I said:\n\u2018Pray, in order that through the blessings of this multitude God may\naccomplish thy desire.\u2019 He was about to lift up his hands and pray, when\nsuddenly he uttered a shriek and died on the spot.\u201d Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the\nEgyptian says: \u201cAt Min\u00e1 I saw a young man sitting quietly while the\npeople were engaged in the sacrifices. I looked at him to see what he\nwas doing. He cried: \u2018O God, all the people are offering sacrifice. I\nwish to sacrifice my lower soul to Thee; do Thou accept it.\u2019 Having\nspoken, he pointed with his forefinger to his throat and fell dead\u2014may\nGod have mercy on him!\u201d\n\nPilgrimages, then, are of two kinds: (1) in absence (from God) and (2)\nin presence (of God). Anyone who is absent from God at Mecca is in the\nsame position as if he were absent from God in his own house, and anyone\nwho is present with God in his own house is in the same position as if\nhe were present with God at Mecca. Pilgrimage is an act of mortification\n(_muj\u00e1hadat_) for the sake of obtaining contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_),\nand mortification does not become the direct cause of contemplation, but\nis only a means to it. Therefore, inasmuch as a means has no further\neffect on the reality of things, the true object of pilgrimage is not to\nvisit the Ka`ba, but to obtain contemplation of God.\n\n_Chapter on Contemplation._\n\nThe Apostle said: \u201cMake your bellies hungry and your livers thirsty and\nleave the world alone, that perchance ye may see God with your hearts\u201d;\nand he also said, \u201cWorship God as though thou sawest Him, for if thou\ndost not see Him, yet He sees thee.\u201d God said to David: \u201cDost thou know\nwhat is knowledge of Me? It is the life of the heart in contemplation of\nMe.\u201d By \u201ccontemplation\u201d the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds mean spiritual vision of God in public\nand private, without asking how or in what manner. Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s b. `A\u1e6d\u00e1\nsays in reference to the words of God: \u201c_As to those who say, \u2018Our Lord\nis God,\u2019 and who become steadfast_\u201d (Kor. xli, 30), i.e. \u201cthey say \u2018Our\nLord is God\u2019 in self-mortification and they \u2018become steadfast\u2019 on the\ncarpet of contemplation\u201d.\n\nThere are really two kinds of contemplation. The former is the result of\nperfect faith (_\u1e63ihhat-i yaq\u00edn_), the latter of rapturous love, for in\nthe rapture of love a man attains to such a degree that his whole being\nis absorbed in the thought of his Beloved and he sees nothing else.\nMu\u1e25ammad b. W\u00e1si` says: \u201cI never saw anything without seeing God\ntherein,\u201d i.e. through perfect faith. This vision is from God to His\ncreatures. Shibl\u00ed says: \u201cI never saw anything except God,\u201d i.e. in the\nrapture of love and the fervour of contemplation. One sees the act with\nhis bodily eye and, as he looks, beholds the Agent with his spiritual\neye; another is rapt by love of the Agent from all things else, so that\nhe sees only the Agent. The one method is demonstrative (_istidl\u00e1l\u00ed_),\nthe other is ecstatic (_jadhb\u00ed_). In the former case, a manifest proof\nis derived from the evidences of God; in the latter case, the seer is\nenraptured and transported by desire: evidences and verities are a veil\nto him, because he who knows a thing does not reverence aught besides,\nand he who loves a thing does not regard aught besides, but renounces\ncontention with God and interference with Him in His decrees and His\nacts. God hath said of the Apostle at the time of his Ascension: \u201c_His\neyes did not swerve or transgress_\u201d (Kor. liii, 17), on account of the\nintensity of his longing for God. When the lover turns his eye away from\ncreated things, he will inevitably see the Creator with his heart. God\nhath said: \u201c_Tell the believers to close their eyes_\u201d (Kor. xxiv, 30),\ni.e. to close their bodily eyes to lusts and their spiritual eyes to\ncreated things. He who is most sincere in self-mortification is most\nfirmly grounded in contemplation for inward contemplation is connected\nwith outward mortification. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h of Tustar says: \u201cIf anyone\nshuts his eye to God for a single moment, he will never be rightly\nguided all his life long,\u201d because to regard other than God is to be\nhanded over to other than God, and one who is left at the mercy of other\nthan God is lost. Therefore the life of contemplatives is the time\nduring which they enjoy contemplation (_mush\u00e1hadat_): time spent in\nseeing ocularly (_mu`\u00e1yanat_) they do not reckon as life, for that to\nthem is really death. Thus, when Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd was asked how old he was, he\nreplied: \u201cFour years.\u201d They said: \u201cHow can that be?\u201d He answered: \u201cI\nhave been veiled (from God) by this world for seventy years, but I have\nseen Him during the last four years: the period in which one is veiled\ndoes not belong to one\u2019s life.\u201d Shibl\u00ed cried in his prayers: \u201cO God,\nhide Paradise and Hell in Thy unseen places, that Thou mayest be\nworshipped disinterestedly.\u201d One who is forgetful of God nevertheless\nworships Him, through faith, because human nature has an interest in\nParadise; but inasmuch as the heart has no interest in loving God, one\nwho is forgetful of God is debarred from contemplating Him. The Apostle\ntold `\u00c1\u00b4isha that he did not see God on the night of the Ascension, but\nIbn `Abb\u00e1s relates that the Apostle told him that he saw God on that\noccasion. Accordingly, this remains a matter of controversy; but in\nsaying that he did not see God the Apostle was referring to his bodily\neye, whereas in saying the contrary he was referring to his spiritual\neye. Since `\u00c1\u00b4isha was a formalist and Ibn `Abb\u00e1s a spiritualist, the\nApostle spoke with each of them according to their insight. Junayd said:\n\u201cIf God should say to me, \u2018Behold Me,\u2019 I should reply, \u2018I will not\nbehold Thee,\u2019 because in love the eye is other (than God) and alien: the\njealousy of other-ness would prevent me from beholding Him. Since in\nthis world I was wont to behold Him without the mediation of the eye,\nhow should I use such mediation in the next world?\u201c\n\n              \u201d_Truly, I envy mine eye the sight of Thee,\n              And I close mine eye when I look on Thee._\u201d\n\nJunayd was asked: \u201cDo you wish to see God?\u201d He said: \u201cNo.\u201d They asked\nwhy. He answered: \u201cWhen Moses wished, he did not see Him, and when\nMu\u1e25ammad did not wish, he saw Him.\u201d Our wishing is the greatest of the\nveils that hinder us from seeing God, because in love the existence of\nself-will is disobedience, and disobedience is a veil. When self-will\nvanishes in this world, contemplation is attained, and when\ncontemplation is firmly established, there is no difference between this\nworld and the next. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd says: \u201cGod has servants who would\napostatize if they were veiled from Him in this world or in the next,\u201d\ni.e. He sustains them with perpetual contemplation and keeps them alive\nwith the life of love; and when one who enjoys revelation is deprived of\nit, he necessarily becomes an apostate. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan says: \u201cOne day, when\nI was journeying in Egypt, I saw some boys who were throwing stones at a\nyoung man. I asked them what they wanted of him. They said: \u2018He is mad.\u2019\nI asked how his madness showed itself, and they told me that he\npretended to see God. I turned to the young man and inquired whether he\nhad really said this. He answered: \u2018I say that if I should not see God\nfor one moment, I should remain veiled and should not be obedient\ntowards Him.\u2019\u201d Some \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds have fallen into the mistake of supposing that\nspiritual vision and contemplation represent such an idea (_\u1e63\u00farat\u00ed_) of\nGod as is formed in the mind by the imagination either from memory or\nreflection. This is utter anthropomorphism (_tashb\u00edh_) and manifest\nerror. God is not finite that the imagination should be able to define\nHim or that the intellect should comprehend His nature. Whatever can be\nimagined is homogeneous with the intellect, but God is not homogeneous\nwith any _genus_, although in relation to the Eternal all phenomenal\nobjects\u2014subtle and gross alike\u2014are homogeneous with each other\nnotwithstanding their mutual contrariety. Therefore contemplation in\nthis world resembles vision of God in the next world, and since the\nCompanions of the Apostle (_a\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b_) are unanimously agreed that vision\nis possible hereafter, contemplation is possible here. Those who tell of\ncontemplation either in this or the other world only say that it is\npossible, not that they have enjoyed or now enjoy it, because\ncontemplation is an attribute of the heart (_sirr_) and cannot be\nexpressed by the tongue except metaphorically. Hence silence ranks\nhigher than speech, for silence is a sign of contemplation\n(_mush\u00e1hadat_), whereas speech is a sign of ocular testimony\n(_shah\u00e1dat_). Accordingly the Apostle, when he attained proximity to\nGod, said: \u201cI cannot tell Thy praise,\u201d because he was in contemplation,\nand contemplation in the degree of love is perfect unity (_yag\u00e1nag\u00ed_),\nand any outward expression in unity is other-ness (_b\u00e9g\u00e1nag\u00ed_). Then he\nsaid: \u201cThou hast praised Thyself,\u201d i.e. Thy words are mine, and Thy\npraise is mine, and I do not deem my tongue capable of expressing what I\nfeel. As the poet says:\n\n       \u201c_I desired my beloved, but when I saw him\n       I was dumbfounded and possessed neither tongue nor eye._\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIII.\n  THE UNCOVERING OF THE NINTH VEIL: CONCERNING COMPANIONSHIP, TOGETHER\n                     WITH ITS RULES AND PRINCIPLES.\n\n\nThe Apostle said: \u201cGood manners (_\u1e25usn al-adab_) are a part of faith.\u201d\nAnd he also said: \u201cMy Lord corrected me (_addaban\u00ed_) and gave me an\nexcellent correction.\u201d You must know that the seemliness and decorum of\nall religious and temporal affairs depends on rules of discipline\n(_\u00e1d\u00e1b_), and that every station in which the various classes of mankind\nare placed has its own particular rule. Among men good manners consist\nin the observance of virtue (_muruwwat_); as regards religion they\nconsist in the observance of the Apostolic custom (_sunna_); and as\nregards love they consist in the observance of respect (_\u1e25urmat_). These\nthree categories are connected with each other, because one who is\nwithout virtue does not comply with the custom of the Apostle, and\nwhoever fails to comply with the custom of the Apostle does not observe\ndue respect. In matters of conduct the observance of discipline is the\nresult of reverence for the object of desire; and reverence for God and\nHis ordinances springs from fear of God (_taqw\u00e1_). Anyone who\ndisrespectfully tramples on the reverence that is due to the evidences\nof God has no part or lot in the Path of \u1e62\u00fafiism; and in no case are\nrules of discipline neglected by seekers of God, because they are\nhabituated to such rules, and habit is second nature. It is impossible\nthat a living creature should be divested of its natural humours:\ntherefore, so long as the human body remains in existence men are bound\nto keep the rules of obedience to God, sometimes with effort\n(_takalluf_) and sometimes without effort: with effort when they are\n\u2018sober\u2019, but when they are \u2018intoxicated\u2019 God sees that they keep the\nrules. A person who neglects the rules cannot possibly be a saint, for\n\u201cgood manners are characteristic of those whom God loves\u201d. When God\nvouchsafes a miracle to anyone, it is a proof that He causes him to\nfulfil the duties of religion. This is opposed to the view of some\nheretics, who assert that when a man is overpowered by love he is no\nlonger subject to obedience. I will set forth this matter more lucidly\nin another place.\n\nRules of discipline are of three kinds. Firstly, those which are\nobserved towards God in unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_). Here the rule is that\none must guard one\u2019s self in public and private from any disrespectful\nact, and behave as though one were in the presence of a king. It is\nrelated in the genuine Traditions that one day the Apostle was sitting\nwith his legs drawn in (_p\u00e1y gird_). Gabriel came and said: \u201cO Mu\u1e25ammad,\nsit as servants do in their master\u2019s presence.\u201d \u1e24\u00e1rith Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed is said\nnever to have leaned his back against a wall, by day or night, for forty\nyears, and never to have sat except on his knees. On being asked why he\ngave himself so much trouble he replied: \u201cI am ashamed to sit otherwise\nthan as a servant while I am contemplating God.\u201d I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n\nal-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, was once in a village called Kamand,[164] at the extremity\nof Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n. There I saw a well-known and very excellent man, whose name\nis Ad\u00edb-i Kamand\u00ed. For twenty years he had never sat down except in his\nprayers, when he was pronouncing the profession of faith. I inquired the\nreason of this, and he answered that he had not yet attained such a\ndegree that he should sit while contemplating God. Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd was asked\nby what means he had gained so high spiritual rank. He answered: \u201cBy\ngood companionship with God,\u201d i.e. by keeping the rules of discipline\nand behaving in private as in public. All human beings ought to learn\nfrom Zulaykh\u00e1 how to observe good manners in contemplating the object of\ntheir adoration, for when she was alone with Joseph and besought him to\nconsent to her wishes, she first covered up the face of her idol in\norder that it might not witness her want of propriety. And when the\nApostle was borne to Heaven at the Ascension, his observance of\ndiscipline restrained him from paying any regard either to this world or\nto the next.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  Kumand, according to _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 379.\n\nThe second kind of discipline is that which is observed towards one\u2019s\nself in one\u2019s conduct, and which consists in avoiding, when one is in\none\u2019s own company, any act that would be improper in the company of\none\u2019s fellow-creatures or of God, e.g., one must not utter an untruth by\ndeclaring one\u2019s self to be what one is not, and one must eat little in\norder that one may seldom go to the lavatory, and one must not look at\nanything which it is not decent for others to see. It is related that\n`Al\u00ed never beheld his own nakedness, because he was ashamed to see in\nhimself what he was forbidden to see in others.\n\nThe third kind of discipline is that which is observed in social\nintercourse with one\u2019s fellow-creatures. The most important rule for\nsuch intercourse is to act well, and to observe the custom of the\nApostle at home and abroad.\n\nThese three sorts of discipline cannot be separated from one another.\nNow I will set them forth in detail as far as possible, in order that\nyou and all my readers may follow them more easily.\n\n      _Chapter on Companionship and matters connected therewith._\n\nGod hath said: \u201c_Verily, the merciful God will bestow love on those who\nbelieve and do good works_\u201d (Kor. xix, 96), i.e., He will love them and\ncause them to be loved, because they do their duty towards their\nbrethren and prefer them to themselves. And the Apostle said: \u201cThree\nthings render thy brother\u2019s love toward thee sincere: that thou shouldst\nsalute him when thou meetest him, and that thou shouldst make room for\nhim when he sits beside thee, and that thou shouldst call him by the\nname that he likes best.\u201d And God said, \u201c_The believers are brethren:\ntherefore reconcile your two brethren_\u201d (Kor. xlix, 10); and the Apostle\nsaid, \u201cGet many brethren, for your Lord is bashful (_\u1e25ay\u00ed_) and kind: He\nwill be ashamed to punish His servant in the presence of his brethren on\nthe Day of Resurrection.\u201d\n\nBut companionship must be for God\u2019s sake, not for the purpose of\ngratifying the lower soul or any selfish interest, in order that a man\nmay be divinely rewarded for observing the rules of companionship. M\u00e1lik\nb. D\u00edn\u00e1r said to his son-in-law, Mugh\u00edra b. Shu`ba: \u201cIf you derive no\nreligious benefit from a brother and friend, abandon his society, that\nyou may be saved,\u201d i.e. associate either with one who is superior or\nwith one who is inferior to yourself. In the former case you will derive\nbenefit from him, and in the latter case the benefit will be mutual,\nsince each will learn something from the other. Hence the Apostle said,\n\u201cIt is the whole of piety to instruct one who is ignorant;\u201d and Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b.\nMu`\u00e1dh (al-R\u00e1z\u00ed) said, \u201cHe is a bad friend to whom you need to say,\n\u2018Remember me in thy prayers\u2019\u201d (because a man ought always to pray for\nanyone with whom he has associated even for a moment); and he is a bad\nfriend with whom you cannot live except on condition of flattering him\n(because candour is involved in the principle of companionship); and he\nis a bad friend to whom you need to apologize for a fault that you have\ncommitted (because apologies are made by strangers, and in companionship\nit is wrong to be on such terms). The Apostle said: \u201cA man follows the\nreligion of his friend: take heed, therefore, with whom you form a\nfriendship.\u201d If he associates with the good, their society will make him\ngood, although he is bad; and if he associates with the wicked, he will\nbe wicked, although he is good, because he will be consenting to their\nwickedness. It is related that a man said, while he was circumambulating\nthe Ka`ba, \u201cO God, make my brethren good!\u201d On being asked why he did not\nimplore a boon for himself in such a place, he replied: \u201cI have brethren\nto whom I shall return; if they are good, I shall be good with them, and\nif they are wicked, I shall be wicked with them.\u201d\n\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs demand from each other the fulfilment of the duties of\ncompanionship and enjoin their disciples to require the same, so that\namongst them companionship has become like a religious obligation. The\nShaykhs have written many books explaining the rules of \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed\ncompanionship; e.g., Junayd composed a work entitled _Ta\u1e63\u1e25\u00ed\u1e25\nal-ir\u00e1dat_,[165] and A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya of Balkh another, entitled\n_Al-Ri`\u00e1yat bi-\u1e25uq\u00faq_[166] _Allah_,[167] and Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed of Tirmidh\nanother, entitled _\u00c1d\u00e1b al-mur\u00edd\u00edn_.[168] Other exhaustive treatises on\nthis subject have been written by Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim al-\u1e24ak\u00edm,[169] Ab\u00fa Bakr\nal-Warr\u00e1q, Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h (al-Tustar\u00ed), Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed,\nand Master Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Qushayr\u00ed. All those writers are great\nauthorities on \u1e62\u00fafiism, but I desire that my book should enable anyone\nwho possesses it to dispense with other books and, as I said in the\npreface, be sufficient in itself for you and for all students of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed doctrine. I will now classify in separate chapters their various\nrules of discipline relating to conduct.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  \u201cThe Rectification of Discipleship.\u201d\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  So all the texts, instead of the correct _li-\u1e25uq\u00faq_.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  \u201cThe Observance of what is due to God.\u201d\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  \u201cRules of Conduct for Disciples.\u201d\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 129.\n\n            _Chapter concerning the Rules of Companionship._\n\nSince you have perceived that the most important thing for the novice is\ncompanionship, the fulfilment of its obligations is necessarily\nincumbent on him. Solitude is fatal to the novice, for the Apostle said,\n\u201cSatan is with the solitary, but he is farther away from two who are\ntogether;\u201d and God hath said, \u201c_There is no private discourse among\nthree persons but God is the fourth of them_\u201d (Kor. lviii, 8). I have\nread in the Anecdotes that a disciple of Junayd imagined that he had\nattained to the degree of perfection, and that it was better for him to\nbe alone. Accordingly he went into retirement and withdrew from the\nsociety of his brethren. At nightfall a camel used to appear, and he was\ntold that it would take him to Paradise; on mounting it, he was conveyed\nto a pleasant demesne, with beautiful inhabitants and delicious viands\nand flowing streams, where he stayed till dawn; then he fell asleep, and\non waking found himself at the door of his cell. These experiences\nfilled him with pride and he could not refrain from boasting of them.\nWhen Junayd heard the story he hastened to the disciple\u2019s cell, and\nhaving received from him a full account of what had passed, said to him:\n\u201cTo-night, when you come to that place, remember to say thrice, \u2018There\nis no strength or power but in God, the High, the Great.\u2019\u201d The same\nnight he was carried off as usual, and though in his heart he did not\nbelieve Junayd, by way of trial he repeated those words thrice. The crew\naround him shrieked and vanished, and he found himself seated on a\ndunghill in the midst of rotten bones. He acknowledged his fault and\nrepented and returned to companionship.\n\nThe principle of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in companionship is that they should treat\neveryone according to his degree. Thus they treat old men with respect,\nlike fathers; those of their own sort with agreeable familiarity, like\nbrothers; and young men with affection, like sons. They renounce hate,\nenvy, and malice, and do not withhold sincere admonition from anyone. In\ncompanionship it is not permissible to speak evil of the absent, or to\nbehave dishonestly, or to deny one another on account of any word or\ndeed, because a companionship which is begun for God\u2019s sake should not\nbe cut short by human words or acts. The author says: \u201cI asked the Grand\nShaykh Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed what obligations were involved in\ncompanionship. He replied: \u2018It involves this, that you should not seek\nyour own interest; all the evils of companionship arise from\nselfishness. Solitude is better for a selfish man. He who neglects his\nown interests and looks after the interests of his companion hits the\nmark in companionship.\u2019\u201d A certain dervish relates as follows: \u201cOnce I\nset out from K\u00fafa to visit Mecca. On the way I met Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 and\nbegged him to let me accompany him. He said: \u2018In companionship it is\nnecessary that one should command and the other should obey: which do\nyou choose?\u2019 I answered: \u2018You be the commander.\u2019 He said: \u2018Now do not\nfail to comply with my orders.\u2019 When we arrived at the halting-place, he\nbade me sit down, and himself drew water from the well and, since the\nweather was cold, he gathered sticks and kindled a fire, and whenever I\nattempted to do anything he told me to sit down. At nightfall it began\nto rain heavily. He took off his patched frock and held it over my head\nall night. I was ashamed, but could not say a word on account of the\ncondition imposed on me. When morning came, I said: \u2018To-day it is my\nturn to be commander.\u2019 He said: \u2018Very well.\u2019 As soon as we reached the\nhalting-place, he began to perform the same menial offices as before,\nand on my telling him not to disobey my orders he retorted that it was\nan act of disobedience to let one\u2019s self be served by one\u2019s commander.\nHe continued to behave in this way until we arrived at Mecca; then I\nfelt so ashamed that I fled from him. He espied me, however, at Min\u00e1 and\nsaid to me: \u2018O son, when you associate with dervishes see that you treat\nthem in the same fashion as I treated you.\u2019\u201d\n\nDervishes are divided into two classes: residents (_muq\u00edm\u00e1n_) and\ntravellers (_mus\u00e1fir\u00e1n_). According to the custom of the Shaykhs, the\ntravelling dervishes should regard the resident ones as superior to\nthemselves, because they go to and fro in their own interest, while the\nresident dervishes have settled down in the service of God: in the\nformer is the sign of search, in the latter is the token of attainment;\nhence those who have found and settled down are superior to those who\nare still seeking. Similarly, the resident dervishes ought to regard the\ntravelling ones as superior to themselves, because they are laden with\nworldly encumbrances, while the travelling dervishes are unencumbered\nand detached from the world. Again, old men should prefer to themselves\nthe young, who are newer to the world and whose sins are less numerous;\nand young men should prefer to themselves the old, who have outstripped\nthem in devotion and service.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nCulture (_adab_) really means \u201cthe collection of virtuous qualities\u201d,\nthough in ordinary language anyone is called \u201ccultured\u201d (_ad\u00edb_) who is\nacquainted with Arabic philology and grammar. But the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds define\nculture as \u201cdwelling with praiseworthy qualities\u201d, and say that it means\n\u201cto act with propriety towards God in public and private\u201d; if you act\nthus, you are \u201ccultured\u201d, even if you are a foreigner (i.e. a non-Arab),\nand if not, you are the opposite. Those who have knowledge are in every\ncase more honoured than those who have intelligence. A certain Shaykh\nwas asked: \u201cWhat does culture involve?\u201d He said: \u201dI will answer you by\nquoting a definition which I have heard, \u2018If you speak, your speech will\nbe sincere, and if you act, your actions will be true.\u2019 An excellent\ndistinction has been made by Shaykh Ab\u00fa Na\u1e63r Sarr\u00e1j, the author of the\n_Luma`_, who says: \u201cAs regards culture (_adab_), there are three classes\nof mankind. Firstly, worldlings, whose culture mainly consists in\neloquence and rhetoric and learning and knowledge of the nightly\nconversations (_asm\u00e1r_[170]) of kings and Arabic poetry. Secondly, the\nreligious, whose culture chiefly consists in disciplining the lower soul\nand correcting the limbs and observing the legal ordinances and\nrenouncing lusts. Thirdly, the elect (i.e. the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds), whose culture\nconsists for the most part in spiritual purity and keeping watch over\ntheir hearts and fulfilling their promises and guarding the \u2018state\u2019 in\nwhich they are and paying no heed to extraneous suggestions and behaving\nwith propriety in the positions of search (for God), in the states of\npresence (with God), and in the stations of proximity (to God).\u201d This\nsaying is comprehensive. The different matters which it includes are\ndiscussed in several places in this book.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  Another reading is _asm\u00e1_, \u201cnames,\u201d but I find _asm\u00e1r_ in the MS. of\n  the _Kit\u00e1b al-Luma`_ belonging to Mr. A. G. Ellis, where this passage\n  occurs on f. 63_a._\n\n      _Chapter on the Rules of Companionship affecting Residents._\n\nDervishes who choose to reside, and not to travel, are bound to observe\nthe following rules of discipline. When a traveller comes to them, they\nmust meet him joyfully and receive him with respect and treat him like\nan honoured guest and freely set before him whatever food they have,\nmodelling their behaviour upon that of Abraham. They must not inquire\nwhence he has come or whither he is going or what is his name, but must\ndeem that he has come from God and is going to God and that his name is\n\u201cservant of God\u201d; then they must see whether he desires to be alone or\nin company: if he prefers to be alone, they must give him an empty room,\nand if he prefers company, they must consort with him unceremoniously in\na friendly and sociable manner. When he lays his head on his pillow at\nnight the resident dervish ought to offer to wash his feet, but if the\ntraveller should not allow him to do this and should say that he is not\naccustomed to it, the resident must not insist, for fear of causing him\nannoyance. Next day, he must offer him a bath and take him to the\ncleanest bath available and save his clothes from (becoming dirty in)\nthe latrines of the bath, and not permit a strange attendant to wait\nupon him, but wait upon him zealously in order to make him clean of all\nstains, and scrape (_bikh\u00e1rad_) his back and rub his knees and the soles\nof his feet and his hands: more than this he is not obliged to do. And\nif the resident dervish has sufficient means, he should provide a new\ngarment for his guest; otherwise, he need not trouble himself, but he\nshould clean his guest\u2019s clothes so that he may put them on when he\ncomes out of the bath. If the traveller remains two or three days, he\nshould be invited to visit any spiritual director or Im\u00e1m who may be in\nthe town, but he must not be compelled to pay such visits against his\ninclination, because those who seek God are not always masters of their\nown feelings; e.g., Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 on one occasion refused to accompany\nKhi\u1e0dr, who desired his society, for he was unwilling that his feelings\nshould be engaged by anyone except God. Certainly it is not right that a\nresident dervish should take a traveller to salute worldly men or to\nattend their entertainments, sick-beds, and funerals; and if a resident\nhopes to make travellers an instrument of mendicancy (_\u00e1lat-i gad\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed_)\nand conduct them from house to house, it would be better for him to\nrefrain from serving them instead of subjecting them to humiliation.\nAmong all the troubles and inconveniences that I have suffered when\ntravelling none was worse than to be carried off time after time by\nignorant servants and impudent dervishes of this sort and conducted from\nthe house of such and such a Khw\u00e1ja to the house of such and such a\nDihq\u00e1n, while, though apparently complaisant, I felt a great dislike to\ngo with them. I then vowed that, if ever I became resident, I would not\nbehave towards travellers with this impropriety. Nothing derived from\nassociating with ill-mannered persons is more useful than the lesson\nthat you must endure their disagreeable behaviour and must not imitate\nit. On the other hand, if a travelling dervish becomes at his ease\n(_munbasi\u1e6d_) with a resident and stays for some time and makes a worldly\ndemand, the resident is bound immediately to give him what he wants; but\nif the traveller is an impostor and low-minded, the resident must not\nact meanly in order to comply with his impossible requirements, for this\nis not the way of those who are devoted to God. What business has a\ndervish to associate with devotees if he needs worldly things? Let him\ngo to the market and buy and sell, or let him be a soldier at the\nsultan\u2019s court. It is related that, while Junayd and his pupils were\nsitting occupied in some ascetic discipline, a travelling dervish came\nin. They exerted themselves to entertain him and placed food before him.\nHe said: \u201cI want such and such a thing besides this.\u201d Junayd said to\nhim: \u201cYou must go to the bazaar, for you are a man of the market, not of\nthe mosque and the cell.\u201d Once I set out from Damascus with two\ndervishes to visit Ibn al-Mu`all\u00e1,[171] who was living in the country\nnear Ramla. On the way we arranged that each of us should think of the\nmatter concerning which we were in doubt, in order that that venerable\ndirector might tell us our secret thoughts and solve our difficulties. I\nsaid to myself: \u201cI will desire of him the poems and intimate\nsupplications (_mun\u00e1j\u00e1t_) of \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far (al-\u1e24all\u00e1j).\u201d One of my\ncompanions said, \u201cI will desire him to pray that my disease of the\nspleen (_\u1e6di\u1e25\u00e1l_) may become better;\u201d and the other said, \u201cI will wish\nfor sweetmeat of different colours\u201d (_\u1e25alw\u00e1-yi \u1e63\u00e1b\u00fan\u00ed_). As soon as we\narrived, Ibn al-Mu`all\u00e1 commanded that a manuscript of the poems and\nsupplications of \u1e24usayn should be presented to me, and laid his hand on\nthe belly of the invalid so that his illness was assuaged, and said to\nthe other dervish: \u201cParti-coloured sweetmeat is eaten by soldiers\n(_`aw\u00e1n\u00e1n_); you are dressed as a saint, and the dress of a saint does\nnot accord with the appetite of a soldier. Choose one or the other.\u201d\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  I. Ibn al-`Al\u00e1.\n\nIn short, the resident is not obliged to pay attention to the travelling\ndervish unless the latter\u2019s attention is paid entirely to God. If he is\ndevoted to his own interests, it is impossible that another should help\nhim to gratify his selfishness, for dervishes are guides (_r\u00e1hbar\u00e1n_),\nnot brigands (_r\u00e1hbur\u00e1n_), to each other. So long as anyone perseveres\nin a selfish demand, his friend ought to resist it, but when he\nrenounces it, then his friend ought to satisfy it. In the Traditions of\nthe Apostle it is related that he made a brotherhood between Salm\u00e1n\n(al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed) and Ab\u00fa Dharr Ghif\u00e1r\u00ed, both of whom were leading men among\nthe People of the Veranda (_ahl-i \u1e63uffa_) and eminent spiritualists. One\nday, when Salm\u00e1n came to visit Ab\u00fa Dharr at his house, Ab\u00fa Dharr\u2019s wife\ncomplained to him that her husband neither ate by day nor slept by\nnight. Salm\u00e1n told her to fetch some food, and said to Ab\u00fa Dharr: \u201cO\nbrother, I desire thee to eat, since this fasting is not incumbent on\nthee.\u201d Ab\u00fa Dharr complied. And at night Salm\u00e1n said: \u201cO brother, I beg\nthee to sleep: thy body and thy wife have a claim upon thee, as well as\nthy Lord.\u201d Next day Ab\u00fa Dharr went to the Apostle, who said: \u201cI say the\nsame thing as Salm\u00e1n said yesterday: verily, thy body has a claim upon\nthee.\u201d Inasmuch as Ab\u00fa Dharr had renounced his selfish pleasures, Salm\u00e1n\npersuaded him to gratify them. Whatever you do on this principle is\nsound and impregnable. Once, in the territories of `Ir\u00e1q, I was\nrestlessly occupied (_t\u00e1p\u00e1k\u00ed m\u00edkardam_) in seeking wealth and\nsquandering it, and I had run largely into debt. Everyone who wanted\nanything turned to me, and I was troubled and at a loss to know how I\ncould accomplish their desires. An eminent person wrote to me as\nfollows: \u201cBeware lest you distract your mind from God by satisfying the\nwishes of those whose minds are engrossed in vanity. If you find anyone\nwhose mind is nobler than your own, you may justly distract your mind in\norder to give peace to his. Otherwise, do not distract yourself, since\nGod is sufficient for His servants.\u201d These words brought me instant\nrelief.\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules in Travel._\n\nWhen a dervish chooses to travel, not to reside, he ought to observe the\nfollowing rules. In the first place, he must travel for God\u2019s sake, not\nfor pleasure, and as he journeys outwardly, so he should flee inwardly\nfrom his sensual affections; and he must always keep himself in a state\nof purity and not neglect his devotions; and his object in travelling\nmust be either pilgrimage or war (against infidels) or to see a (holy)\nsite or to derive instruction or to seek knowledge or to visit a\nvenerable person, a Shaykh, or the tomb of a saint; otherwise his\njourney will be faulty. And he cannot do without a patched frock and a\nprayer-rug and a bucket and a rope and a pair of shoes (_kafsh_) or\nclogs (_na`layn_) and a staff: the patched frock to cover his nakedness,\nthe prayer-rug to pray on, the bucket to cleanse himself with, and the\nstaff to protect him from attacks and for other purposes. Before\nstepping on the prayer-rug he must put on his shoes or clogs in a state\nof purity. If anyone carries other articles, for the sake of keeping the\nSunna (Apostolic custom), such as a comb and nail-scissors and a needle\nand a little box of antimony (_muk\u1e25ula_), he does right. If, however,\nanyone provides himself with more utensils than those which have been\nmentioned, we have to consider in what station he is: if he is a novice\nevery article will be a shackle and a stumbling-block and a veil to him,\nand will afford him the means of showing self-conceit, but if he is a\nfirmly grounded adept he may carry all these articles and more. I heard\nthe following story from Shaykh Ab\u00fa Muslim F\u00e1ris b. Gh\u00e1lib al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed.\n\u201cOne day (he said) I paid a visit to Shaykh Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd b. Abi \u00b4l-Khayr\nFa\u1e0dlall\u00e1h b. Mu\u1e25ammad. I found him sleeping on a couch with four\ncushions (_takht\u00ed chah\u00e1r-b\u00e1lish_), one of his legs thrown across the\nother; and he was dressed in fine Egyptian linen (_diqq\u00ed Mi\u1e63r\u00ed_). My\ngarment was so dirty that it resembled leather, and my body was\nemaciated by austerities. On looking at Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd a feeling of\nscepticism overcame me. I said to myself: \u2018He is a dervish, and so am I,\nyet he is in all this luxury and I in this sore tribulation.\u2019 He\nimmediately divined my thoughts and was aware of my vainglory. \u2018O Ab\u00fa\nMuslim,\u2019 said he, \u2018in what d\u00edw\u00e1n have you read that a self-conceited man\nis a dervish? Since I see God in all things, God sets me on a throne,\nand since you see yourself in everything, God keeps you in affliction:\nmy lot is contemplation, while yours is mortification. These are two\nstations on the Way to God, but God is far aloof from them both, and a\ndervish is dead to all stations and free from all states.\u2019 On hearing\nthese words my senses forsook me, and the whole world grew dark in my\neyes. When I came to myself I repented, and he accepted my repentance.\nThen I said: \u2018O Shaykh, give me leave to depart, for I cannot bear the\nsight of thee.\u2019 He answered, \u2018O Ab\u00fa Muslim, you speak the truth;\u2019 then\nhe quoted this verse:\u2014\n\n            \u2018_That which my ear was unable to hear by report\n            My eye beheld actually all at once._\u2019\u201d\n\nThe travelling dervish must always observe the custom of the Apostle,\nand when he comes to the house of a resident he should enter his\npresence respectfully and greet him; and he should first take off the\nshoe on his left foot, as the Apostle did; and when he puts his shoes\non, he should first put on the shoe belonging to his right foot; and he\nshould wash his right foot before his left; and he should perform two\nbowings of the head by way of salutation (in prayer) and then occupy\nhimself with attending to the (religious) duties incumbent on dervishes.\nHe must not in any case interfere with the residents, or behave\nimmoderately towards anyone, or talk of the hardships which he may have\nsuffered in travelling, or discourse on theology, or tell anecdotes, or\nrecite traditions in company, for all this is a sign of self-conceit. He\nmust be patient when he is vexed by fools and must tolerate their\nirksomeness for God\u2019s sake, for in patience there are many blessings. If\nresidents or their servants bid him go with them to salute or visit the\ntownspeople, he must acquiesce if he can, but in his heart he ought to\ndislike paying such marks of respect to worldlings, although he should\nexcuse the behaviour of his brethren who act thus. He must take care not\nto trouble them by making any unreasonable demand, and he must not drag\nthem to the court of high officials with the purpose of seeking an idle\npleasure for himself. Travelling, as well as resident, dervishes must\nalways, in companionship, endeavour to please God, and must have a good\nbelief in each other, and not speak ill of any comrade face to face with\nhim or behind his back, because true mystics in regarding the act see\nthe Agent, and inasmuch as every human being, of whatever description he\nmay be\u2014faulty or faultless, veiled or illuminated\u2014belongs to God and is\nHis creature, to quarrel with a human act is to quarrel with the Divine\nAgent.\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules in Eating._\n\nMen cannot dispense with nourishment, but moral virtue requires that\nthey should not eat or drink in excess. Sh\u00e1fi`\u00ed says: \u201cHe who thinks\nabout that which goes into his belly is worth only that which comes out\nof it.\u201d Nothing is more hurtful to a novice in \u1e62\u00fafiism than eating too\nmuch. I have read in the Anecdotes that Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd was asked why he\npraised hunger so highly. He answered: \u201cBecause if Pharaoh had been\nhungry he would not have said, \u2018I am your Supreme Lord,\u2019 and if Q\u00e1r\u00fan\n(Korah) had been hungry he would not have been rebellious.\u201d\nTha`laba[172] was praised by all so long as he was hungry, but when he\nate his fill he displayed hypocrisy. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h (al-Tustar\u00ed)\nsaid: \u201cIn my judgment, a belly full of wine is better than one full of\nlawful food.\u201d On being asked the reason of this he said: \u201cWhen a man\u2019s\nbelly is filled with wine, his intellect is stupefied and the flame of\nlust is quenched, and people are secure from his hand and tongue; but\nwhen his belly is filled with lawful food he desires foolishness, and\nhis lust waxes great and his lower soul rises to seek her pleasures.\u201d\nThe Shaykhs have said, describing the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds: \u201cThey eat like sick men,\nand sleep like shipwrecked men, and speak like one whose children have\ndied.\u201d\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  See Bay\u1e0d\u00e1w\u00ed on Kor. ix, 76.\n\nIt is an obligatory rule that they should not eat alone, but should\nunselfishly share their food with one another; and when seated at table\nthey should not be silent, and should begin by saying \u201cIn God\u2019s name\u201d;\nand they should not put anything down or lift anything up in such a way\nas to offend their comrades, and they should dip the first mouthful in\nsalt, and should deal fairly by their friends. Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h\n(al-Tustar\u00ed) was asked about the meaning of the verse: \u201c_Verily God\nenjoins justice and beneficence_\u201d (Kor. xvi, 92). He replied: \u201cJustice\nconsists in dealing fairly with one\u2019s friend in regard to a morsel of\nfood, and beneficence consists in deeming him to have a better claim to\nthat morsel than yourself.\u201d My Shaykh used to say: \u201cI am astonished at\nthe impostor who declares that he has renounced the world, and is\nanxious about a morsel of food.\u201d Furthermore, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed should eat with\nhis right hand and should look only at his own morsel, and while eating\nhe should not drink unless he is extremely thirsty, and if he drinks he\nshould drink only as much as will moisten his liver. He should not eat\nlarge mouthfuls, and should chew his food well and not make haste;\notherwise he will be acting contrary to the custom of the Apostle, and\nwill probably suffer from indigestion (_tukhama_). When he has finished\neating, he should give praise to God and wash his hands. If two or three\nor more persons belonging to a community of dervishes go to a dinner and\neat something without informing their brethren, according to some\nShaykhs this is unlawful and constitutes a breach of companionship, but\nsome hold it to be allowable when a number of persons act thus in union\nwith each other, and some allow it in the case of a single person, on\nthe ground that he is not obliged to deal fairly when he is alone but\nwhen he is in company; consequently, being alone, he is relieved of the\nobligations of companionship and is not responsible for his act. Now,\nthe most important principle in this matter is that the invitation of a\ndervish should not be refused, and that the invitation of a rich man\nshould not be accepted. Dervishes ought not to go to the houses of rich\nmen or beg anything of them: such conduct is demoralizing for \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds,\nbecause worldlings are not on confidential terms (_ma\u1e25ram_) with the\ndervish. Much wealth, however, does not make a man \u201crich\u201d (_duny\u00e1-d\u00e1r_),\nnor does little wealth make him \u201cpoor\u201d. No one who acknowledges that\npoverty is better than riches is \u201crich\u201d, even though he be a king; and\nanyone who disbelieves in poverty is \u201crich\u201d, even though he be reduced\nto want. When a dervish attends a party he should not constrain himself\neither to eat or not to eat, but should behave in accordance with his\nfeelings at the time (_bar \u1e25ukm-i waqt_). If the host is a congenial\nperson (_ma\u1e25ram_), it is right that a married man (_muta\u00b4ahhil_) should\ncondone a fault; and if the host is uncongenial, it is not allowable to\ngo to his house. But in any case it is better not to commit a fault, for\nSahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h (al-Tustar\u00ed) says: \u201cBacksliding is abasement\u201d\n(_al-zillat dhillat_).\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules in Walking._\n\nGod hath said: \u201c_And the servants of the Merciful are they who walk on\nthe earth meekly_\u201d (Kor. xxv, 64). The seeker of God, as he walks,\nshould know at each step he makes whether that step is against God or of\nGod: if it is against God, he must ask for pardon, and if it is of God,\nhe must persevere in it, that it may be increased. One day D\u00e1wud \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed\nhad taken some medicine. They said to him: \u201cGo into the court of this\nhouse for a little while, in order that the good result of the medicine\nmay become apparent.\u201d He replied: \u201cI am ashamed that on the Day of\nJudgment God should ask me why I made a few steps for my own selfish\npleasure. God Almighty hath said: \u2018_And their feet shall bear witness of\nthat which they used to commit_\u2019\u201c (Kor. xxxvi, 65). Therefore the\ndervish should walk circumspectly, with his head bowed in meditation\n(_mur\u00e1qabat_), and not look in any direction but in front. If any person\nmeets him on the way, he must not draw himself back from him for the\nsake of saving his dress, for all Moslems are clean, and their clothes\ntoo; such an act is mere conceit and self-ostentation. If, however, the\nperson who meets him is an unbeliever, or manifestly filthy, he may turn\nfrom him unobtrusively. And when he walks with a number of people, he\nmust not attempt to go in front of them, since that is an excess of\npride; nor must he attempt to go behind them, since that is an excess of\nhumility, and humility of which one is conscious is essentially pride.\nHe must keep his clogs and shoes as clean as he can by day in order that\nGod, through the blessings thereof, may keep his clothes (clean) by\nnight. And when one or more dervishes are with anyone, he should not\nstop on the way (to talk) with any person, nor should he tell that\nperson to wait for him. He should walk quietly and should not hurry,\nelse his walk will resemble that of the covetous; nor should he walk\nslowly, for then his walk will resemble that of the proud; and he should\ntake steps of the full length (_g\u00e1m-i tam\u00e1m nihad_). In fine, the walk\nof the seeker of God should always be of such a description that if\nanyone should ask him whither he is going he should be able to answer\ndecisively: \u201d_Verily, I am going to my Lord: He will direct me_\u201d (Kor.\nxxxvii, 97). Otherwise his walking is a curse to him, because right\nsteps (_kha\u1e6daw\u00e1t_) proceed from right thoughts (_kha\u1e6dar\u00e1t_): accordingly\nif a man\u2019s thoughts are concentrated on God, his feet will follow his\nthoughts. It is related that Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said: \u201cThe inconsiderate walk\n(_rawish-i b\u00e9 mur\u00e1qabat_) of a dervish is a sign that he is heedless (of\nGod), because all that exists is attained in two steps: one step away\nfrom self-interest and the other step firmly planted on the commandments\nof God.\u201d The walk of the seeker is a sign that he is traversing a\ncertain distance, and since proximity to God is not a matter of\ndistance, what can the seeker do but cut off his feet in the abode of\nrest?\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules of Sleeping in travel and at home._\n\nThere is a great difference of opinion among the Shaykhs on this\nsubject. Some hold that it is not permissible for a novice to sleep\nexcept when he is overpowered by slumber, for the Apostle said: \u201cSleep\nis the brother of Death,\u201d and inasmuch as life is a benefit conferred by\nGod, whereas death is an affliction, the former must be more excellent\nthan the latter. And it is related that Shibl\u00ed said: \u201cGod looked upon me\nand said, \u2018He who sleeps is heedless, and he who is heedless is\nveiled.\u2019\u201d Others, again, hold that a novice may sleep at will and even\nconstrain himself to sleep after having performed the Divine commands,\nfor the Apostle said: \u201cThe Pen does not record (evil actions) against\nthe sleeper until he awakes, or against the boy until he reaches\npuberty, or against the madman until he recovers his wits.\u201d When a man\nis asleep, people are secure from his mischief and he is deprived of his\npersonal volition and his lower soul is prevented from gaining its\ndesires and the Recording Angels cease to write; his tongue makes no\nfalse assertion and speaks no evil of the absent, and his will places no\nhope in conceit and ostentation; \u201che does not possess for himself either\nbane or boon or death or life or resurrection.\u201d Hence Ibn `Abb\u00e1s says:\n\u201cNothing is more grievous to Ibl\u00eds than a sinner\u2019s sleep; whenever the\nsinner sleeps, Ibl\u00eds says, \u2018When will he wake and rise up that he may\ndisobey God?\u2019\u201d This was a point of controversy between Junayd and `Al\u00ed\nb. Sahl al-I\u1e63fah\u00e1n\u00ed. The latter wrote to Junayd a very fine epistle,\nwhich I have heard, to the effect that sleep is heedlessness and rest is\na turning away from God: the lover must not sleep or rest by day or by\nnight, otherwise he will lose the object of his desire and will forget\nhimself and his state and will fail to attain to God, as God said to\nDavid, \u201cO David, he who pretends to love Me and sleeps when night covers\nhim is a liar.\u201d Junayd said in his reply to that letter: \u201cOur\nwakefulness consists in our acts of devotion to God, whereas our sleep\nis God\u2019s act towards us: that which proceeds from God to us without our\nwill is more perfect than that which proceeds from us to God with our\nwill. Sleep is a gift which God bestows on those who love Him.\u201d This\nquestion depends on the doctrine of sobriety and intoxication, which has\nbeen fully discussed above. It is remarkable that Junayd, who was\nhimself a \u201csober\u201d man, here supports intoxication. Seemingly, he was\nenraptured at the time when he wrote and his temporary state may have\nexpressed itself by his tongue; or, again, it may be that the opposite\nis the case and that sleep is actually sobriety, while wakefulness is\nactually intoxication, because sleep is an attribute of humanity, and a\nman is \u201csober\u201d so long as he is in the shadow of his attributes:\nwakefulness, on the other hand, is an attribute of God, and when a man\ntranscends his own attribute he is enraptured. I have met with a number\nof Shaykhs who agree with Junayd in preferring sleep to wakefulness,\nbecause the visions of the saints and of most of the apostles occurred\nduring sleep. And the Apostle said: \u201cVerily, God takes pride in the\nservant who sleeps while he prostrates himself in prayer; and He says to\nHis angels, \u2018Behold My servant, whose spirit is in the abode of secret\nconversation (_najw\u00e1_) while his body is on the carpet of worship.\u2019\u201d The\nApostle also said: \u201cWhoever sleeps in a state of purification, his\nspirit is permitted to circumambulate the Throne and prostrate itself\nbefore God.\u201d I have read in the Anecdotes that Sh\u00e1h Shuj\u00e1` of Kirm\u00e1n\nkept awake for forty years. One night he fell asleep and saw God, and\nafterwards he used always to sleep in hope of seeing the same vision.\nThis is the meaning of the verse of Qays of the Ban\u00fa `\u00c1mir[173]\u2014\n\n         \u201c_Truly I wish to sleep, although I am not drowsy,\n         That perchance thy beloved image may encounter mine._\u201d\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Generally known as Majn\u00fan, the lover of Layl\u00e1. See Brockelmann, i, 48.\n\nOther Shaykhs whom I have seen agree with `Al\u00ed b. Sahl in preferring\nwakefulness to sleep, because the apostles received their revelations\nand the saints their miracles while they were awake. One of the Shaykhs\nsays: \u201cIf there were any good in sleep there would be sleep in\nParadise,\u201d i.e., if sleep were the cause of love and proximity to God,\nit would follow that there must be sleep in Paradise, which is the\ndwelling-place of proximity; since neither sleep nor any veil is in\nParadise, we know that sleep is a veil. Those who are fond of subtleties\n(_arb\u00e1b-i l\u00e1\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4if_) say that when Adam fell asleep in Paradise Eve came\nforth from his left side, and Eve was the source of all his afflictions.\nThey say also that when Abraham told Ishmael that he had been ordered in\na dream to sacrifice him, Ishmael replied: \u201cThis is the punishment due\nto one who sleeps and forgets his beloved. If you had not fallen asleep\nyou would not have been commanded to sacrifice your son.\u201d It is related\nthat Shibl\u00ed every night used to place in front of him a bowl of salt\nwater and a needle for applying collyrium, and whenever he was about to\nfall asleep he would dip the needle in the salt water and draw it along\nhis eyelids. I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, have met with a spiritual\ndirector who used to sleep after finishing the performance of his\nobligatory acts of devotion; and I have seen Shaykh A\u1e25mad Samarqand\u00ed,\nwho was living at Bukh\u00e1r\u00e1: during forty years he had never slept at\nnight, but he used to sleep a little in the daytime. This question turns\non the view taken of life and death. Those who prefer death to life must\nprefer sleep to waking, while those who prefer life to death must prefer\nwaking to sleep. Merit belongs, not to the man who forces himself to\nkeep awake, but to the man who is kept awake. The Apostle, whom God\nchose and whom He raised to the highest rank, did not force himself\neither to sleep or to wake. God commanded him, saying: \u201c_Rise and pray\nduring the night, except a small part: half thereof or less_\u201d (Kor.\nlxxiii, 2-3). Similarly, merit does not belong to the man who forces\nhimself to sleep, but only to the man who is put to sleep. The Men of\nthe Cave did not constrain themselves to sleep or to wake, but God threw\nslumber upon them and nourished them without their will. When a man\nattains to such a degree that his will no longer exists, and his hand is\nwithdrawn from everything, and his thoughts are averted from all except\nGod, it matters not whether he is asleep or awake: in either case he is\nfull of honour. Now, as regards the sleep of the novice, he ought to\ndeem that his first sleep is his last, and repent of his sins and\nsatisfy all who have a claim against him; and he ought to perform a\ncomely purification and sleep on his right side, facing the _qibla_; and\nhaving set his worldly affairs in order, he ought to give thanks for the\nblessing of Islam, and make a vow that if he should wake again he will\nnot return to sin. One who has set his affairs in order while he is\nawake has no fear of sleep or of death. A well-known story is told of a\ncertain spiritual director, that he used to visit an Im\u00e1m who was\nengrossed in maintaining his dignity and was a prey to self-conceit, and\nthat he used to say to him: \u201cO So-and-so, you must die.\u201d This offended\nthe Im\u00e1m, for \u201cwhy (he said) should this beggar be always repeating\nthese words to me?\u201d One day he answered: \u201cI will begin to-morrow.\u201d Next\nday when the spiritual director came in the Im\u00e1m said to him: \u201cO\nSo-and-so, you must die.\u201d He put down his prayer-rug and spread it out,\nand laid his head on it and exclaimed, \u201cI am dead,\u201d and immediately\nyielded up his soul. The Im\u00e1m took warning, and perceived that this\nspiritual director had been bidding him prepare for death, as he himself\nhad done. My Shaykh used to enjoin his disciples not to sleep unless\noverpowered by slumber, and when they had once awaked not to fall asleep\nagain, since a second sleep is unlawful and unprofitable to those who\nseek God.\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules in Speech and Silence._\n\nGod hath commanded His servants to speak well, e.g. to acknowledge His\nlordship and to praise Him and to call mankind to His court. Speech is a\ngreat blessing conferred on Man by God, and thereby is Man distinguished\nfrom all other things. Some interpreters of the text, \u201c_We have honoured\nthe sons of Adam_\u201d (Kor. xvii, 72), explain it as meaning \u201cby the gift\nof speech\u201d. Nevertheless, in speech there are also great evils, for the\nApostle said: \u201cThe worst that I fear for my people is the tongue.\u201d In\nshort, speech is like wine: it intoxicates the mind, and those who begin\nto have a taste for it cannot abstain from it. Accordingly, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds,\nknowing that speech is harmful, never spoke except when it was\nnecessary, i.e. they considered the beginning and end of their\ndiscourse; if the whole was for God\u2019s sake, they spoke; otherwise they\nkept silence, because they firmly believed that God knows our secret\nthoughts (cf. Kor. xliii, 80). The Apostle said: \u201cHe who keeps silence\nis saved.\u201d In silence there are many advantages and spiritual favours\n(_fut\u00fa\u1e25_), and in speech there are many evils. Some Shaykhs have\npreferred silence to speech, while others have set speech above silence.\nAmong the former is Junayd, who said: \u201cExpressions are wholly\npretensions, and where realities are established pretensions are idle.\u201d\nSometimes it is excusable not to speak although one has the will to do\nso, i.e. fear becomes an excuse for not speaking in spite of one\u2019s\nhaving the will and the power to speak; and refusal to speak of God does\nnot impair the essence of gnosis. But at no time is a man excused for\nmere pretension devoid of reality, which is the principle of hypocrites.\nPretension without reality is hypocrisy, and reality without pretension\nis sincerity, because \u201che who is grounded in eloquence needs no tongue\nto communicate with his Lord\u201d. Expressions only serve to inform another\nthan God, for God Himself requires no explanation of our circumstances,\nand others than God are not worth so much that we should occupy\nourselves with them. This is corroborated by the saying of Junayd, \u201cHe\nwho knows God is dumb,\u201d for in actual vision (_`iy\u00e1n_) exposition\n(_bay\u00e1n_) is a veil. It is related that Shibl\u00ed rose up in Junayd\u2019s\nmeeting-place and cried aloud, \u201cO my object of desire!\u201d and pointed to\nGod. Junayd said: \u201cO Ab\u00fa Bakr, if God is the object of your desire, why\ndo you point to Him, who is independent of this? And if the object of\nyour desire is another, God knows what you say: why do you speak\nfalsely?\u201d Shibl\u00ed asked God to pardon him for having uttered those words.\n\nThose who put speech above silence argue that we are commanded by God to\nset forth our circumstances, for the pretension subsists in the reality,\nand _vice vers\u00e2_. If a man continues for a thousand years to know God in\nhis heart and soul, but has not confessed that he knows God, he is\nvirtually an infidel unless his silence has been due to compulsion. God\nhas bidden all believers give Him thanks and praise and rehearse His\nbounties, and He has promised to answer the prayers of those who invoke\nHim. One of the Shaykhs has said that whoever does not declare his\nspiritual state is without any spiritual state, since the state\nproclaims itself.\n\n \u201c_The tongue of the state_ (lis\u00e1n al-\u1e25\u00e1l) _is more eloquent than my\n    tongue,\n And my silence is the interpreter of my question_.\u201d\n\nI have read in the Anecdotes that one day when Ab\u00fa Bakr Shibl\u00ed was\nwalking in the Karkh quarter of Baghd\u00e1d he heard an impostor saying:\n\u201cSilence is better than speech.\u201d Shibl\u00ed replied: \u201cThy silence is better\nthan thy speech, but my speech is better than my silence, because thy\nspeech is vanity and thy silence is an idle jest, whereas my silence is\nmodesty and my speech is knowledge.\u201d I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed,\ndeclare that there are two kinds of speech and two kinds of silence:\nspeech is either real or unreal, and silence is either fruition or\nforgetfulness. If one speaks truth, his speech is better than his\nsilence, but if one speaks falsehood, his silence is better than his\nspeech. \u201cHe who speaks hits the mark or misses it, but he who is made to\nspeak is preserved from transgression.\u201d Thus Ibl\u00eds said, \u201c_I am better\nthan he_\u201d (Kor. xxxviii, 77), but Adam was made to say, \u201c_O Lord, we\nhave done wrong unto ourselves_\u201d (Kor. vii, 22). The missionaries\n(_d\u00e1`iy\u00e1n_) of this sect are permitted or compelled to speak, and shame\nor helplessness strikes them dumb: \u201che whose silence is shame, his\nspeech is life.\u201d Their speech is the result of vision, and speech\nwithout vision appears to them despicable. They prefer silence to speech\nso long as they are with themselves, but when they are beside themselves\ntheir words are written on the hearts of men. Hence that spiritual\ndirector said: \u201cHe whose silence to God is gold, his speech to another\nthan God is gilt.\u201d The seeker of God, who is absorbed in servantship,\nmust be silent, in order that the adept, who proclaims Lordship, may\nspeak, and by his utterances may captivate the hearts of his disciples.\nThe rule in speaking is not to speak unless bidden, and then only of the\nthing that is bidden; and the rule in silence is not to be ignorant or\nsatisfied with ignorance or forgetful. The disciple must not interrupt\nthe speech of spiritual directors, or let his personal judgment intrude\ntherein, or use far-fetched expressions in answering them. He must never\ntell a lie, or speak ill of the absent, or offend any Moslem with that\ntongue which has made the profession of faith and acknowledged the unity\nof God. He must not address dervishes by their bare names or speak to\nthem until they ask a question. It behoves the dervish, when he is\nsilent, not to be silent in falsehood, and when he speaks, to speak only\nthe truth. This principle has many derivatives and innumerable\nrefinements, but I will not pursue the subject, lest my book should\nbecome too long.\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules in Asking._\n\nGod hath said: \u201c_They ask not men with importunity_\u201d (Kor. ii, 274). Any\none of them who asks should not be repulsed, for God said to the\nApostle: \u201c_Do not drive away the beggar_\u201d (Kor. xciii, 10). As far as\npossible they should beg of God only, for begging involves turning away\nfrom God to another, and when a man turns away from God there is danger\nthat God may leave him in that predicament. I have read that a certain\nworldling said to R\u00e1bi`a `Adawiyya[174]: \u201cO R\u00e1bi`a, ask something of me\nthat I may procure what you wish.\u201d \u201cO sir,\u201d she replied, \u201cI am ashamed\nto ask anything of the Creator of the world; how, then, should I not be\nashamed to ask anything of a fellow-creature?\u201d It is related that in the\ntime of Ab\u00fa Muslim, the head of the (`Abb\u00e1sid) propaganda, an innocent\ndervish was seized on suspicion of theft, and was imprisoned at Chah\u00e1r\n\u1e6c\u00e1q.[175] On the same night Ab\u00fa Muslim dreamed that the Apostle came to\nhim and said: \u201cGod has sent me to tell you that one of His friends is in\nyour prison. Arise and set him free.\u201d Ab\u00fa Muslim leapt from his bed, and\nran with bare head and feet to the prison gate, and gave orders to\nrelease the dervish, and begged his pardon and bade him ask a boon. \u201cO\nprince,\u201d he replied, \u201cone whose Master rouses Ab\u00fa Muslim at midnight,\nand sends him to deliver a poor dervish from affliction\u2014how should that\none ask a boon of others?\u201d Ab\u00fa Muslim began to weep, and the dervish\nwent on his way. Some, however, hold that a dervish may beg of his\nfellow-creatures, since God says: \u201c_They ask not men with importunity_,\u201d\ni.e. they may ask but not importune. The Apostle begged for the sake of\nproviding for his companions, and he said to us: \u201cSeek your wants from\nthose whose faces are comely.\u201d\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 578; Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 230.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  A village, mentioned by Ibn al-Ath\u00edr (x, 428, 24), in the vicinity of\n  Baghd\u00e1d.\n\nThe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs consider begging to be permissible in three cases.\nFirstly, with the object of freeing one\u2019s mind from preoccupation, for,\nas they have said, we should not attach so much importance to two cakes\nof bread that we should spend the whole day and night in expecting them;\nand when we are starving we want nothing else of God, because no anxiety\nis so engrossing as anxiety on account of food. Therefore, when the\ndisciple of Shaq\u00edq visited B\u00e1yaz\u00edd, and in answer to B\u00e1yaz\u00edd\u2019s question\nas to the state of Shaq\u00edq informed him that he was entirely disengaged\nfrom mankind, and was putting all his trust in God, B\u00e1yaz\u00edd said: \u201cWhen\nyou return to Shaq\u00edq, tell him to beware of again testing God with two\nloaves: if he is hungry, let him beg of his fellow-creatures and have\ndone with the cant of trust in God.\u201d Secondly, it is permissible to beg\nwith the object of training the lower soul. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds beg in order that\nthey may endure the humiliation of begging, and may perceive what is\ntheir worth in the eyes of other men, and may not be proud. When Shibl\u00ed\ncame to Junayd, Junayd said to him: \u201cO Ab\u00fa Bakr, your head is full of\nconceit, because you are the son of the Caliph\u2019s principal chamberlain\nand the governor of S\u00e1marr\u00e1. No good will come from you until you go to\nthe market and beg of everyone whom you see, that you may know your true\nworth.\u201d Shibl\u00ed obeyed. He begged in the market for three years, with\never decreasing success. One day, having gone through the whole market\nand got nothing, he returned to Junayd and told him. Junayd said: \u201cNow,\nAb\u00fa Bakr, you see that you have no worth in the eyes of men: do not fix\nyour heart on them. This matter (i.e. begging) is for the sake of\ndiscipline, not for the sake of profit.\u201d It is related that Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan\nthe Egyptian said: \u201cI had a friend who was in accord with God. After his\ndeath I saw him in a dream, and asked him how God had dealt with him. He\nanswered that God had forgiven him. I asked him: \u2018On account of what\nvirtue?\u2019 He replied that God raised him to his feet and said: \u2018My\nservant, you suffered with patience much contumely and tribulation from\nbase and avaricious men, to whom you stretched out your hands: therefore\nI forgive you.\u2019\u201d Thirdly, they beg from mankind because of their\nreverence for God. They recognize that all worldly possessions belong to\nGod, and they regard all mankind as His agents, from whom\u2014not from God\nHimself\u2014they beg anything that is for the benefit of the lower soul; and\nin the eyes of one who beholds his own want, the servant that makes a\npetition to an agent is more reverent and obedient than he that makes a\npetition to God. Therefore, their begging from another is a sign of\npresence and of turning towards God, not a sign of absence and of\nturning away from Him. I have read that Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh (al-R\u00e1z\u00ed) had a\ndaughter, who one day asked her mother for something. \u201cAsk it of God,\u201d\nsaid the mother. \u201cI am ashamed,\u201d the girl replied, \u201cto ask a material\nwant from Him. What you give me is His too and is my allotted portion.\u201d\nThe rules of begging are as follows: If you beg unsuccessfully you\nshould be more cheerful than when you succeed, and you should not regard\nany human creature as coming between God and yourself. You should not\nbeg of women or market-folk (_a\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b-i asw\u00e1q_), and you should not tell\nyour secret to anyone unless you are sure that his money is lawful. As\nfar as possible you should beg unselfishly, and should not use the\nproceeds for worldly show and for housekeeping, or convert them into\nproperty. You should live in the present, and let no thought of the\nmorrow enter your mind, else you will incur everlasting perdition. You\nshould not make God a springe to catch alms, and you should not display\npiety in order that more alms may be given to you on account of your\npiety. I once met an old and venerable \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed, who had lost his way in the\ndesert and came, hunger-stricken, into the market-place at K\u00fafa with a\nsparrow perched on his hand, crying: \u201cGive me something for the sake of\nthis sparrow!\u201d The people asked him why he said this. He replied: \u201cIt is\nimpossible that I should say \u2018Give me something for God\u2019s sake!\u2019 One\nmust employ the intercession of an insignificant creature to obtain\nworldly goods.\u201c\n\nThis is but a small part of the obligations involved in begging. I have\nabridged the topic for fear of being tedious.\n\n_Chapter concerning their Rules in Marriage and Celibacy and matters\nconnected therewith._\n\nGod hath said: \u201d_They_ (women) _are a garment unto you and ye are a\ngarment unto them_\u201d (Kor. ii, 183). And the Apostle said: \u201cMarry, that\nye may multiply; for I will vaunt you against all other nations on the\nDay of Resurrection, even in respect of the still-born.\u201d And he said\nalso: \u201cThe women who bring the greatest blessing are they who cost least\nto maintain, whose faces are comeliest, and whose dowries are cheapest.\u201d\nMarriage is permitted to all men and women, and is obligatory on those\nwho cannot abstain from what is unlawful, and is a _sunna_ (i.e.\nsanctioned by the custom of the Apostle) for those who are able to\nsupport a family. Some of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs hold marriage to be desirable\nas a means of quelling lust, and acquisition (of sustenance) to be\ndesirable as a means of freeing the mind from anxiety. Others hold that\nthe object of marriage is procreation; for, if the child dies before its\nfather, it will intercede for him (before God), and if the father dies\nfirst, the child will remain to pray for him.[176] The Apostle said:\n\u201cWomen are married for four things: wealth, nobility, beauty, and\nreligion. Do ye take one that is religious, for, after Islam, there is\nnothing that profits a man so much as a believing and obedient wife who\ngladdens him whenever he looks on her.\u201d And the Apostle said: \u201cSatan is\nwith the solitary,\u201d because Satan decks out lust and presents it to\ntheir minds. No companionship is equal in reverence and security to\nmarriage, when husband and wife are congenial and well-suited to each\nother, and no torment and anxiety is so great as an uncongenial wife.\nTherefore the dervish must, in the first place, consider what he is\ndoing and picture in his mind the evils of celibacy and of marriage, in\norder that he may choose the state of which he can more easily overcome\nthe evils. The evils of celibacy are two: (1) the neglect of an\nApostolic custom, (2) the fostering of lust in the heart and the danger\nof falling into unlawful ways. The evils of marriage are also two: (1)\nthe preoccupation of the mind with other than God, (2) the distraction\nof the body for the sake of sensual pleasure. The root of this matter\nlies in retirement and companionship. Marriage is proper for those who\nprefer to associate with mankind, and celibacy is an ornament to those\nwho seek retirement from mankind. The Apostle said: \u201cGo: the recluses\n(_al-mufarrid\u00fan_) have preceded you.\u201d And \u1e24asan of Ba\u1e63ra says: \u201cThe\nlightly burdened shall be saved and the heavily laden shall perish.\u201d\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 relates the following story: \u201cI went to a certain\nvillage to visit a reverend man who lived there. When I entered his\nhouse I saw that it was clean, like a saint\u2019s place of worship. In its\ntwo corners two niches (_mi\u1e25r\u00e1b_) had been made; the old man was seated\nin one of them, and in the other niche an old woman was sitting, clean\nand bright: both had become weak through much devotion. They showed\ngreat joy at my coming, and I stayed with them for three days. When I\nwas about to depart I asked the old man, \u2018What relation is this chaste\nwoman to you?\u2019 He answered, \u2018She is my cousin and my wife.\u2019 I said,\n\u2018During these three days your intercourse with one another has been very\nlike that of strangers.\u2019 \u2018Yes,\u2019 said he, \u2018it has been so for five and\nsixty years.\u2019 I asked him the cause of this. He replied: \u2018When we were\nyoung we fell in love, but her father would not give her to me, for he\nhad discovered our fondness for each other. I bore this sorrow for a\nlong while, but on her father\u2019s death my father, who was her uncle, gave\nme her hand. On the wedding-night she said to me: \u201cYou know what\nhappiness God has bestowed upon us in bringing us together and taking\nall fear away from our hearts. Let us therefore to-night refrain from\nsensual passion and trample on our desires and worship God in\nthanksgiving for this happiness.\u201d I said, \u201cIt is well.\u201d Next night she\nbade me do the same. On the third night I said, \u201cNow we have given\nthanks for two nights for your sake; to-night let us worship God for my\nsake.\u201d Five and sixty years have passed since then, and we have never\ntouched one another, but spend all our lives in giving thanks for our\nhappiness.\u2019\u201d Accordingly, when a dervish chooses companionship, it\nbehoves him to provide his wife with lawful food and pay her dowry out\nof lawful property, and not indulge in sensual pleasure so long as any\nobligation towards God, or any part of His commandments, is unfulfilled.\nAnd when he performs his devotions and is about to go to bed, let him\nsay, as in secret converse with God: \u201cO Lord God, Thou hast mingled lust\nwith Adam\u2019s clay in order that the world may be populated, and Thou in\nThy knowledge hast willed that I should have this intercourse. Cause it\nto be for the sake of two things: firstly, to guard that which is\nunlawful by means of that which is lawful; and secondly, vouchsafe to me\na child, saintly and acceptable, not one who will divert my thoughts\nfrom Thee.\u201d It is related that a son was born to Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h\nal-Tustar\u00ed. Whenever the child asked his mother for food, she used to\nbid him ask God, and while he went to the niche (_mi\u1e25r\u00e1b_) and bowed\nhimself in prayer, she used secretly to give him what he wanted, without\nletting him know that his mother had given it to him. Thus he grew\naccustomed to turn unto God. One day he came back from school when his\nmother was absent, and bowed himself in prayer. God caused the thing\nthat he sought to appear before him. When his mother came in she asked,\n\u201cWhere did you get this?\u201d He answered, \u201cFrom the place whence it comes\nalways.\u201d\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  Here a story is told of the Caliph `Umar, who asked Umm Kulth\u00fam, the\n  Prophet\u2019s granddaughter, in marriage from her father `Al\u00ed.\n\nThe practice of an Apostolic rule of life must not lead the dervish to\nseek worldly wealth and unlawful gain or preoccupy his heart, for the\ndervish is ruined by the destruction of his heart, just as the rich man\nis ruined by the destruction of his house and furniture; but the rich\nman can repair his loss, while the dervish cannot. In our time it is\nimpossible for anyone to have a suitable wife, whose wants are not\nexcessive and whose demands are not unreasonable. Therefore many persons\nhave adopted celibacy and observe the Apostolic Tradition: \u201cThe best of\nmen in latter days will be those who are light of back,\u201d i.e. who have\nneither wife nor child. It is the unanimous opinion of the Shaykhs of\nthis sect that the best and most excellent \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are the celibates, if\ntheir hearts are uncontaminated and if their natures are not inclined to\nsins and lusts. The vulgar, in gratifying their lusts, appeal to the\nApostle\u2019s saying, that the three things he loved in the world were\nscent, women, and prayer, and argue that since he loved women marriage\nmust be more excellent than celibacy. I reply: \u201cThe Apostle also said\nthat he had two trades, namely, poverty (_faqr_) and the spiritual\ncombat (_jih\u00e1d_): why, then, do ye shun these things? If he loved that\n(viz. marriage), this (viz. celibacy) was his trade. Your desires have a\ngreater propensity to the former, but it is absurd, on that ground, to\nsay that he loves what you desire. Anyone who follows his desires for\nfifty years and supposes that he is following the practice of the\nApostle is in grave error.\u201d A woman was the cause of the first calamity\nthat overtook Adam in Paradise, and also of the first quarrel that\nhappened in this world, i.e. the quarrel of Abel and Cain. A woman was\nthe cause of the punishment inflicted on the two angels (H\u00e1r\u00fat and\nM\u00e1r\u00fat); and down to the present day all mischiefs, worldly and religious\nhave been caused by women. After God had preserved me for eleven years\nfrom the dangers of matrimony, it was my destiny to fall in love with\nthe description of a woman whom I had never seen, and during a whole\nyear my passion so absorbed me that my religion was near being ruined,\nuntil at last God in His bounty gave protection to my wretched heart and\nmercifully delivered me. In short, \u1e62\u00fafiism was founded on celibacy; the\nintroduction of marriage brought about a change. There is no flame of\nlust that cannot be extinguished by strenuous effort, because, whatever\nvice proceeds from yourself, you possess the instrument that will remove\nit: another is not necessary for that purpose. Now the removal of lust\nmay be effected by two things, one of which involves self-constraint\n(_takalluf_) while the other lies outside the sphere of human action and\nmortification. The former is hunger, the latter is an agitating fear or\na true love, which is collected by the dispersion of (sensual) thoughts:\na love which extends its empire over the different parts of the body and\ndivests all the senses of their sensual quality. A\u1e25mad \u1e24amm\u00e1d\u00ed of\nSarakhs, who went to Transoxania and lived there, was a venerable man.\nOn being asked whether he desired to marry, he answered: \u201cNo, because I\nam either absent from myself or present with myself: when I am absent, I\nhave no consciousness of the two worlds; and when I am present, I keep\nmy lower soul in such wise that when it gets a loaf of bread it thinks\nthat it has got a thousand houris. It is a great thing to occupy the\nmind: let it be anxious about whatsoever you will.\u201d Others, again,\nrecommend that neither state (marriage or celibacy) should be regarded\nwith predilection, in order that we may see what the decree of Divine\nprovidence will bring to light: if celibacy be our lot, we should strive\nto be chaste, and if marriage be our destiny, we should comply with the\ncustom of the Apostle and strive to clear our hearts (of worldly\nanxieties). When God ordains celibacy unto a man, his celibacy should be\nlike that of Joseph, who, although he was able to satisfy his desire for\nZulaykh\u00e1, turned away from her and busied himself with subduing his\npassion and considering the vices of his lower soul at the moment when\nZulaykh\u00e1 was alone with him. And if God ordains marriage unto a man, his\nmarriage should be like that of Abraham, who by reason of his absolute\nconfidence in God put aside all care for his wife; and when Sarah became\njealous he took Hagar and brought her to a barren valley and committed\nher to the care of God. Accordingly, a man is not ruined by marriage or\nby celibacy, but the mischief consists in asserting one\u2019s will and in\nyielding to one\u2019s desires. The married man ought to observe the\nfollowing rules. He should not leave any act of devotion undone, or let\nany \u201cstate\u201d be lost or any \u201ctime\u201d be wasted. He should be kind to his\nwife and should provide her with lawful expenses, and he should not pay\ncourt to tyrants and governors with the object of meeting her expenses.\nHe should behave thus, in order that, if a child is born, it may be such\nas it ought to be. A well-known story is told of A\u1e25mad b. \u1e24arb of\nN\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, that one day, when he was sitting with the chiefs and nobles\nof N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far who had come to offer their respects to him, his son entered\nthe room, drunk, playing a guitar, and singing, and passed by insolently\nwithout heeding them. A\u1e25mad, perceiving that they were put out of\ncountenance, said: \u201cWhat is the matter?\u201d They replied: \u201cWe are ashamed\nthat this lad should pass by you in such a state.\u201d A\u1e25mad said: \u201cHe is\nexcusable. One night my wife and I partook of some food that was brought\nto us from a neighbour\u2019s house. That same night this son was begotten,\nand we fell asleep and let our devotions go. Next morning we inquired of\nour neighbour as to the source of the food that he had sent to us, and\nwe found that it came from a wedding-feast in the house of a government\nofficial.\u201d The following rules should be observed by the celibate. He\nmust not see what is improper to see or think what is improper to think,\nand he must quench the flames of lust by hunger and guard his heart from\nthis world and from preoccupation with phenomena, and he must not call\nthe desire of his lower soul \u201cknowledge\u201d or \u201cinspiration\u201d, and he must\nnot make the wiles (_bu \u00b4l-`ajab\u00ed_) of Satan a pretext (for sin). If he\nacts thus he will be approved in \u1e62\u00fafiism.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIV.\n THE UNCOVERING OF THE TENTH VEIL: EXPLAINING THEIR PHRASEOLOGY AND THE\n   DEFINITIONS OF THEIR TERMS AND THE VERITIES OF THE IDEAS WHICH ARE\n                               SIGNIFIED.\n\n\nThose employed in every craft and business, while discussing its\nmysteries with one another, make use of certain words and expressions of\nwhich the meaning is known only to themselves. Such expressions are\ninvented for a double purpose: firstly, in order to facilitate the\nunderstanding of difficulties and bring them nearer to the comprehension\nof the novice; and secondly, in order to conceal the mysteries of that\nscience from the uninitiated. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds also have technical terms for\nthe purpose of expressing the matter of their discourse and in order\nthat they may reveal or disguise their meaning as they please. I will\nnow explain some of these terms and distinguish between the\nsignifications attached to various pairs of words.\n\n_\u1e24\u00e1l_ and _Waqt_.\n\n_Waqt_ (time) is a term with which \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds are familiar, and concerning\nwhich much has been said by the Shaykhs, but my object is to establish\nthe truth, not to give long explanations. _Waqt_ is that whereby a man\nbecomes independent of the past and the future, as, for example, when an\ninfluence from God descends into his soul and makes his heart collected\n(_mujtami`_) he has no memory of the past and no thought of that which\nis not yet come. All people fail in this, and do not know what our past\nhas been or what our future will be, except the possessors of _waqt_,\nwho say: \u201cOur knowledge cannot apprehend the future and the past, and we\nare happy with God in the present (_andar waqt_). If we occupy ourselves\nwith to-morrow, or let any thought of it enter our minds, we shall be\nveiled (from God), and a veil is a great distraction (_par\u00e1gandag\u00ed_).\u201d\nIt is absurd to think of the unattainable. Thus Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z says:\n\u201cDo not occupy your precious time except with the most precious of\nthings, and the most precious of human things is the state of being\noccupied between the past and the future.\u201d And the Apostle said: \u201cI have\na time (_waqt_) with God, in which none of the cherubim nor any prophet\nrivals me,\u201d that is to say, \u201cin which the eighteen thousand worlds do\nnot occur to my mind and have no worth in my eyes.\u201d Therefore, on the\nnight of the Ascension, when the kingdom of earth and heaven was arrayed\nbefore him in all its beauty, he did not look at anything (Kor. liii,\n17), for Mu\u1e63\u1e6daf\u00e1 was noble (_`az\u00edz_), and the noble are not engrossed\nsave by that which is noble. The \u201ctimes\u201d (_awq\u00e1t_) of the Unitarian are\ntwo: one in the state of loss (_faqd_) and one in the state of gain\n(_wajd_), one in the place of union and one in the place of separation.\nAt both these times he is overpowered (_maqh\u00far_), because both his union\nand his separation are effected by God without such volition or\nacquisition on his part as would make it possible to invest him with any\nattribute. When a man\u2019s power of volition is cut off from him, whatever\nhe does or experiences is the result of \u201ctime\u201d (_waqt_). It is related\nthat Junayd said: \u201dI saw a dervish in the desert, sitting under a\nmimosa-tree in a hard and uncomfortable spot, and asked him what made\nhim sit there so still. He answered: \u2018I had a \u201ctime\u201d and lost it here;\nnow I am sitting and mourning.\u2019 I inquired how long he had been there.\nHe answered: \u2018Twelve years. Will not the Shaykh offer up a prayer\n(_himmat\u00ed kunad_) on my behalf, that perchance I may find my \u201ctime\u201d\nagain?\u2019 I left him,\u201d said Junayd, \u201dand performed the pilgrimage and\nprayed for him. My prayer was granted. On my return I found him seated\nin the same place. \u2018Why,\u2019 I said, \u2018do you not go from here, since you\nhave obtained your wish?\u2019 He replied: \u2018O Shaykh, I settled myself in\nthis place of desolation where I lost my capital: is it right that I\nshould leave the place where I have found my capital once more and where\nI enjoy the society of God? Let the Shaykh go in peace, for I will mix\nmy dust with the dust of this spot, that I may rise at the Resurrection\nfrom this dust which is the abode of my delight.\u2019 No man can attain to\nthe reality of \u201ctime\u201d by exerting his choice, for \u201ctime\u201d is a thing that\ndoes not come within the scope of human acquisition, that it should be\ngained by effort, nor is it sold in the market, that anyone should give\nhis life in exchange for it, and the will has no power either to attract\nor to repel it. The Shaykhs have said, \u201cTime is a cutting sword,\u201d\nbecause it is characteristic of a sword to cut, and \u201ctime\u201d cuts the root\nof the future and the past, and obliterates care of yesterday and\nto-morrow from the heart. The sword is a dangerous companion: either it\nmakes its master a king or it destroys him. Although one should pay\nhomage to the sword and carry it on one\u2019s own shoulder for a thousand\nyears, in the moment of cutting it does not discriminate between its\nmaster\u2019s neck and the neck of another. Violence (_qahr_) is its\ncharacteristic, and violence will not depart from it at the wish of its\nmaster.\n\n_\u1e24\u00e1l_ (state) is that which descends upon \u201ctime\u201d (_waqt_) and adorns it,\nas the spirit adorns the body. _Waqt_ has need of _\u1e25\u00e1l_, for _waqt_ is\nbeautified by _\u1e25\u00e1l_ and subsists thereby. When the owner of _waqt_ comes\ninto possession of _\u1e25\u00e1l_, he is no more subject to change and is made\nsteadfast (_mustaq\u00edm_) in his state; for, when he has _waqt_ without\n_\u1e25\u00e1l_, he may lose it, but when _\u1e25\u00e1l_ attaches itself to him, all his\nstate (_r\u00fazg\u00e1r_) becomes _waqt_, and that cannot be lost: what seems to\nbe coming and going (_\u00e1mad shud_) is really the result of becoming and\nmanifestation (_takawwun \u00fa \u1e95uh\u00far_), just as, before this, _waqt_\ndescended on him who has it. He who is in the state of becoming\n(_mutakawwin_) may be forgetful, and on him who is thus forgetful _\u1e25\u00e1l_\ndescends and _waqt_ is made stable (_mutamakkin_); for the possessor of\n_waqt_ may become forgetful, but the possessor of _\u1e25\u00e1l_ cannot possibly\nbe so. The tongue of the possessor of _\u1e25\u00e1l_ is silent concerning his\n_\u1e25\u00e1l_, but his actions proclaim the reality of his _\u1e25\u00e1l_. Hence that\nspiritual director said: \u201cTo ask about _\u1e25\u00e1l_ is absurd,\u201d because _\u1e25\u00e1l_\nis the annihilation of speech (_maq\u00e1l_). Master Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Daqq\u00e1q says:\n\u201cIf there is joy or woe in this world or the next world, the portion of\n_waqt_ is that (feeling) in which thou art.\u201d But _\u1e25\u00e1l_ is not like this;\nwhen _\u1e25\u00e1l_ comes on a man from God, it banishes all these feelings from\nhis heart. Thus Jacob was a possessor of _waqt_: now he was blinded by\nseparation, now he was restored to sight by union, now he was mourning\nand wailing, now he was calm and joyful. But Abraham was a possessor of\n_\u1e25\u00e1l_: he was not conscious of separation, that he should be stricken\nwith grief, nor of union, that he should be filled with joy. The sun and\nmoon and stars contributed to his _\u1e25\u00e1l_, but he, while he gazed, was\nindependent of them: whatever he looked on, he saw only God, and he\nsaid: \u201c_I love not them that set_\u201d (Kor. vi, 76). Accordingly, the world\nsometimes becomes a hell to the possessor of _waqt_, because he is\ncontemplating absence (_ghaybat_) and his heart is distressed by the\nloss of his beloved; and sometimes his heart is like a Paradise in the\nblessedness of contemplation, and every moment brings to him a gift and\na glad message from God. On the other hand, it makes no difference to\nthe possessor of _\u1e25\u00e1l_ whether he is veiled by affliction or unveiled by\nhappiness; for he is always in the place of actual vision (_`iy\u00e1n_).\n_\u1e24\u00e1l_ is an attribute of the object desired (_mur\u00e1d_), while _waqt_ is\nthe rank of the desirer (_mur\u00edd_). The latter is with himself in the\npleasure of _waqt_, the former with God in the delight of _\u1e25\u00e1l_. How far\napart are the two degrees!\n\n_Maq\u00e1m_ and _Tamk\u00edn_, and the difference between them.\n\n_Maq\u00e1m_ (station) denotes the perseverance of the seeker in fulfilling\nhis obligations towards the object of his search with strenuous exertion\nand flawless intention. Everyone who desires God has a station\n(_maq\u00e1m_), which, in the beginning of his search, is a means whereby he\nseeks God. Although the seeker derives some benefit from every station\nthrough which he passes, he finally rests in one, because a station and\nthe quest thereof involve contrivance and design (_tark\u00edb \u00fa \u1e25\u00edla_), not\nconduct and practice (_rawish \u00fa mu`\u00e1malat_). God hath said: \u201c_None of us\nbut hath a certain station_\u201d (Kor. xxxvii, 164). The station of Adam was\nrepentance (_tawbat_), that of Noah was renunciation (_zuhd_), that of\nAbraham was resignation (_tasl\u00edm_), that of Moses was contrition\n(_in\u00e1bat_), that of David was sorrow (_\u1e25uzn_), that of Jesus was hope\n(_raj\u00e1_), that of John (the Baptist) was fear (_khawf_), and that of our\nApostle was praise (_dhikr_). They drew something from other sources by\nwhich they abode, but each of them returned at last to his original\nstation. In discussing the doctrine of the Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00eds, I gave a partial\nexplanation of the stations and distinguished between _\u1e25\u00e1l_ and _maq\u00e1m_.\nHere, however, it is necessary to make some further remarks on this\nsubject. You must know that the Way to God is of three kinds: (1)\n_maq\u00e1m_, (2) _\u1e25\u00e1l_, (3) _tamk\u00edn_. God sent all the prophets to explain\nthe Way and to elucidate the principle of the different stations. One\nhundred and twenty-four thousand apostles, and a few over that number,\ncame with as many stations. On the advent of our Apostle a _\u1e25\u00e1l_\nappeared to those in each station and attained a pitch where all human\nacquisition was left behind, until religion was made perfect unto men,\nas God hath said: \u201c_To-day I have perfected your religion for you and\nhave completed My bounty unto you_\u201d (Kor. v, 5); then the _tamk\u00edn_\n(steadfastness) of the steadfast appeared; but if I were to enumerate\nevery _\u1e25\u00e1l_ and explain every _maq\u00e1m_, my purpose would be defeated.\n\n_Tamk\u00edn_ denotes the residence of spiritual adepts in the abode of\nperfection and in the highest grade. Those in stations can pass on from\ntheir stations, but it is impossible to pass beyond the grade of\n_tamk\u00edn_, because _maq\u00e1m_ is the grade of beginners, whereas _tamk\u00edn_ is\nthe resting-place of adepts, and _maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_ (stations) are stages on the\nway, whereas _tamk\u00edn_ is repose within the shrine. The friends of God\nare absent (from themselves) on the way and are strangers (to\nthemselves) in the stages: their hearts are in the presence (of God),\nand in the presence every instrument is evil and every tool is (a token\nof) absence (from God) and infirmity. In the epoch of Paganism the poets\nused to praise men for noble deeds, but they did not recite their\npanegyric until some time had elapsed. When a poet came into the\npresence of the person whom he had celebrated, he used to draw his sword\nand hamstring his camel and then break his sword, as though to say: \u201cI\nneeded a camel to bring me from a far distance to thy presence, and a\nsword to repel the envious who would have hindered me from paying homage\nto thee: now that I have reached thee, I kill my camel, for I will never\ndepart from thee again; and I break my sword, for I will not admit into\nmy mind the thought of being severed from thy court.\u201d Then, after a few\ndays, he used to recite his poem. Similarly, when Moses attained to\n_tamk\u00edn_, God bade him put off his shoes and cast away his staff (Kor.\nxx, 12), these being articles of travel and Moses being in the presence\nof God. The beginning of love is search, but the end is rest: water\nflows in the river-bed, but when it reaches the ocean it ceases to flow\nand changes its taste, so that those who desire water avoid it, but\nthose who desire pearls devote themselves to death and fasten the\nplummet of search to their feet and plunge headlong into the sea, that\nthey may either gain the hidden pearl or lose their dear lives. And one\nof the Shaykhs says: \u201c_Tamk\u00edn_ is the removal of _talw\u00edn_.\u201d _Talw\u00edn_\nalso is a technical term of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and is closely connected in\nmeaning with _tamk\u00edn_, just as _\u1e25\u00e1l_ is connected with _maq\u00e1m_. The\nsignification of _talw\u00edn_ is change and turning from one state to\nanother, and the above-mentioned saying means that he who is steadfast\n(_mutamakkin_) is not vacillating (_mutaraddid_), for he has carried all\nthat belongs to him into the presence of God and has erased every\nthought of other than God from his mind, so that no act that passes over\nhim alters his outward predicament and no state changes his inward\npredicament. Thus Moses was subject to _talw\u00edn_: he fell in a swoon\n(Kor. vii, 139) when God revealed His glory to Mount Sinai; but Mu\u1e25ammad\nwas steadfast: he suffered no change, although he was in the very\nrevelation of glory from Mecca to a space of two bow-lengths from God;\nand this is the highest grade. Now _tamk\u00edn_ is of two kinds\u2014one\nreferring to the dominant influence of God (_sh\u00e1hid-i \u1e25aqq_), and the\nother referring to the dominant influence of one\u2019s self (_sh\u00e1hid-i\nkhud_). He whose _tamk\u00edn_ is of the latter kind retains his attributes\nunimpaired, but he whose _tamk\u00edn_ is of the former kind has no\nattributes; and the terms effacement (_ma\u1e25w_), sobriety (_\u1e63a\u1e25w_),\nattainment (_la\u1e25q_), destruction (_ma\u1e25q_),[177] annihilation (_fan\u00e1_),\nsubsistence (_baq\u00e1_), being (_wuj\u00fad_), and not-being (_`adam_) are not\nproperly applied to one whose attributes are annihilated, because a\nsubject is necessary for the maintenance of these qualities, and when\nthe subject is absorbed (_mustaghriq_) he loses the capacity for\nmaintaining them.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  _Ma\u1e25q_ denotes annihilation of a man\u2019s being in the essence of God,\n  while _ma\u1e25w_ denotes annihilation of his actions in the action of God\n  (Jurj\u00e1n\u00ed, _Ta`r\u00edf\u00e1t_).\n\n     _Mu\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0darat_ and _Muk\u00e1shafat_, and the difference between them.\n\n_Mu\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0darat_ denotes the presence of the heart in the subtleties of\ndemonstration (_bay\u00e1n_), while _muk\u00e1shafat_ denotes the presence of the\nspirit (_sirr_) in the domain of actual vision (_`iy\u00e1n_). _Mu\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0darat_\nrefers to the evidences of God\u2019s signs (_\u00e1y\u00e1t_), and _muk\u00e1shafat_ to the\nevidences of contemplation (_mush\u00e1had\u00e1t_). The mark of _mu\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0darat_ is\ncontinual meditation upon God\u2019s signs, while the mark of _muk\u00e1shafat_ is\ncontinual amazement at God\u2019s infinite greatness. There is a difference\nbetween one who meditates upon the Divine acts and one who is amazed at\nthe Divine majesty: the one is a follower of friendship, the other is a\ncompanion of love. When the Friend of God (Abraham) looked on the\nkingdom of heaven and meditated on the reality of its existence, his\nheart was made \u201cpresent\u201d (_\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0dir_) thereby: through beholding the act he\nbecame a seeker of the Agent; his \u201cpresence\u201d (_\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_) made the act a\nproof of the Agent, and in perfect gnosis he exclaimed: \u201c_I turn my face\nwith true belief unto Him who created the heavens and the earth_\u201d (Kor.\nvi, 79). But when the Beloved of God (Mu\u1e25ammad) was borne to Heaven he\nshut his eyes from the sight of all things; he saw neither God\u2019s act nor\ncreated beings nor himself, but the Agent was revealed to him, and in\nthat revelation (_kashf_) his desire increased: in vain he sought\nvision, proximity, union; in proportion as the exemption (_tanz\u00edh_) of\nhis Beloved (from all such conceptions) became more manifest to him the\nmore did his desire increase; he could neither turn back nor go forward,\nhence he fell into amazement. Where friendship was, amazement seemed\ninfidelity, but where love was, union was polytheism, and amazement\nbecame the sole resource, because in friendship the object of amazement\nwas being (_hast\u00ed_), and such amazement is polytheism, but in love the\nobject of amazement was nature and quality (_chig\u00fanag\u00ed_), and this\namazement is unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_). In this sense Shibl\u00ed used always to\nsay: \u201cO Guide of the amazed, increase my amazement!\u201d for in\ncontemplation (of God) the greater one\u2019s amazement the higher one\u2019s\ndegree. The story of Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd Kharr\u00e1z and Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Sa`d `Alaw\u00ed[178]\nis well known\u2014how they saw a friend of God on the seashore and asked him\n\u201cWhat is the Way to God?\u201d and how he answered that there are two ways to\nGod, one for the vulgar and one for the elect. When they desired him to\nexplain this he said: \u201cThe way of the vulgar is that on which you are\ngoing: you accept for some cause and you decline for some cause; but the\nway of the elect is to see only the Causer, and not to see the cause.\u201d\nThe true meaning of these anecdotes has already been set forth.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 15.\n\n          _Qab\u1e0d_ and _Bas\u1e6d_, and the difference between them.\n\n_Qab\u1e0d_ (contraction) and _bas\u1e6d_ (expansion) are two involuntary states\nwhich cannot be induced by any human act or banished by any human\nexertion. God hath said: \u201c_God contracts and expands_\u201d (Kor. ii, 246).\n_Qab\u1e0d_ denotes the contraction of the heart in the state of being veiled\n(_\u1e25ij\u00e1b_), and _bas\u1e6d_ denotes the expansion of the heart in the state of\nrevelation (_kashf_). Both states proceed from God without effort on the\npart of Man. The _qab\u1e0d_ of gnostics is like the fear of novices, and the\n_bas\u1e6d_ of gnostics is like the hope of novices. This is the sense in\nwhich the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds use the terms _qab\u1e0d_ and _bas\u1e6d_. Some Shaykhs hold that\n_qab\u1e0d_ is superior in degree to _bas\u1e6d_, for two reasons: (1) it is\nmentioned before _bas\u1e6d_ in the Koran, (2) _qab\u1e0d_ involves dissolution\nand oppression, whereas _bas\u1e6d_ involves nutrition and favour: it is\nundoubtedly better to dissolve one\u2019s humanity and oppress one\u2019s lower\nsoul than to foster and favour them, since they are the greatest veil\n(between Man and God). Others, again, hold that _bas\u1e6d_ is superior to\n_qab\u1e0d_. The fact, they say, that _qab\u1e0d_ is mentioned before _bas\u1e6d_ in\nthe Koran shows the superiority of _bas\u1e6d_, for the Arabs are accustomed\nto mention in the first place that which is inferior in merit, e.g. God\nhath said: \u201c_There is one of them who injures his own soul, and one who\nkeeps the middle way, and one who outstrips the others in good works by\nthe permission of God_\u201d (Kor. xxxv, 29). Moreover, they argue that in\n_bas\u1e6d_ there is joy and in _qab\u1e0d_ grief; gnostics feel joy only in union\nwith the object of knowledge, and grief only in separation from the\nobject of desire, therefore rest in the abode of union is better than\nrest in the abode of separation. My Shaykh used to say that both _qab\u1e0d_\nand _bas\u1e6d_ are the result of one spiritual influence, which descends\nfrom God on Man, and either fills the heart with joy and subdues the\nlower soul or subdues the heart and fills the lower soul with joy; in\nthe latter case contraction (_qab\u1e0d_) of the heart is expansion (_bas\u1e6d_)\nof the lower soul, and in the former case expansion of the heart is\ncontraction of the lower soul. He who interprets this matter otherwise\nis wasting his breath. Hence B\u00e1yaz\u00edd said: \u201cThe contraction of hearts\nconsists in the expansion of souls, and the expansion of hearts in the\ncontraction of souls.\u201d The contracted soul is guarded from injury, and\nthe expanded heart is restrained from falling into defect, because\njealousy is the rule in love, and contraction is a sign of God\u2019s\njealousy; and it is necessary that lovers should reproach one another,\nand expansion is a sign of mutual reproach. It is a well-known tradition\nthat John wept ever since he was born, while Jesus smiled ever since he\nwas born, because John was in contraction and Jesus in expansion. When\nthey met John used to say, \u201cO Jesus, hast thou no fear of being cut off\n(from God)?\u201d and Jesus used to say, \u201cO John, hast thou no hope of God\u2019s\nmercy? Neither thy tears nor my smiles will change the eternal decree of\nGod.\u201d\n\n_Uns_ and _Haybat_, and the difference between them.\n\n_Uns_ (intimacy) and _haybat_ (awe) are two states of the dervishes who\ntravel on the Way to God. When God manifests His glory to a man\u2019s heart\nso that His majesty (_jal\u00e1l_) predominates, he feels awe (_haybat_), but\nwhen God\u2019s beauty (_jam\u00e1l_) predominates he feels intimacy (_uns_):\nthose who feel awe are distressed, while those who feel intimacy are\nrejoiced. There is a difference between one who is burned by His majesty\nin the fire of love and one who is illuminated by His beauty in the\nlight of contemplation. Some Shaykhs have said that _haybat_ is the\ndegree of gnostics and _uns_ the degree of novices, because the farther\none has advanced in the presence of God and in divesting Him of\nattributes the more his heart is overwhelmed with awe and the more\naverse he is to intimacy, for one is intimate with those of one\u2019s own\nkind, and intimacy with God is inconceivable, since no homogeneity or\nresemblance can possibly exist between God and Man. If intimacy is\npossible, it is possible only with the praise (_dhikr_) of Him, which is\nsomething different from Himself, because that is an attribute of Man;\nand in love, to be satisfied with another than the Beloved is falsehood\nand pretension and self-conceit. _Haybat_, on the other hand, arises\nfrom contemplating greatness, which is an attribute of God, and there is\na vast difference between one whose experience proceeds from himself\nthrough himself and one whose experience proceeds from the annihilation\nof himself through the subsistence of God. It is related that Shibl\u00ed\nsaid: \u201cFor a long time I used to think that I was rejoicing in the love\nof God and was intimate with contemplation of Him: now I know that\nintimacy is impossible except with a congener.\u201d Some, however, allege\nthat _haybat_ is a corollary of separation and punishment, while _uns_\nis the result of union and mercy; therefore the friends of God must be\nguarded from the consequences of _haybat_ and be attached to _uns_, for\n_uns_ involves love, and as homogeneity is impossible in love (of God),\nso it is impossible in _uns_. My Shaykh used to say: \u201dI wonder at those\nwho declare intimacy with God to be impossible, after God has said,\n\u2018_Verily My servants_,\u2019 and \u2018_Say to My servants_\u2019, and \u2018_When My\nservants shall ask thee_\u2019, and \u2018_O My servants, no fear shall come on\nyou this day, and ye shall not grieve_\u2019 (Kor. xliii, 68). A servant of\nGod, seeing this favour, cannot fail to love Him, and when he has loved\nhe will become intimate, because awe of one\u2019s beloved is estrangement\n(_b\u00e9g\u00e1nag\u00ed_), whereas intimacy is oneness (_yag\u00e1nag\u00ed_). It is\ncharacteristic of men to become intimate with their benefactors, and\ninasmuch as God has conferred on us so great benefits and we have\nknowledge of Him, it is impossible that we should talk of awe.\u201d I, `Al\u00ed\nb. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, say that both parties in this controversy are\nright, because the power of _haybat_ is exerted upon the lower soul and\nits desires, and tends to annihilate human nature, while the power of\n_uns_ is exerted upon the heart and tends to foster gnosis in the heart.\nTherefore God annihilates the souls of those who love Him by revealing\nHis majesty and endows their hearts with everlasting life by revealing\nHis beauty. The followers of annihilation (_fan\u00e1_) regard _haybat_ as\nsuperior, but the followers of subsistence (_baq\u00e1_) prefer _uns_.\n\n_Qahr_ and _Lu\u1e6df_, and the difference between them.\n\nThese two expressions are used by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in reference to their own\nstate. By _qahr_ (violence) they signify the reinforcement given to them\nby God in annihilating their desires and in restraining the lower soul\nfrom its concupiscence; and by _lu\u1e6df_ (kindness) they signify God\u2019s help\ntowards the subsistence of their hearts and towards the continuance of\ncontemplation and towards the permanence of ecstasy in the degree of\nsteadfastness (_istiq\u00e1mat_). The adherents of _lu\u1e6df_ say Divine grace\n(_kar\u00e1mat_) is the attainment of one\u2019s desire, but the others say that\nDivine grace is this\u2014that God through His will should restrain a man\nfrom his own will and should overpower him with will-lessness\n(_b\u00e9mur\u00e1d\u00ed_), so that if he were thirsty and plunged into a river, the\nriver would become dry. It is related that in Baghd\u00e1d were two eminent\ndervishes, the one a believer in _qahr_ and the other a believer in\n_lu\u1e6df_, who were always quarrelling and each preferring his own state to\nthat of his neighbour. The dervish who preferred _lu\u1e6df_ set out for\nMecca and entered the desert, but never reached his destination. No news\nof him was heard for many years, but at last he was seen by a traveller\non the road between Mecca and Baghd\u00e1d. \u201cO my brother,\u201d he said, \u201cwhen\nyou return to `Ir\u00e1q tell my friend at Karkh that if he wishes to see a\ndesert, with all its hardships, like Karkh of Baghd\u00e1d, with all its\nmarvels, let him come here, for this desert is Karkh to me!\u201d When the\ntraveller arrived at Karkh he delivered this message to the other\ndervish, who said: \u201cOn your return, tell him that there is no\nsuperiority in the fact that the desert has been made like Karkh to him,\nin order that he may not flee from the court (of God); the superiority\nlies in the fact that Karkh, with all its wondrous opulence, has been\nmade to me like a painful desert, and that nevertheless I am happy\nhere.\u201d And it is related that Shibl\u00ed said, in his secret converse with\nGod: \u201cO Lord, I will not turn from Thee, although Thou shouldst make the\nheaven a collar for my neck and the earth a shackle for my foot and the\nwhole universe athirst for my blood.\u201d My Shaykh used to say: \u201cOne year a\nmeeting of the saints of God took place in the midst of the desert, and\nI accompanied my spiritual director, \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed, to that spot. I saw some of\nthem approaching on camels, some borne on thrones, and some flying, but\n\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed paid no heed to them. Then I saw a youth with torn shoes and a\nbroken staff. His feet could scarcely support him, and his head was bare\nand his body emaciated. As soon as he appeared \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed sprang up and ran\nto meet him and led him to a lofty seat. This astonished me, and\nafterwards I questioned the Shaykh about the youth. He replied: \u2018He is\none of God\u2019s saints who does not follow saintship, but saintship follows\nhim; and he pays no attention to miracles (_kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_).\u2019\u201d In short, what\nwe choose for ourselves is noxious to us. I desire only that God should\ndesire for me, and therein preserve me from the evil thereof and save me\nfrom the wickedness of my soul. If He keep me in _qahr_ I do not wish\nfor _lu\u1e6df_, and if He keep me in _lu\u1e6df_ I do not wish for _qahr_. I have\nno choice beyond His choice.\n\n_Nafy_ and _Ithb\u00e1t_, and the difference between them.\n\nThe Shaykhs of this Path give the names of _nafy_ (negation) and\n_ithb\u00e1t_ (affirmation) to the effacement of the attributes of humanity\nby the affirmation of Divine aid (_ta\u00b4y\u00edd_). By negation they signify\nthe negation of the attributes of humanity, and by affirmation they mean\nthe affirmation of the power of the Truth, because effacement (_ma\u1e25w_)\nis total loss, and total negation is applicable only to the attributes;\nfor negation of the essence is impossible while the Universal\n(_kulliyyat_) subsists. It is necessary, therefore, that blameworthy\nattributes should be negated by the affirmation of praiseworthy\nqualities, i.e. the pretension to love of God is negated by affirmation\nof the reality, for pretension is one of the vanities of the lower soul.\nBut the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, when their attributes are overpowered by the might of the\nTruth, habitually say that the attributes of humanity are negated by\naffirming the subsistence of God. This matter has already been discussed\nin the chapter on poverty and purity and in that on annihilation and\nsubsistence. They say also that the words in question signify the\nnegation of Man\u2019s choice by the affirmation of God\u2019s choice. Hence that\nblessed one said: \u201cGod\u2019s choice for His servant with His knowledge of\nHis servant is better than His servant\u2019s choice for himself with his\nignorance of his Lord,\u201d because love, as all agree, is the negation of\nthe lover\u2019s choice by affirmation of the Beloved\u2019s choice. I have read\nin the Anecdotes that a dervish was drowning in the sea, when some one\ncried: \u201cBrother, do you wish to be saved?\u201d He said: \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cThen do you\nwish to be drowned?\u201d \u201cNo.\u201d \u201cIt is a wonder that you will not choose\neither to die or to be saved.\u201d \u201cWhat have I to do with safety,\u201d said the\ndervish, \u201cthat I should choose it? My choice is that God should choose\nfor me.\u201d The Shaykhs have said that negation of one\u2019s own choice is the\nleast grade in love. Now, God\u2019s choice has no beginning in time and\ncannot possibly be negated, but Man\u2019s choice is accidental (_`ara\u1e0d\u00ed_)\nand admits of negation, and must be trodden under foot, that the eternal\nchoice of God may subsist for ever.[179] There has been much debate on\nthis matter, but my sole aim is that you should know the signification\nof the terms used by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds. I have mentioned some of these, e.g.,\n_jam`_ and _tafriqa_, and _fan\u00e1_ and _baq\u00e1_, and _ghaybat_ and _\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_,\nand _sukr_ and _\u1e63a\u1e25w_, in the chapter treating of the doctrines of the\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, and you must look there for the explanation of them.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  Here the author refers to the example of Moses, whose prayer for\n  vision of God was refused (Kor. vii, 139), because he was exercising\n  his own choice.\n\n     _Mus\u00e1marat_ and _Mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_, and the difference between them.\n\nThese terms denote two states of the perfect \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed. _Mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_\n(conversation) is really spiritual talk conjoined with silence of the\ntongue, and _mus\u00e1marat_ (nocturnal discourse) is really continuance of\nunrestraint (_inbis\u00e1\u1e6d_) combined with concealment of the most secret\nthoughts (_kitm\u00e1n-i sirr_). The outward meaning of _mus\u00e1marat_ is a\nspiritual state (_waqt\u00ed_) existing between God and Man at night, and\n_mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_ is a similar state, existing by day, in which there is\nexoteric and esoteric conversation. Hence secret prayers (_mun\u00e1j\u00e1t_) by\nnight are called _mus\u00e1marat_, while invocations made by day are called\n_mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_. The daily state is based on revelation (_kashf_), and the\nnightly state on occupation (_satr_). In love _mus\u00e1marat_ is more\nperfect than _mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_, and is connected with the state of the\nApostle, when God sent Gabriel to him with Bur\u00e1q and conveyed him by\nnight from Mecca to a space of two bow-lengths from His presence. The\nApostle conversed secretly with God, and when he reached the goal his\ntongue became dumb before the revelation of God\u2019s majesty, and his heart\nwas amazed at His infinite greatness, and he said: \u201cI cannot tell Thy\npraise.\u201d _Mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_ is connected with the state of Moses, who, seeking\ncommunion with God, after forty days came to Mount Sinai and heard the\nspeech of God and asked for vision of Him, and failed of his desire.\nThere is a plain difference between one who was conducted (Kor. xvii, 1)\nand one who came (Kor. vii, 139). Night is the time when lovers are\nalone with each other, and day is the time when servants wait upon their\nmasters. When a servant transgresses he is reprimanded, but a lover has\nno law by the transgression of which he should incur blame, for lovers\ncannot do anything displeasing to each other.\n\n_`Ilm al-Yaq\u00edn_ and _`Ayn al-Yaq\u00edn_ and _\u1e24aqq al-Yaq\u00edn_, and the\ndifference between them.\n\nAccording to the principles of theology, all these expressions denote\nknowledge (_`ilm_). Knowledge without certain faith (_yaq\u00edn_) in the\nreality of the object known is not knowledge, but when knowledge is\ngained that which is hidden is as that which is actually seen. The\nbelievers who shall see God on the Day of Judgment shall see Him then in\nthe same wise as they know Him now: if they shall see Him otherwise,\neither their vision will be imperfect then or their knowledge is faulty\nnow. Both these alternatives are in contradiction with unification\n(_taw\u1e25\u00edd_), which requires that men\u2019s knowledge of God should be sound\nto-day and their vision of God should be sound to-morrow. Therefore\ncertain knowledge (_`ilm-i yaq\u00edn_) is like certain sight (_`ayn-i\nyaq\u00edn_), and certain truth (_\u1e25aqq-i yaq\u00edn_) is like certain knowledge.\nSome have said that _`ayn al-yaq\u00edn_ is the complete absorption\n(_istighr\u00e1q_) of knowledge in vision, but this is impossible, because\nvision is an instrument for the attainment of knowledge, like hearing,\netc.: since knowledge cannot be absorbed in hearing, its absorption in\nvision is equally impossible. By _`ilm al-yaq\u00edn_ the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds mean\nknowledge of (religious) practice in this world according to the Divine\ncommandments; by _`ayn al-yaq\u00edn_ they mean knowledge of the state of\ndying (_naz`_) and the time of departure from this world; and by _\u1e25aqq\nal-yaq\u00edn_ they mean intuitive knowledge of the vision (of God) that will\nbe revealed in Paradise, and of its nature. Therefore _`ilm al-yaq\u00edn_ is\nthe rank of theologians (_`ulam\u00e1_) on account of their correct\nobservance of the Divine commands, and _`ayn al-yaq\u00edn_ is the station of\ngnostics (_`\u00e1rif\u00e1n_) on account of their readiness for death, and _\u1e25aqq\nal-yaq\u00edn_ is the annihilation-point of lovers (_d\u00fast\u00e1n_) on account of\ntheir rejection of all created things. Hence _`ilm al-yaq\u00edn_ is obtained\nby self-mortification (_muj\u00e1hadat_), and _`ayn al-yaq\u00edn_ by intimate\nfamiliarity (_mu\u00b4\u00e1nasat_), and _\u1e25aqq al-yaq\u00edn_ by contemplation\n(_mush\u00e1hadat_). The first is vulgar, the second is elect, and the third\nis super-elect (_kh\u00e1\u1e63\u1e63 al-kh\u00e1\u1e63\u1e63_).\n\n_`Ilm_ and _Ma`rifat_, and the difference between them.\n\nTheologians have made no distinction between _`ilm_ and _ma`rifat_,\nexcept when they say that God may be called _`\u00e1lim_ (knowing), but not\n_`\u00e1rif_ (gnostic), inasmuch as the latter epithet lacks Divine blessing.\nBut the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs give the name of _ma`rifat_ (gnosis) to every\nknowledge that is allied with (religious) practice and feeling (_\u1e25\u00e1l_),\nand the knower of which expresses his feeling; and the knower thereof\nthey call _`\u00e1rif_. On the other hand, they give the name of _`ilm_ to\nevery knowledge that is stripped of spiritual meaning and devoid of\nreligious practice, and one who has such knowledge they call _`\u00e1lim_.\nOne, then, who knows the meaning and reality of a thing they call\n_`\u00e1rif_ (gnostic), and one who knows merely the verbal expression and\nkeeps it in his memory without keeping the spiritual reality they call\n_`\u00e1lim_. For this reason, when the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds wish to disparage a rival they\ncall him _d\u00e1nishmand_ (possessing knowledge). To the vulgar this seems\nobjectionable, but the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds do not intend to blame the man for having\nacquired knowledge, they blame him for neglecting the practice of\nreligion, because the _`\u00e1lim_ depends on himself, but the _`\u00e1rif_\ndepends on his Lord. This question has been discussed at length in the\nchapter entitled \u201cThe Removal of the Veil of Gnosis\u201d, and I need not say\nany more now.\n\n_Shar\u00ed`at_ and _\u1e24aq\u00edqat_, and the difference between them.\n\nThese terms are used by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds to denote soundness of the outward\nstate and maintenance of the inward state. Two parties err in this\nmatter: firstly, the formal theologians, who assert that there is no\ndistinction between _shar\u00ed`at_ (law) and _\u1e25aq\u00edqat_ (truth), since the\nLaw is the Truth and the Truth is the Law; secondly, some heretics, who\nhold that it is possible for one of these things to subsist without the\nother, and declare that when the Truth is revealed the Law is abolished.\nThis is the doctrine of the Carmathians (_Qar\u00e1mi\u1e6da_) and the Sh\u00ed`ites\nand their satanically inspired followers (_muwaswis\u00e1n_). The proof that\nthe Law is virtually separate from the Truth lies in the fact that in\nfaith belief is separate from profession; and the proof that the Law and\nthe Truth are not fundamentally separate, but are one, lies in the fact\nthat belief without profession is not faith, and conversely profession\nwithout belief is not faith; and there is a manifest difference between\nprofession and belief. _\u1e24aq\u00edqat_, then, signifies a reality which does\nnot admit of abrogation and remains in equal force from the time of Adam\nto the end of the world, like knowledge of God and like religious\npractice, which is made perfect by sincere intention; and _shar\u00ed`at_\nsignifies a reality which admits of abrogation and alteration, like\nordinances and commandments. Therefore _shar\u00ed`at_ is Man\u2019s act, while\n_\u1e25aq\u00edqat_ is God\u2019s keeping and preservation and protection, whence it\nfollows that _shar\u00ed`at_ cannot possibly be maintained without the\nexistence of _\u1e25aq\u00edqat_, and _\u1e25aq\u00edqat_ cannot be maintained without\nobservance of _shar\u00ed`at_. Their mutual relation may be compared to that\nof body and spirit: when the spirit departs from the body the living\nbody becomes a corpse and the spirit vanishes like wind, for their value\ndepends on their conjunction with one another. Similarly, the Law\nwithout the Truth is ostentation, and the Truth without the Law is\nhypocrisy. God hath said: \u201c_Whosoever mortify themselves for Our sake,\nWe will assuredly guide them in Our ways_\u201d (Kor. xxix, 69):\nmortification is Law, guidance is Truth; the former consists in a man\u2019s\nobservance of the external ordinances, while the latter consists in\nGod\u2019s maintenance of a man\u2019s spiritual feelings. Hence the Law is one of\nthe acts acquired by Man, but the Truth is one of the gifts bestowed by\nGod.\n\nAnother class of terms and expressions are used by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds\nmetaphorically. These metaphorical terms are more difficult to analyse\nand interpret, but I will explain them concisely.\n\n_\u1e24aqq._ By _\u1e25aqq_ (truth) the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds mean God, for _\u1e25aqq_ is one of the\nnames of God, as He hath said: \u201c_This is because God is the Truth_\u201d\n(Kor. xxii, 6).\n\n_\u1e24aq\u00edqat._ By this word they mean a man\u2019s dwelling in the place of union\nwith God, and the standing of his heart in the place of abstraction\n(_tanz\u00edh_).\n\n_Kha\u1e6dar\u00e1t._ Any judgments of separation (_a\u1e25k\u00e1m-i tafr\u00edq_) that occur to\nthe mind.\n\n_Wa\u1e6dan\u00e1t._ Any Divine meanings that make their abode in the heart.\n\n_\u1e6cams._ Negation of a substance of which some trace is left.\n\n_Rams._ Negation of a substance, together with every trace thereof, from\nthe heart.\n\n_`Al\u00e1\u00b4iq._ Secondary causes to which seekers of God attach themselves\nand thereby fail to gain the object of their desire.\n\n_Was\u00e1\u00b4i\u1e6d._ Secondary causes to which seekers of God attach themselves\nand thereby gain the object of their desire.\n\n_Zaw\u00e1\u00b4id._ Excess of lights (spiritual illumination) in the heart.\n\n_Faw\u00e1\u00b4id._ The apprehension by the spirit of what it cannot do without.\n\n_Malja\u00b4._ The heart\u2019s confidence in the attainment of its desire.\n\n_Manj\u00e1._ The heart\u2019s escape from the place of imperfection.\n\n_Kulliyyat._ The absorption (_istighr\u00e1q_) of the attributes of humanity\nin the Universal (_kulliyyat_).\n\n_Law\u00e1\u00b4i\u1e25._ Affirmation of the object of desire, notwithstanding the\nadvent of the negation thereof (_ithb\u00e1t-i mur\u00e1d b\u00e1 wur\u00fad-i nafy-i \u00e1n_).\n\n_Law\u00e1mi`._ The manifestation of (spiritual) light to the heart while its\nacquirements (_faw\u00e1\u00b4id_) continue to subsist.\n\n_\u1e6caw\u00e1li`._ The appearance of the splendours of (mystical) knowledge to\nthe heart.\n\n_\u1e6caw\u00e1riq._ That which comes into the heart, either with glad tidings or\nwith rebuke, in secret converse (with God) at night.\n\n_La\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4if._ A symbol (_ish\u00e1rat\u00ed_), presented to the heart, of subtleties\nof feeling.\n\n_Sirr._ Concealment of feelings of love.\n\n_Najw\u00e1._ Concealment of imperfections from the knowledge of other (than\nGod).\n\n_Ish\u00e1rat._ Giving information to another of the object of desire,\nwithout uttering it on the tongue.\n\n_\u00cdm\u00e1._ Addressing anyone allusively, without spoken or unspoken\nexplanation (_b\u00e9 `ib\u00e1rat \u00fa ish\u00e1rat_).\n\n_W\u00e1rid._ The descent of spiritual meanings upon the heart.\n\n_Intib\u00e1h._ The departure of heedlessness from the heart.\n\n_Ishtib\u00e1h._ Perplexity felt in deciding between truth and falsehood.\n\n_Qar\u00e1r._ The departure of vacillation from the reality of one\u2019s feeling.\n\n_Inzi`\u00e1j._ The agitation of the heart in the state of ecstasy (_wajd_).\n\nAnother class of technical terms are those which the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds employ,\nwithout metaphor, in unification (_taw\u1e25\u00edd_) and in setting forth their\nfirm belief in spiritual realities.\n\n_`\u00c1lam._ The term _`\u00e1lam_ (world) denotes the creatures of God. It is\nsaid that there are 18,000 or 50,000 worlds. Philosophers say there are\ntwo worlds, an upper and a lower, while theologians say that _`\u00e1lam_ is\nwhatever exists between the Throne of God and the earth. In short,\n_`\u00e1lam_ is the collective mass of created things. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds speak of the\nworld of spirits (_arw\u00e1\u1e25_) and the world of souls (_nuf\u00fas_), but they do\nnot mean the same thing as the philosophers. What they mean is \u201cthe\ncollective mass of spirits and souls\u201d.\n\n_Mu\u1e25dath._ Posterior in existence, i.e. it was not and afterwards was.\n\n_Qad\u00edm._ Anterior in existence, i.e. it always was, and its being was\nanterior to all beings. This is nothing but God.\n\n_Azal._ That which has no beginning.\n\n_Abad._ That which has no end.\n\n_Dh\u00e1t._ The being and reality of a thing.\n\n_\u1e62ifat._ That which does not admit of qualification (_na`t_), because it\nis not self-subsistent.\n\n_Ism._ That which is not the object named (_ghayr-i musamm\u00e1_).\n\n_Tasmiyat._ Information concerning the object named.\n\n_Nafy._ That which entails the non-existence of every object of\nnegation.\n\n_Ithb\u00e1t._ That which entails the existence of every object of\naffirmation.\n\n_Siyy\u00e1n._ The possibility of the existence of one thing with another.\n\n_\u1e0cidd\u00e1n._ The impossibility of the existence of one thing simultaneously\nwith the existence of another.\n\n_Ghayr\u00e1n._ The possibility of the existence of either of two things,\nnotwithstanding the annihilation of the other.\n\n_Jawhar._ The basis (_a\u1e63l_) of a thing; that which is self-subsistent.\n\n_`Ara\u1e0d._ That which subsists in _jawhar_ (substance).\n\n_Jism._ That which is composed of separate parts.\n\n_Su\u00b4\u00e1l._ Seeking a reality.\n\n_Jaw\u00e1b._ Giving information concerning the subject-matter of a question\n(_su\u00b4\u00e1l_).\n\n_\u1e24usn._ That which is conformable to the (Divine) command.\n\n_Qub\u1e25._ That which is not conformable to the (Divine) command.\n\n_Safah._ Neglect of the (Divine) command.\n\n_\u1e92ulm._ Putting a thing in a place that is not worthy of it.\n\n_`Adl._ Putting everything in its proper place.\n\n_Malik._ He with whose actions it is impossible to interfere.\n\nAnother class of terms requiring explanation are those which are\ncommonly used by the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds in a mystical sense that is not familiar to\nphilologists.\n\n_Kh\u00e1\u1e6dir._ By _kh\u00e1\u1e6dir_ (passing thought) the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds signify the occurrence\nin the mind of something which is quickly removed by another thought,\nand which its owner is able to repel from his mind. Those who have such\nthoughts follow the first thought in matters which come directly from\nGod to Man. It is said that the thought occurred to Khayr Nass\u00e1j that\nJunayd was waiting at his door, but he wished to repel it. The same\nthought returned twice and thrice, whereupon he went out and discovered\nJunayd, who said to him: \u201cIf you had followed the first thought it would\nnot have been necessary for me to stand here all this time.\u201d How was\nJunayd acquainted with the thought which occurred to Khayr? This\nquestion has been asked, and has been answered by the remark that Junayd\nwas Khayr\u2019s spiritual director, and a spiritual director cannot fail to\nbe acquainted with all that happens to one of his disciples.\n\n_W\u00e1qi`a._ By _w\u00e1qi`a_ they signify a thought which appears in the mind\nand remains there, unlike _kh\u00e1\u1e6dir_, and which the seeker has no means\nwhatever of repelling: thus they say, _kha\u1e6dara `al\u00e1 qalb\u00ed_, \u201cit occurred\nto my mind,\u201d but _waqa`a f\u00ed qalb\u00ed_, \u201cit sank into my mind.\u201d All minds\nare subject to _kh\u00e1\u1e6dir_ (passing thought), but _w\u00e1qi`a_ is possible only\nin a mind that is entirely filled with the notion of God. Hence, when\nany obstacle appears to the novice on the Way to God, they call it \u201ca\nfetter\u201d (_qayd_) and say: \u201cA _w\u00e1qi`a_ has befallen him.\u201d Philologists\nalso use the term _w\u00e1qi`a_ to signify any difficult question, and when\nit is answered satisfactorily they say, _w\u00e1qi`a \u1e25all shud_, \u201cthe\ndifficulty is solved.\u201d But the mystics say that _w\u00e1qi`a_ is that which\nis insoluble, and that whatever is solved is a _kh\u00e1\u1e6dir_, not a _w\u00e1qi`a_,\nsince the obstacles which confront mystics are not unimportant matters\non which varying judgments are continually being formed.\n\n_Ikhtiy\u00e1r._ By _ikhtiy\u00e1r_ they signify their preference of God\u2019s choice\nto their own, i.e. they are content with the good and evil which God has\nchosen for them. A man\u2019s preference of God\u2019s choice is itself the result\nof God\u2019s choice, for unless God had caused him to have no choice, he\nwould never have let his own choice go. When Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd was asked, \u201cWho\nis the prince (_am\u00edr_)?\u201d he replied, \u201cHe to whom no choice is left, and\nto whom God\u2019s choice has become the only choice.\u201d It is related that\nJunayd, having caught fever, implored God to give him health. A voice\nspoke in his heart: \u201cWho art thou to plead in My kingdom and make a\nchoice? I can manage My kingdom better than thou. Do thou choose My\nchoice instead of coming forward with thine.\u201d\n\n_Imti\u1e25\u00e1n._ By this expression they signify the probation of the hearts\nof the saints by diverse afflictions which come to them from God, such\nas fear, grief, contraction, awe, etc. God hath said: \u201c_They whose\nhearts God hath proved for piety\u2019s sake: they shall win pardon and a\ngreat reward_\u201d (Kor. xlix, 3). This is a lofty grade.\n\n_Bal\u00e1._ By _bal\u00e1_ (affliction) they signify the probation of the bodies\nof God\u2019s friends by diverse troubles and sicknesses and tribulations.\nThe more severely a man is afflicted the nearer does he approach unto\nGod, for affliction is the vesture of the saints and the cradle of the\npure and the nourishment of the prophets. The Apostle said, \u201cWe prophets\nare the most afflicted of mankind;\u201d and he also said, \u201cThe prophets are\nthe most afflicted of mankind, then the saints, and then other men\naccording to their respective ranks.\u201d _Bal\u00e1_ is the name of a\ntribulation, which descends on the heart and body of a true believer and\nwhich is really a blessing; and inasmuch as the mystery thereof is\nconcealed from him, he is divinely recompensed for supporting the pains\nthereof. Tribulation that befalls unbelievers is not affliction\n(_bal\u00e1_), but misery (_shaq\u00e1wat_), and unbelievers never obtain relief\nfrom misery. The degree of _bal\u00e1_ is more honourable than that of\n_imti\u1e25\u00e1n_, for _imti\u1e25\u00e1n_ affects the heart only, whereas _bal\u00e1_ affects\nboth the heart and the body and is thus more powerful.\n\n_Ta\u1e25all\u00ed._ Imitation of praiseworthy people in word and deed. The\nApostle said: \u201cFaith is not acquired by _ta\u1e25all\u00ed_ (adorning one\u2019s self\nwith the qualities of others) and _tamann\u00ed_ (wishing), but it is that\nwhich sinks deep into the heart and is verified by action.\u201d _Ta\u1e25all\u00ed_,\nthen, is to imitate people without really acting like them. Those who\nseem to be what they are not will soon be put to shame, and their secret\ncharacter will be revealed. In the view of spiritualists, however, they\nare already disgraced and their secret character is clear.\n\n_Tajall\u00ed._ The blessed effect of Divine illumination on the hearts of\nthe blest, whereby they are made capable of seeing God with their\nhearts. The difference between spiritual vision (_ru\u00b4yat ba-dil_) and\nactual vision (_ru\u00b4yat-i `iy\u00e1n_) is this, that those who experience\n_tajall\u00ed_ (manifestation of God) see or do not see, according as they\nwish, or see at one time and do not see at another time, while those who\nexperience actual vision in Paradise cannot but see, even though they\nwish not to see; for it is possible that _tajall\u00ed_ should be hidden,\nwhereas _ru\u00b4yat_ (vision) cannot possibly be veiled.\n\n_Takhall\u00ed._ Turning away from distractions which prevent a man from\nattaining to God. One of these is the present world, of which he should\nempty his hands; another is desire for the next world, of which he\nshould empty his heart; a third is indulgence in vanity, of which he\nshould empty his spirit; and a fourth is association with created\nbeings, of which he should empty himself and from the thought of which\nhe should disengage his mind.\n\n_Shur\u00fad._ The meaning of _shur\u00fad_ is \u201cseeking restlessly to escape from\n(worldly) corruptions and veils\u201d; for all the misfortunes of the seeker\narise from his being veiled, and when the veil is lifted he becomes\nunited with God. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds apply the term _shur\u00fad_ to his becoming\nunveiled (_isf\u00e1r_) and his using every resource for that purpose; for in\nthe beginning, i.e. in search, he is more restless; in the end, i.e. in\nunion, he becomes more steadfast.\n\n_Qu\u1e63\u00fad._ By _qu\u1e63\u00fad_ (aims) they signify perfect resolution to seek the\nreality of the object of search. The aims of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds do not depend on\nmotion and rest, because the lover, although he be at rest in love, is\nstill pursuing an aim (_q\u00e1\u1e63id_). In this respect the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds differ from\nordinary men, whose aims produce in them some effect outwardly or\ninwardly; whereas the lovers of God seek Him without any cause and\npursue their aim without movement of their own, and all their qualities\nare directed towards that goal. Where love exists, all is an aim.\n\n_I\u1e63\u1e6din\u00e1`._ By this term they mean that God makes a man faultless through\nthe annihilation of all his selfish interests and sensual pleasures, and\ntransforms in him the attributes of his lower soul, so that he becomes\nselfless. This degree belongs exclusively to the prophets, but some\nShaykhs hold that it may be attained by the saints also.\n\n_I\u1e63\u1e6dif\u00e1._ This signifies that God makes a man\u2019s heart empty to receive\nthe knowledge of Himself, so that His knowledge (_ma`rifat_) diffuses\nits purity through his heart. In this degree all believers, the vulgar\nas well as the elect, are alike, whether they are sinful or pious or\nsaints or prophets, for God hath said: \u201c_We have given the Book as a\nheritage unto those of our servants whom We have chosen_ (i\u1e63\u1e6dafayn\u00e1):\n_some of them are they who injure their own souls; some are they who\nkeep the mean; and some are they who excel in good works_\u201d (Kor. xxxv,\n29).\n\n_I\u1e63\u1e6dil\u00e1m._ The manifestations (_tajalliy\u00e1t_) of God which cause a man to\nbe entirely overpowered by a merciful probation (_imti\u1e25\u00e1n_), while his\nwill is reduced to naught. _Qalb-i mumta\u1e25an_, \u201ca proved heart,\u201d and\n_qalb-i mu\u1e63\u1e6dalam_, \u201ca destroyed heart,\u201d bear the same meaning, although\nin the current usage of \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed phraseology _i\u1e63\u1e6dil\u00e1m_ is more particular\nand exquisite than _imti\u1e25\u00e1n_.\n\n_Rayn._ A veil on the heart, i.e. the veil of infidelity and error,\nwhich cannot be removed except by faith. God hath said, describing the\nhearts of the unbelievers (Kor. lxxxiii, 14): \u201c_By no means, but what\nthey used to do hath covered their hearts_\u201d (r\u00e1na `al\u00e1 qul\u00fabihim). Some\nhave said that _rayn_ cannot possibly be removed in any manner, since\nthe hearts of unbelievers are not capable of receiving Islam, and those\nwho do receive it must have been, in the foreknowledge of God, true\nbelievers.\n\n_Ghayn._ A veil on the heart which is removed by asking pardon of God.\nIt may be either thin or dense. The latter is for those who forget (God)\nand commit great sins; the former is for all, not excepting saint or\nprophet. Did not the Apostle say, \u201cVerily, my heart is obscured\n(_yugh\u00e1nu `al\u00e1 qalb\u00ed_), and verily I ask pardon of God a hundred times\nevery day.\u201d For removing the dense veil a proper repentance is\nnecessary, and for removing the thin veil a sincere return to God.\nRepentance (_tawbat_) is a turning back from disobedience to obedience,\nand return (_ruj\u00fa`_) is a turning back from self to God. Repentance is\nrepentance from sin: the sin of common men is opposition to God\u2019s\ncommand, while the sin of lovers (of God) is opposition to God\u2019s will:\ntherefore, the sin of common men is disobedience, and that of lovers is\nconsciousness of their own existence. If anyone turns back from wrong to\nright, they say, \u201cHe is repentant (_t\u00e1\u00b4ib_);\u201d but if anyone turns back\nfrom what is right to what is more right, they say, \u201cHe is returning\n(_\u00e1\u00b4ib_).\u201c All this I have set forth in the chapter on repentance.\n\n_Talb\u00eds._ They denote by _talb\u00eds_ the appearance of a thing when its\nappearance is contrary to its reality, as God hath said: \u201d_We should\nassuredly have deceived them_ (lalabasn\u00e1 `alayhim) _as they deceive\nothers_\u201d (Kor. vi, 9). This quality of deception cannot possibly belong\nto anyone except God, who shows the unbeliever in the guise of a\nbeliever and the believer in the guise of an unbeliever, until the time\nshall come for the manifestation of His decree and of the reality in\nevery case. When a \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed conceals good qualities under a mask of bad,\nthey say: \u201cHe is practising deception (_talb\u00eds_),\u201d but they use this\nterm in such instances only, and do not apply it to ostentation and\nhypocrisy, which are fundamentally _talb\u00eds_, because _talb\u00eds_ is not\nused except in reference to an act performed by God.\n\n_Shurb._ The \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds call the sweetness of piety and the delight of\nmiraculous grace and the pleasure of intimacy _shurb_ (drinking); and\nthey can do nothing without the delight of _shurb_. As the body\u2019s drink\nis of water, so the heart\u2019s drink is of (spiritual) pleasure and\nsweetness. My Shaykh used to say that a novice without _shurb_ is a\nstranger to (i.e. unacquainted with the duties of) the novitiate, and\nthat a gnostic with _shurb_ is a stranger to gnosis, because the novice\nmust derive some pleasure (_shurb\u00ed_) from his actions in order that he\nmay fulfil the obligations of a novice who is seeking God; but the\ngnostic ought not to feel such pleasure, lest he should be transported\nwith that pleasure instead of with God: if he turn back to his lower\nsoul he will not rest (with God).\n\n_Dhawq._ _Dhawq_ resembles _shurb_, but _shurb_ is used solely in\nreference to pleasures, whereas _dhawq_ is applied to pleasure and pain\nalike. One says _dhuqtu \u00b4l-\u1e25al\u00e1wat_, \u201cI tasted sweetness,\u201d and _dhuqtu\n\u00b4l-bal\u00e1_, \u201cI tasted affliction;\u201d but of _shurb_ they say, _sharibtu\nbi-ka\u00b4si \u00b4l-wa\u1e63l_, \u201cI drank the cup of union,\u201d and _sharibtu bi-ka\u00b4si\n\u00b4l-wudd_, \u201cI drank the cup of love,\u201d and so forth.[180]\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  This distinction between _shurb_ and _dhawq_ is illustrated by\n  citations from the Koran, viz., lii, 19; xliv, 49; and liv, 48.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXV.\n  THE UNCOVERING OF THE ELEVENTH VEIL: CONCERNING AUDITION (_sam\u00e1`_).\n\n\nThe means of acquiring knowledge are five: hearing, sight, taste, smell,\nand touch. God has created for the mind these five avenues, and has made\nevery kind of knowledge depend on one of them. Four of the five senses\nare situated in a special organ, but one, namely touch, is diffused over\nthe whole body. It is possible, however, that this diffusion, which is\ncharacteristic of touch, may be shared by any of the other senses. The\nMu`tazilites hold that no sense can exist but in a special organ\n(_ma\u1e25all-i makh\u1e63\u00fa\u1e63_), a theory which is controverted by the fact that\nthe sense of touch has no such organ. Since one of the five senses has\nno special organ, it follows that, if the sense of touch is generally\ndiffused, the other senses may be capable of the same diffusion.\nAlthough it is not my purpose to discuss this question here, I thought a\nbrief explanation necessary. God has sent Apostles with true evidences,\nbut belief in His Apostles does not become obligatory until the\nobligatoriness of knowing God is ascertained by means of hearing. It is\nhearing, then, that makes religion obligatory; and for this reason the\nSunn\u00eds regard hearing as superior to sight in the domain of religious\nobligation (_takl\u00edf_). If it be said that vision of God is better than\nhearing His word, I reply that our knowledge of God\u2019s visibility to the\nfaithful in Paradise is derived from hearing: it is a matter of\nindifference whether the understanding allows that God shall be visible\nor not, inasmuch as we are assured of the fact by oral tradition. Hence\nhearing is superior to sight. Moreover, all religious ordinances are\nbased on hearing and could not be established without it; and all the\nprophets on their appearance first spoke in order that those who heard\nthem might believe, then in the second place they showed miracles\n(_mu`jiza_), which also were corroborated by hearing. What has been said\nproves that anyone who denies audition denies the entire religious law.\n\n      _Chapter on the Audition of the Koran and kindred matters._\n\nThe most beneficial audition to the mind and the most delightful to the\near is that of the Word of God, which all believers and unbelievers,\nhuman beings and per\u00eds alike, are commanded to hear. It is a miraculous\nquality of the Koran that one never grows weary of reading and hearing\nit, so that the Quraysh used to come secretly by night and listen to the\nApostle while he was praying and marvel at his recitation, e.g., Na\u1e0dr b.\nal-\u1e24\u00e1rith, who was the most elegant of them in speech, and `Utba b.\nRab\u00ed`a, who was bewitchingly eloquent, and Ab\u00fa Jahl b. Hish\u00e1m, who was a\nwondrous orator. One night `Utba swooned on hearing the Apostle recite a\nchapter of the Koran, and he said to Ab\u00fa Jahl: \u201cI am sure that these are\nnot the words of any created being.\u201d The per\u00eds also came and listened to\nthe Word of God, and said: \u201c_Verily, we heard a marvellous recitation,\nwhich guides to the right way; and we shall not associate anyone with\nour Lord_\u201d (Kor. lxxii, 1-2).[181] It is related that a man recited in\nthe presence of `Abdall\u00e1h b. \u1e24an\u1e95ala: \u201c_They shall have a couch of\nHell-fire, and above them shall be quilts thereof_\u201d (Kor. vii, 39).\n`Abdall\u00e1h began to weep so violently that, to quote the narrator\u2019s\nwords, \u201cI thought life would depart from him.\u201d Then he rose to his feet.\nThey bade him sit down, but he cried: \u201cAwe of this verse prevents me\nfrom sitting down.\u201d It is related that the following verse was read in\nthe presence of Junayd: \u201c_O believers, why say ye that which ye do\nnot?_\u201d (Kor. lxi, 2). Junayd said: \u201cO Lord, if we say, we say because of\nThee, and if we do, we do because of Thy blessing: where, then, is our\nsaying and doing?\u201d It is related that Shibl\u00ed said, on hearing the verse\n\u201c_And remember_ _thy Lord when thou forgettest_\u201d (Kor. xviii, 23),\n\u201cRemembrance (of God) involves forgetfulness (of self), and all the\nworld have stopped short at the remembrance of Him;\u201d then he shrieked\nand fell senseless. When he came to himself, he said: \u201cI wonder at the\nsinner who can hear God\u2019s Word and remain unmoved.\u201d A certain Shaykh\nsays: \u201cOnce I was reading the Word of God, \u2018_Beware of a day on which ye\nshall be returned unto God_\u2019 (Kor. ii, 281). A heavenly voice called to\nme, \u2018Do not read so loud; four per\u00eds have died from the terror inspired\nin them by this verse\u2019.\u201d A dervish said: \u201cFor the last ten years I have\nnot read nor heard the Koran except that small portion thereof which is\nused in prayer.\u201d On being asked why, he answered: \u201cFor fear lest it\nshould be cited as an argument against me.\u201d One day I came into the\npresence of Shaykh Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Shaq\u00e1n\u00ed and found him reading: \u201c_God\npropoundeth as a parable an owned slave who hath naught in his power_\u201d\n(Kor. xvi, 77), and weeping and shrieking, so that he swooned and I\nthought he was dead. \u201cO Shaykh,\u201d I cried, \u201cwhat ails thee?\u201d He said:\n\u201cAfter eleven years I have reached this point in my set portion of the\nKoran and am unable to proceed farther.\u201d Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s b. `A\u1e6d\u00e1 was asked\nhow much of the Koran he read daily. He answered: \u201cFormerly I used to\nread the whole Koran twice in a day and night, but now after reading for\nfourteen years I have only reached the _S\u00farat al-Anf\u00e1l_.\u201d[182] It is\nrelated that Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1b said to a Koran-reader, \u201cRecite,\u201d\nwhereupon he recited: \u201c_O noble one, famine hath befallen us and our\npeople, and we are come with a petty merchandise_\u201d (Kor. xii, 88). He\nsaid once more, \u201cRecite,\u201d whereupon the reader recited: \u201c_If he stole, a\nbrother of his hath stolen heretofore_\u201d (Kor. xii, 77). Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s\nbade him recite a third time, so he recited: \u201c_No blame shall be laid\nupon you this day: God forgiveth you_,\u201d etc. (Kor. xii, 92). Abu\n\u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s cried: \u201cO Lord, I am more unjust than Joseph\u2019s brethren, and\nThou art more kind than Joseph: deal with me as he dealt with his wicked\nbrethren.\u201d\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  After a further eulogy of the inimitable style of the Koran, the\n  author relates the story of `Umar\u2019s conversion.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  The chapter of the Spoils, a title given to the eighth chapter of the\n  Koran.\n\nAll Moslems, pious and disobedient alike, are commanded to listen to the\nKoran, for God hath said: \u201c_When the Koran is recited hearken thereto\nand be silent that perchance ye may win mercy_\u201d (Kor. vii, 203).[183]\nAnd it is related that the Apostle said to Ibn Mas`\u00fad: \u201cRecite the Koran\nto me.\u201d Ibn Mas`\u00fad said: \u201cShall I recite it to thee, to whom it was\nrevealed?\u201d The Apostle answered: \u201cI wish to hear it from another.\u201d This\nis a clear proof that the hearer is more perfect in state than the\nreader, for the reader may recite with or without true feeling, whereas\nthe hearer feels truly, because speech is a sort of pride and hearing is\na sort of humility. The Apostle also said that the chapter of H\u00fad had\nwhitened his hair. It is explained that he said this because of the\nverse at the end of that chapter: \u201c_Be thou steadfast, therefore, as\nthou hast been commanded_\u201d (Kor. xi, 114), for Man is unable to be\nreally steadfast in fulfilling the Divine commandments, inasmuch as he\ncan do nothing without God\u2019s help.[184]\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Here the author quotes a number of Koranic verses in which the\n  faithful are enjoined to listen heedfully to the recitation of the\n  sacred volume, or are rebuked for their want of attention.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  I have omitted here a story related by Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd al-Khudr\u00ed concerning\n  Mu\u1e25ammad\u2019s interview with a party of destitute refugees (_muh\u00e1jir\u00fan_),\n  to whom the Koran was being read.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nZur\u00e1ra b. Ab\u00ed Awf\u00e1, one of the chief Companions of the Apostle, while he\nwas presiding over the public worship, recited a verse of the Koran,\nuttered a cry, and died. Ab\u00fa Ja`far Juhan\u00ed,[185] an eminent Follower, on\nhearing a verse which \u1e62\u00e1li\u1e25 Murr\u00ed[186] read to him, gave a loud moan and\ndeparted from this world. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Nakha`\u00ed[187] relates that while he was\npassing through a village in the neighbourhood of K\u00fafa he saw an old\nwoman standing in prayer. As the marks of holiness were manifest on her\ncountenance, he waited until she finished praying and then saluted her\nin hope of gaining a blessing thereby. She said to him, \u201cDost thou know\nthe Koran?\u201d He said, \u201cYes.\u201d She said, \u201cRecite a verse.\u201d He did so,\nwhereupon she cried aloud and sent her soul forth to meet the vision of\nGod. A\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed relates the following tale. \u201cI saw in the\ndesert a youth, clad in a coarse frock, standing at the mouth of a well.\nHe said to me: \u2018O A\u1e25mad, thou art come in good time, for I must needs\nhear the Koran, that I may give up my soul. Read me a verse.\u2019 God\ninspired me to read, \u2018_Verily, those who say, \u201cGod is our Lord,\u201d and\nthen are steadfast_\u2019 (Kor. xli, 30). \u2018O A\u1e25mad,\u2019 said he, \u2018by the Lord of\nthe Ka`ba thou hast read the same verse which an angel was reading to me\njust now,\u2019 and with these words he gave up his soul.\u201d\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  BI. Ab\u00fa Juhayn, J. Ab\u00fa Juhan\u00ed.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Sha`r\u00e1n\u00ed, _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-Kubr\u00e1_, i, 60.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Ibn Khallik\u00e1n, No. 1.\n\n               _Chapter on the Audition of Poetry, etc._\n\nIt is permissible to hear poetry. The Apostle heard it, and the\nCompanions not only heard it but also spoke it. The Apostle said, \u201cSome\npoetry is wisdom;\u201d and he said, \u201cWisdom is the believer\u2019s lost\nshe-camel: wherever he finds her, he has the best right to her;\u201d and he\nsaid too, \u201cThe truest word ever spoken by the Arabs is the verse of\nLab\u00edd,\n\n               \u2018_Everything except God is vain,\n               And all fortune is inevitably fleeting._\u2019\u201d\n\n`Amr b. al-Shar\u00edd[188] relates that his father said: \u201cThe Apostle asked\nme whether I could recite any poetry of Umayya b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e62alt, so I\nrecited a hundred verses, and at the end of each verse he cried, \u2018Go\non!\u2019 He said that Umayya almost became a Moslem in his poetry.\u201d Many\nsuch stories are told of the Apostle and the Companions. Erroneous views\nare prevalent on this subject. Some declare that it is unlawful to\nlisten to any poetry whatever, and pass their lives in defaming their\nbrother Moslems. Some, on the contrary, hold that all poetry is lawful,\nand spend their time in listening to love-songs and descriptions of the\nface and hair and mole of the beloved. I do not intend to discuss the\narguments which both parties in this controversy bring forward against\neach other. The \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs follow the example of the Apostle, who, on\nbeing asked about poetry, said: \u201cWhat is good thereof is good and what\nis bad thereof is bad,\u201d i.e., whatever is unlawful, like backbiting and\ncalumny and foul abuse and blame of any person and utterance of\ninfidelity, is equally unlawful whether it be expressed in prose or in\nverse; and whatever is lawful in prose, like morality and exhortations\nand inferences drawn from the signs of God and contemplation of the\nevidences of the Truth, is no less lawful in verse. In fine, just as it\nis unlawful and forbidden to look at or touch a beautiful object which\nis a source of evil, so it is unlawful and forbidden to listen to that\nobject or, similarly, to hear the description of it. Those who regard\nsuch hearing as absolutely lawful must also regard looking and touching\nas lawful, which is infidelity and heresy. If one says, \u201cI hear only God\nand seek only God in eye and cheek and mole and curl,\u201d it follows that\nanother may look at a cheek and mole and say that he sees and seeks God\nalone, because both the eye and the ear are sources of admonition and\nknowledge; then another may say that in touching a person, whose\ndescription it is thought allowable to hear and whom it is thought\nallowable to behold, he, too, is only seeking God, since one sense is no\nbetter adapted than another to apprehend a reality; then the whole\nreligious law is made null and void, and the Apostle\u2019s saying that the\neyes commit fornication loses all its force, and the blame of touching\npersons with whom marriage may legally be contracted is removed, and the\nordinances of religion fall to the ground. Foolish aspirants to \u1e62\u00fafiism,\nseeing the adepts absorbed in ecstasy during audition (_sam\u00e1`_),\nimagined that they were acting from a sensual impulse and said, \u201cIt is\nlawful, else they would not have done so,\u201d and imitated them, taking up\nthe form but neglecting the spirit, until they perished themselves and\nled others into perdition. This is one of the great evils of our time. I\nwill set it forth completely in the proper place.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  B. al-Rash\u00edd.\n\n           _Chapter on the Audition of Voices and Melodies._\n\nThe Apostle said, \u201cBeautify your voices by reading the Koran aloud;\u201d and\nGod hath said, \u201c_God addeth unto His creatures what He pleaseth_\u201d (Kor.\nxxxv, 1), meaning, as the commentators think, a beautiful voice; and the\nApostle said, \u201cWhoso wishes to hear the voice of David, let him listen\nto the voice of Ab\u00fa M\u00fas\u00e1 al-Ash`ar\u00ed.\u201d It is stated in well-known\ntraditions that the inhabitants of Paradise enjoy audition, for there\ncomes forth from every tree a different voice and melody. When diverse\nsounds are mingled together, the natural temperament experiences a great\ndelight. This sort of audition is common to all living creatures,\nbecause the spirit is subtle, and there is a subtlety in sounds, so that\nwhen they are heard the spirit inclines to that which is homogeneous\nwith itself. Physicians and those philosophers who claim to possess a\nprofound knowledge of the truth have discussed this subject at large and\nhave written books on musical harmony. The results of their invention\nare manifest to-day in the musical instruments which have been contrived\nfor the sake of exciting passion and procuring amusement and pleasure,\nin accord with Satan, and so skilfully that (as the story is told) one\nday, when Is\u1e25\u00e1q of Maw\u1e63il[189] was playing in a garden, a nightingale,\nenraptured with the music, broke off its song in order to listen, and\ndropped dead from the bough. I have heard many tales of this kind, but\nmy only purpose is to mention the theory that the temperaments of all\nliving creatures are composed of sounds and melodies blended and\nharmonized. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63 says: \u201cOnce I came to an Arab tribe and\nalighted at the hospitable abode of one of their chiefs. I saw a negro\nlying, shackled and chained, at the tent door in the heat of the sun. I\nfelt pity for him and resolved to intercede with the chief on his\nbehalf. When food was brought for my entertainment I refused to eat,\nknowing that nothing grieves an Arab more than this. The chief asked me\nwhy I refused, and I answered that I hoped his generosity would grant me\na boon. He begged me to eat, assuring me that all he possessed was mine.\n\u2018I do not want your wealth,' I said, \u2018but pardon this slave for my\nsake.\u2019 \u2018First hear what his offence was,\u2019 the chief replied, \u2018then\nremove his chains. This slave is a camel-driver, and he has a sweet\nvoice. I sent him with a few camels to my estates, to fetch me some\ncorn. He put a double load on every camel and chanted so sweetly on the\nway that the camels ran at full speed. They returned hither in a short\ntime, and as soon as he unloaded them they died one after another.\u2019 \u2018O\nprince,\u2019 I cried in astonishment, \u2018a nobleman like you does not speak\nfalsely, but I wish for some evidence of this tale.\u2019 While we talked a\nnumber of camels were brought from the desert to the wells, that they\nmight drink. The chief inquired how long they had gone without water.\n\u2018Three days,\u2019 was the reply. He then commanded the slave to chant. The\ncamels became so occupied in listening to his song that they would not\ndrink a mouthful of water, and suddenly they turned and fled, one by\none, and dispersed in the desert. The chieftain released the slave and\npardoned him for my sake.\u201d\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  _Agh\u00e1n\u00ed_, 5, 52-131.\n\nWe often see, for example, how camels and asses are affected with\ndelight when their drivers trill an air. In Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n and `Ir\u00e1q it is the\ncustom for hunters, when hunting deer (_\u00e1h\u00fa_) at night, to beat on a\nbasin of brass (_\u1e6dasht\u00ed_) in order that the deer may stand still,\nlistening to the sound, and thus be caught. And in India, as is well\nknown, some people go out to the open country and sing and make a\ntinkling sound, on hearing which the deer approach; then the hunters\nencircle them and sing, until the deer are lulled to sleep by the\ndelightful melody and are easily captured. The same effect is manifest\nin young children who cease crying in the cradle when a tune is sung to\nthem, and listen to the tune. Physicians say of such a child that he is\nsensible and will be clever when he grows up. On the death of one of the\nancient kings of Persia his ministers wished to enthrone his son, who\nwas a child two years old. Buzurjmihr,[190] on being consulted, said:\n\u201cVery good, but we must make trial whether he is sensible,\u201d and ordered\nsingers to sing to him. The child was stirred with emotion and began to\nshake his arms and legs. Buzurjmihr declared that this was a hopeful\nsign and consented to his succession. Anyone who says that he finds no\npleasure in sounds and melodies and music is either a liar and a\nhypocrite or he is not in his right senses, and is outside of the\ncategory of men and beasts. Those who prohibit music do so in order that\nthey may keep the Divine commandment, but theologians are agreed that it\nis permissible to hear musical instruments if they are not used for\ndiversion, and if the mind is not led to wickedness through hearing\nthem. Many traditions are cited in support of this view. Thus, it is\nrelated that `\u00c1\u00b4isha said: \u201cA slave-girl was singing in my house when\n`Umar asked leave to enter. As soon as she heard his step she ran away.\nHe came in and the Apostle smiled. \u2018O Apostle of God,\u2019 cried `Umar,\n\u2018what hath made thee smile?\u2019 The Apostle answered, \u2018A slave-girl was\nsinging here, but she ran away as soon as she heard thy step.\u2019 \u2018I will\nnot depart,\u2019 said `Umar, \u2018until I hear what the Apostle heard.\u2019 So the\nApostle called the girl back and she began to sing, the Apostle\nlistening to her.\u201d Many of the Companions have related similar\ntraditions, which Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed has collected in his\n_Kit\u00e1b al-Sam\u00e1`_[191]; and he has pronounced such audition to be\npermissible. In practising audition, however, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs desire,\nnot permissibility as the vulgar do, but spiritual advantages. Licence\nis proper for beasts, but men who are subject to the obligations of\nreligion ought to seek spiritual benefit from their actions. Once, when\nI was at Merv, one of the leaders of the _Ahl-i \u1e25ad\u00edth_[192] and the\nmost celebrated of them all said to me: \u201cI have composed a work on the\npermissibility of audition.\u201d I replied: \u201cIt is a great calamity to\nreligion that the Im\u00e1m should have made lawful an amusement which is the\nroot of all immorality.\u201d \u201cIf you do not hold it to be lawful,\u201d said he,\n\u201cwhy do you practise it?\u201d I answered: \u201cIts lawfulness depends on\ncircumstances and cannot be asserted absolutely: if audition produces a\nlawful effect on the mind, then it is lawful; it is unlawful if the\neffect is unlawful, and permissible if the effect is permissible.\u201d\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  The vizier of Khusraw N\u00fash\u00edrw\u00e1n, the great S\u00e1s\u00e1nian king of Persia\n  (531-78 A.D.).\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  _The Book of Audition._\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  \u201cThe followers of Tradition\u201d as opposed to \u201cthe followers of Opinion\u201d\n  (_ahl-i ra\u00b4y_).\n\n                _Chapter on the Principles of Audition._\n\nYou must know that the principles of audition vary with the variety of\ntemperaments, just as there are different desires in various hearts, and\nit is tyranny to lay down one law for all. Auditors (_mustami`\u00e1n_) may\nbe divided into two classes: (1) those who hear the spiritual meaning,\n(2) those who hear the material sound. There are good and evil results\nin each case. Listening to sweet sounds produces an effervescence\n(_ghalay\u00e1n_) of the substance moulded in Man: true (_\u1e25aqq_) if the\nsubstance be true, false (_b\u00e1\u1e6dil_) if the substance be false. When the\nstuff of a man\u2019s temperament is evil, that which he hears will be evil\ntoo. The whole of this topic is illustrated by the story of David, whom\nGod made His vicegerent and gave him a sweet voice and caused his throat\nto be a melodious pipe, so that wild beasts and birds came from mountain\nand plain to hear him, and the water ceased to flow and the birds fell\nfrom the air. It is related that during a month\u2019s space the people who\nwere gathered round him in the desert ate no food, and the children\nneither wept nor asked for milk; and whenever the folk departed it was\nfound that many had died of the rapture that seized them as they\nlistened to his voice: one time, it is said, the tale of the dead\namounted to seven hundred maidens and twelve thousand old men. Then God,\nwishing to separate those who listened to the voice and followed their\ntemperament from the followers of the truth (_ahl-i \u1e25aqq_) who listened\nto the spiritual reality, permitted Ibl\u00eds to work his will and display\nhis wiles. Ibl\u00eds fashioned a mandoline and a flute and took up a station\nopposite to the place where David was singing. David\u2019s audience became\ndivided into two parties: the blest and the damned. Those who were\ndestined to damnation lent ear to the music of Ibl\u00eds, while those who\nwere destined to felicity remained listening to the voice of David. The\nspiritualists (_ahl-i ma`n\u00ed_) were conscious of nothing except David\u2019s\nvoice, for they saw God alone; if they heard the Devil\u2019s music, they\nregarded it as a temptation proceeding from God, and if they heard\nDavid\u2019s voice, they recognized it as being a direction from God;\nwherefore they abandoned all things that are merely subsidiary and saw\nboth right and wrong as they really are. When a man has audition of this\nkind, whatever he hears is lawful to him. Some impostors, however, say\nthat their audition is contrary to the reality. This is absurd, for the\nperfection of saintship consists in seeing everything as it really is,\nthat the vision may be right; if you see otherwise, the vision is wrong.\nThe Apostle said: \u201cO God, let us see things as they are.\u201d Similarly,\nright audition consists in hearing everything as it is in quality and\npredicament. The reason why men are seduced and their passions excited\nby musical instruments is that they hear unreally: if their audition\ncorresponded with the reality, they would escape from all evil\nconsequences. The people of error heard the word of God, and their error\nwaxed greater than before. Some of them quoted \u201c_The eyes attain not\nunto Him_\u201d (Kor. vi, 103) as a demonstration that there shall be no\nvision of God; some cited \u201c_Then He settled Himself on the throne\u201d_\n(Kor. vii, 52) to prove that position and direction may be affirmed of\nHim; and some argued that God actually \u201ccomes\u201d, since He has said, \u201c_And\nthy Lord shall come and the angels rank by rank_\u201d (Kor. lxxxix, 23).\nInasmuch as error was implanted in their minds, it profited them nothing\nto hear the Word of God. The Unitarian, on the other hand, when he\nperuses a poem, regards the Creator of the poet\u2019s nature and the\nDisposer of his thoughts, and drawing an admonition therefrom, sees in\nthe act an evidence of the Agent. Thus he finds the right way even in\nfalsehood, while those whom we have mentioned above lose the way in the\nmidst of truth.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nThe Shaykhs have uttered many sayings on this subject. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan the\nEgyptian says: \u201cAudition is a Divine influence (_w\u00e1rid al-\u1e25aqq_) which\nstirs the heart to seek God: those who listen to it spiritually\n(_ba-\u1e25aqq_) attain unto God (_ta\u1e25aqqaqa_), and those who listen to it\nsensually (_ba-nafs_) fall into heresy (_tazandaqa_).\u201d This venerable\n\u1e62\u00faf\u00ed does not mean that audition is the cause of attaining unto God, but\nhe means that the auditor ought to hear the spiritual reality, not the\nmere sound, and that the Divine influence ought to sink into his heart\nand stir it up. One who in that audition follows the truth will\nexperience a revelation, whereas one who follows his lower soul (_nafs_)\nwill be veiled and will have recourse to interpretation (_ta\u00b4w\u00edl_).\n_Zandaqa_ (heresy) is a Persian word which has been Arabicized. In the\nArabic tongue it signifies \u201cinterpretation\u201d. Accordingly, the Persians\ncall the commentary on their Book _Zand \u00fa P\u00e1zand_.[193] The\nphilologists, wishing to give a name to the descendants of the Magians,\ncalled them _zind\u00edq_ on the ground of their assertion that everything\nstated by the Moslems has an esoteric interpretation, which destroys its\nexternal sense. At the present day the Sh\u00ed`ites of Egypt, who are the\nremnant of these Magians, make the same assertion. Hence the word\n_zind\u00edq_ came to be applied to them as a proper name. Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan, by\nusing this term, intended to declare that spiritualists in audition\npenetrate to the reality, while sensualists make a far-fetched\ninterpretation and thereby fall into wickedness. Shibl\u00ed says: \u201cAudition\nis outwardly a temptation (_fitnat_) and inwardly an admonition\n(_`ibrat_): he who knows the mystic sign (_ish\u00e1rat_) may lawfully hear\nthe admonition; otherwise, he has invited temptation and exposed himself\nto calamity,\u201d i.e. audition is calamitous and a source of evil to anyone\nwhose whole heart is not absorbed in the thought of God. Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed\nR\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed said, in answer to a man who questioned him concerning audition:\n\u201cWould that I were rid of it entirely!\u201d because Man is unable to do\neverything as it ought to be done, and when he fails to do a thing duly\nhe perceives that he has failed and wishes to be rid of it altogether.\nOne of the Shaykhs says: \u201cAudition is that which makes the heart aware\nof the things in it that produce absence\u201d (_m\u00e1 f\u00edh\u00e1 mina\n\u00b4l-mughayyib\u00e1t_), so that the effect thereof is to make the heart\npresent with God. Absence (_ghaybat_) is a most blameworthy quality of\nthe heart. The lover, though absent from his Beloved, must be present\nwith him in heart; if he be absent in heart, his love is gone. My Shaykh\nsaid: \u201cAudition is the viaticum of the indigent: one who has reached his\njourney\u2019s end hath no need of it,\u201d because hearing can perform no\nfunction where union is; news is heard of the absent, but hearing is\nnaught when two are face to face. \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed says: \u201cWhat avails an audition\nthat ceases whenever the person whom thou hearest becomes silent? It is\nnecessary that thy audition should be continuous and uninterrupted.\u201d\nThis saying is a token of the concentration of his thoughts in the field\nof love. When a man attains so high a degree as this he hears (spiritual\ntruths) from every object in the universe.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  See Professor Browne\u2019s _Literary History of Persia_, i, 81.\n\n         _Chapter on the various opinions respecting Audition._\n\nThe Shaykhs and spiritualists hold different views as to audition. Some\nsay that it is a faculty appertaining to absence, for in contemplation\n(of God) audition is impossible, inasmuch as the lover who is united\nwith his Beloved fixes his gaze on Him and does not need to listen to\nhim; therefore, audition is a faculty of beginners which they employ,\nwhen distracted by forgetfulness, in order to obtain concentration; but\none who is already concentrated will inevitably be distracted thereby.\nOthers, again, say that audition is a faculty appertaining to presence\n(with God), because love demands all; until the whole of the lover is\nabsorbed in the whole of the Beloved, he is deficient in love:\ntherefore, as in union the heart (_dil_) has love and the soul (_sirr_)\nhas contemplation and the spirit has union and the body has service, so\nthe ear also must have such a pleasure as the eye derives from seeing.\nHow excellent, though on a frivolous topic, are the words of the poet\nwho declared his love for wine!\n\n    \u201c_Give me wine to drink and tell me it is wine.\n    Do not give it me in secret, when it can be given openly_,\u201d[194]\n\ni.e., let my eye see it and my hand touch it and my palate taste it and\nmy nose smell it: there yet remains one sense to be gratified, viz. my\nhearing: tell me, therefore, this is wine, that my ear may feel the same\ndelight as my other senses. And they say that audition appertains to\npresence with God, because he who is absent from God is a disbeliever\n(_munkir_), and those who disbelieve are not worthy to enjoy audition.\nAccordingly, there are two kinds of audition: mediate and immediate.\nAudition of which a reciter (_q\u00e1r\u00ed_) is the source is a faculty of\nabsence, but audition of which the Beloved (_y\u00e1r\u00ed_) is the source is a\nfaculty of presence. It was on this account that a well-known spiritual\ndirector said: \u201cI will not put any created beings, except the chosen men\nof God, in a place where I can hear their talk or converse with them.\u201d\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Ab\u00fa Nuw\u00e1s, _Die Weinlieder_, ed. by Ahlwardt, No. 29, verse 1.\n\n_Chapter concerning their different grades in the reality of Audition._\n\nYou must know that each \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed has a particular grade in audition and that\nthe feelings which he gains therefrom are proportionate to his grade.\nThus, whatever is heard by penitents augments their contrition and\nremorse; whatever is heard by longing lovers increases their longing for\nvision; whatever is heard by those who have certain faith confirms their\ncertainty; whatever is heard by novices verifies their elucidation (of\nmatters which perplex them); whatever is heard by lovers impels them to\ncut off all worldly connexions; and whatever is heard by the spiritually\npoor forms a foundation for hopelessness. Audition is like the sun,\nwhich shines on all things but affects them differently according to\ntheir degree: it burns or illumines or dissolves or nurtures. All the\nclasses that I have mentioned are included in the three following\ngrades: beginners (_mubtadiy\u00e1n_), middlemen (_mutawassi\u1e6d\u00e1n_), and adepts\n(_k\u00e1mil\u00e1n_). I will now insert a section treating of the state of each\nof these three grades in regard to audition, that you may understand\nthis matter more easily.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nAudition is an influence (_w\u00e1rid_) proceeding from God, and inasmuch as\nthis body is moulded of folly and diversion the temperament of the\nbeginner is nowise capable of (enduring) the word of God, but is\noverpoweringly impressed by the descent of that spiritual reality, so\nthat some lose their senses in audition and some die, and there is no\none whose temperament retains its equilibrium. It is well known that in\nthe hospitals of R\u00fam they have invented a wonderful thing which they\ncall _angaly\u00fan_;[195] the Greeks call anything that is very marvellous\nby this name, e.g. the Gospel and the books (_wa\u1e0d`_) of M\u00e1n\u00ed (Manes).\nThe word signifies \u201cpromulgation of a decree\u201d (_i\u1e95h\u00e1r-i \u1e25ukm_). This\n_angaly\u00fan_ resembles a stringed musical instrument (_r\u00fad\u00ed az r\u00fadha_).\nThe sick are brought to it two days in the week and are forced to\nlisten, while it is being played on, for a length of time proportionate\nto the malady from which they suffer; then they are taken away. If it is\ndesired to kill anyone, he is kept there for a longer period, until he\ndies. Everyone\u2019s term of life is really written (in the tablets of\ndestiny), but death is caused indirectly by various circumstances.\nPhysicians and others may listen continually to the _angaly\u00fan_ without\nbeing affected in any way, because it is consonant with their\ntemperaments. I have seen in India a worm which appeared in a deadly\npoison and lived by it, because that poison was its whole being. In a\ntown of Turkist\u00e1n, on the frontiers of Islam, I saw a burning mountain,\nfrom the rocks of which sal-ammoniac fumes (_nawsh\u00e1dur_) were boiling\nforth;[196] and in the midst of that fire was a mouse, which died when\nit came out of the glowing heat. My object in citing these examples is\nto show that all the agitation of beginners, when the Divine influence\ndescends upon them, is due to the fact that their bodies are opposed to\nit; but when it becomes continual the beginner receives it quietly. At\nfirst the Apostle could not bear the vision of Gabriel, but in the end\nhe used to be distressed if Gabriel ever failed to come, even for a\nbrief space. Similarly, the stories which I have related above show that\nbeginners are agitated and that adepts are tranquil in audition. Junayd\nhad a disciple who was wont to be greatly agitated in audition, so that\nthe other dervishes were distracted. They complained to Junayd, and he\ntold the disciple that he would not associate with him if he displayed\nsuch agitation in future. \u201cI watched that dervish,\u201d says Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad\nJurayr\u00ed, \u201cduring audition: he kept his lips shut and was silent until\nevery pore in his body opened; then he lost consciousness, and remained\nin that state for a whole day. I know not whether his audition or his\nreverence for his spiritual director was more perfect.\u201d It is related\nthat a man cried out during audition. His spiritual director bade him be\nquiet. He laid his head on his knee, and when they looked he was dead. I\nheard Shaykh Ab\u00fa Muslim F\u00e1ris b. Gh\u00e1lib al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed say that some one laid\nhis hand on the head of a dervish who was agitated during audition and\ntold him to sit down: he sat down and died on the spot. Raqq\u00ed[197]\nrelates that Darr\u00e1j[198] said: \u201cWhile Ibn al-Q\u00fa\u1e6d\u00ed[199] and I were\nwalking on the bank of the Tigris between Ba\u1e63ra and Ubulla, we came to a\npavilion and saw a handsome man seated on the roof, and beside him a\ngirl who was singing this verse:\u2014\n\n \u2018_My love was bestowed on thee in the way of God;\n Thou changest every day: it would beseem thee better not to do this._\u2019\n\nA young man with a jug and a patched frock was standing beneath the\npavilion. He exclaimed: \u2018O damsel, for God\u2019s sake chant that verse\nagain, for I have only a moment to live; let me hear it and die!\u2019 The\ngirl repeated her song, whereupon the youth uttered a cry and gave up\nhis soul. The owner of the girl said to her, \u2018Thou art free,\u2019 and came\ndown from the roof and busied himself with preparations for the young\nman\u2019s funeral. When he was buried all the people of Ba\u1e63ra said prayers\nover him. Then the girl\u2019s master rose and said: \u2018O people of Ba\u1e63ra, I,\nwho am so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, have devoted all my wealth to\npious works and have set free my slaves.\u2019 With these words he departed,\nand no one ever learned what became of him.\u201d The moral of this tale is\nthat the novice should be transported by audition to such an extent that\nhis audition shall deliver the wicked from their wickedness. But in the\npresent age some persons attend meetings where the wicked listen to\nmusic, yet they say, \u201cWe are listening to God;\u201d and the wicked join with\nthem in this audition and are encouraged in their wickedness, so that\nboth parties are destroyed. Junayd was asked: \u201cMay we go to a church for\nthe purpose of admonishing ourselves and beholding the indignity of\ntheir unbelief and giving thanks for the gift of Islam?\u201d He replied: \u201cIf\nyou can go to a church and bring some of the worshippers back with you\nto the Court of God, then go, but not otherwise.\u201d When an anchorite goes\ninto a tavern, the tavern becomes his cell, and when a haunter of\ntaverns goes into a cell, that cell becomes his tavern. An eminent\nShaykh relates that when he was walking in Baghd\u00e1d with a dervish, he\nheard a singer chanting\u2014\n\n       \u201c_If it be true, it is the best of all objects of desire,\n       And if not, we have lived a pleasant life in it._\u201d\n\nThe dervish uttered a cry and died. Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed says: \u201cI saw a\ndervish listening attentively to the voice of a singer. I too inclined\nmy ear, for I wished to know what he was chanting. The words, which he\nsang in mournful accents, were these:\u2014\n\n     \u2018_I humbly stretch my hand to him who gives food liberally._\u2019\n\nThen the dervish uttered a loud cry and fell. When we came near him we\nfound that he was dead.\u201d A certain man says: \u201cI was walking on a\nmountain road with Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm Khaww\u00e1\u1e63. A sudden thrill of emotion seized my\nheart, and I chanted\u2014\n\n        \u2018_All men are sure that I am in love,\n        But they know not whom I love.\n        There is in Man no beauty\n        That is not surpassed in beauty by a beautiful voice._\u2019\n\nIbr\u00e1h\u00edm begged me to repeat the verses, and I did so. In sympathetic\necstasy (_taw\u00e1jud_) he danced a few steps on the stony ground. I\nobserved that his feet sank into the rock as though it were wax. Then he\nfell in a swoon. On coming to himself he said to me: \u2018I have been in\nParadise, and you were unaware.\u2019\u201c I once saw with my own eyes a dervish\nwalking in meditation among the mountains of \u00c1dharb\u00e1yaj\u00e1n and rapidly\nsinging to himself these verses, with many tears and moans:\u2014\n\n \u201d_By God, sun never rose or set but thou wert my heart\u2019s desire and my\n    dream.\n And I never sat conversing with any people but thou wert the subject of\n    my conversation in the midst of my comrades.\n And I never mentioned thee in joy or sorrow but love for thee was\n    mingled with my breath.\n And I never resolved to drink water, when I was athirst, but I saw an\n    image of thee in the cup.\n And were I able to come I would have visited thee, crawling on my face\n    or walking on my head._\u201d\n\nOn hearing these verses he changed countenance and sat down for a while,\nleaning his back against a crag, and gave up his soul.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  The mountains referred to are the Jabal al-Buttam, to the east of\n  Samarcand. See G. Le Strange, _The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate_, p.\n  467.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  IJ. Duqq\u00ed. Qushayr\u00ed, who relates this story (184, 22), has \u201cal-Raqq\u00ed\u201d.\n  The _nisba_ Duqq\u00ed refers to Ab\u00fa Bakr Mu\u1e25ammad al-D\u00ednawar\u00ed (_Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_,\n  No. 229), while Raqq\u00ed probably denotes Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. D\u00e1wud al-Raqq\u00ed\n  (ibid., No. 194).\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 207.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  So Qushayr\u00ed. The Persian texts have \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0637\u0649 or \u0627\u0644\u0642\u0631\u0638\u0649. In the\n  commentary on Qushayr\u00ed by Zakariyy\u00e1 al-An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed the name is written\n  al-F\u00fa\u1e6d\u00ed.\n\n\n                                SECTION.\n\nSome of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs have objected to the hearing of odes and poems\nand to the recitation of the Koran in such a way that its words are\nintoned with undue emphasis, and they have warned their disciples\nagainst these practices and have themselves eschewed them and have\ndisplayed the utmost zeal in this matter. Of such objectors there are\nseveral classes, and each class has a different reason. Some have found\ntraditions declaring the practices in question to be unlawful and have\nfollowed the pious Moslems of old in condemning them. They cite, for\nexample, the Apostle\u2019s rebuke to Sh\u00edr\u00edn, the handmaid of \u1e24ass\u00e1n b.\nTh\u00e1bit, whom he forbade to sing; and `Umar\u2019s flogging the Companions who\nused to hear music; and `Al\u00ed\u2019s finding fault with Mu`\u00e1wiya for keeping\nsinging-girls, and his not allowing \u1e24asan to look at the Abyssinian\nwoman who used to sing and his calling her \u201cthe Devil\u2019s mate\u201d. They say,\nmoreover, that their chief argument for the objectionableness of music\nis the fact that the Moslem community, both now and in past times, are\ngenerally agreed in regarding it with disapproval. Some go so far as to\npronounce it absolutely unlawful, quoting Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24\u00e1rith Bun\u00e1n\u00ed, who\nrelates as follows: \u201cI was very assiduous in audition. One night a\ncertain person came to my cell and told me that a number of seekers of\nGod had assembled and were desirous to see me. I went out with him and\nsoon arrived at the place. They received me with extraordinary marks of\nhonour. An old man, round whom they had formed a circle, said to me:\n\u2018With thy leave, some poetry will be recited.\u2019 I assented, whereupon one\nof them began to chant verses which the poets had composed on the\nsubject of separation (from the beloved). They all rose in sympathetic\necstasy, uttering melodious cries and making exquisite gestures, while I\nremained lost in amazement at their behaviour. They continued in this\nenthusiasm until near daybreak, then the old man said, \u2018O Shaykh, art\nnot thou curious to learn who am I and who are my companions?\u2019 I\nanswered that the reverence which I felt towards him prevented me from\nasking that question. \u2018I myself,\u2019 said he, \u2018was once `Azr\u00e1`\u00edl and am now\nIbl\u00eds, and all the rest are my children. Two benefits accrue to me from\nsuch concerts as this: firstly, I bewail my own separation (from God)\nand remember the days of my prosperity, and secondly, I lead holy men\nastray and cast them into error.\u2019 From that time (said the narrator) I\nhave never had the least desire to practise audition.\u201d\n\nI, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, have heard the Shaykh and Im\u00e1m Abu\n\u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s al-Ashq\u00e1n\u00ed relate that one day, being in an assembly where\naudition was going on, he saw naked demons dancing among the members of\nthe party and breathing upon them, so that they waxed hot.\n\nOthers, again, refuse to practise audition on the ground that, if they\nindulged in it, their disciples would conform with them and thereby run\na grave risk of falling into mischief and of returning from penitence to\nsin and of having their passions violently roused and their virtue\ncorrupted. It is related that Junayd said to a recently converted\ndisciple: \u201cIf you wish to keep your religion safe and to maintain your\npenitence, do not indulge, while you are young, in the audition which\nthe \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds practise; and when you grow old, do not let yourself be the\ncause of guilt in others.\u201d\n\nOthers say that there are two classes of auditors: those who are\nfrivolous (_l\u00e1h\u00ed_) and those who are divine (_il\u00e1h\u00ed_). The former are in\nthe very centre of mischief and do not shrink from it, while the latter\nkeep themselves remote from mischief by means of self-mortification and\nausterities and spiritual renunciation of all created things. \u201cSince we\u201d\n(so say the persons of whom I am now speaking) \u201cbelong to neither of\nthese two classes, it is better for us to abstain from audition and to\noccupy ourselves with something that is suitable to our state.\u201d\n\nOthers say: \u201cInasmuch as audition is dangerous to the vulgar and their\nbelief is disturbed by our taking part in it, and inasmuch as they are\nunable to attain to our degree therein and incur guilt through us, we\nhave pity on the vulgar and give sincere advice to the elect and from\naltruistic motives decline to indulge in audition.\u201d This is a laudable\ncourse of action.\n\nOthers say: \u201cThe Apostle has said, \u2018It contributes to the excellence of\na man\u2019s Islam if he leaves alone that which does not concern him.\u2019\nAccordingly, we renounce audition as being unnecessary, for it is a\nwaste of time to busy one\u2019s self with irrelevant things, and time is\nprecious between lovers and the Beloved.\u201d\n\nOthers of the elect argue that audition is hearsay and its pleasure\nconsists in gratification of a desire, and this is mere child\u2019s play.\nWhat value has hearsay when one is face to face? The act of real worth\nis contemplation (of God).\n\nSuch, in brief, are the principles of audition.\n\n              _Chapter on_ Wajd _and_ Wuj\u00fad _and_ Taw\u00e1jud.\n\n_Wajd_ and _wuj\u00fad_ are verbal nouns, the former meaning \u201cgrief\u201d and the\nlatter \u201cfinding\u201d. These terms are used by \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds to denote two states\nwhich manifest themselves in audition: one state is connected with\ngrief, and the other with gaining the object of desire. The real sense\nof \u201cgrief\u201d is \u201closs of the Beloved and failure to gain the object of\ndesire\u201d, while the real sense of \u201cfinding\u201d is \u201cattainment of the desired\nobject\u201d. The difference between _\u1e25azan_ (sorrow) and _wajd_ is this,\nthat the term _\u1e25azan_ is applied to a selfish grief, whereas the term\n_wajd_ is applied to grief for another in the way of love, albeit the\nrelation of otherness belongs only to the seeker of God, for God Himself\nis never other than He is. It is impossible to explain the nature of\n_wajd_, because _wajd_ is pain in actual vision, and pain (_alam_)\ncannot be described by pen (_qalam_). _Wajd_ is a mystery between the\nseeker and the Sought, which only a revelation can expound. Nor is it\npossible to indicate the nature of _wuj\u00fad_, because _wuj\u00fad_ is a thrill\nof emotion in contemplation of God, and emotion (_\u1e6darab_) cannot be\nreached by investigation (_\u1e6dalab_). _Wuj\u00fad_ is a grace bestowed by the\nBeloved on the lover, a grace of which no symbol can suggest the real\nnature. In my opinion, _wajd_ is a painful affection of the heart,\narising either from jest or earnest, either from sadness or gladness;\nand _wuj\u00fad_ is the removal of a grief from the heart and the discovery\nof the object that was its cause. He who feels _wajd_ is either agitated\nby ardent longing in the state of occultation (_\u1e25ij\u00e1b_), or calmed by\ncontemplation in the state of revelation (_kashf_). The Shaykhs hold\ndifferent views on the question whether _wajd_ or _wuj\u00fad_ is more\nperfect. Some argue that, _wuj\u00fad_ being characteristic of novices\n(_mur\u00edd\u00e1n_), and _wajd_ of gnostics (_`\u00e1rif\u00e1n_), and gnostics being more\nexalted in degree than novices, it follows that _wajd_ is higher and\nmore perfect than _wuj\u00fad_; for (they say) everything that is capable of\nbeing found is apprehensible, and apprehensibility is characteristic of\nthat which is homogeneous with something else: it involves finiteness,\nwhereas God is infinite; therefore, what a man finds is naught but a\nfeeling (_mashrab\u00ed_), but what he has not found, and in despair has\nceased to seek, is the Truth of which the only finder is God. Some,\nagain, declare that _wajd_ is the glowing passion of novices, while\n_wuj\u00fad_ is a gift bestowed on lovers, and, since lovers are more exalted\nthan novices, quiet enjoyment of the gift must be more perfect than\npassionate seeking. This problem cannot be solved without a story, which\nI will now relate. One day Shibl\u00ed came in rapturous ecstasy to Junayd.\nSeeing that Junayd was sorrowful, he asked what ailed him. Junayd said,\n\u201cHe who seeks shall find.\u201d Shibl\u00ed cried, \u201cNo; he who finds shall seek.\u201d\nThis anecdote has been discussed by the Shaykhs, because Junayd was\nreferring to _wajd_ and Shibli to _wuj\u00fad_. I think Junayd\u2019s view is\nauthoritative, for, when a man knows that his object of worship is not\nof the same _genus_ as himself, his grief has no end. This topic has\nbeen handled in the present work. The Shaykhs agree that the power of\nknowledge should be greater than the power of _wajd_, since, if _wajd_\nbe more powerful, the person affected by it is in a dangerous position,\nwhereas one in whom knowledge preponderates is secure. It behoves the\nseeker in all circumstances to be a follower of knowledge and of the\nreligious law, for when he is overcome by _wajd_ he is deprived of\ndiscrimination (_khi\u1e6d\u00e1b_), and is not liable to recompense for good\nactions or punishment for evil, and is exempt from honour and disgrace\nalike: therefore he is in the predicament of madmen, not in that of the\nsaints and favourites of God. A person in whom knowledge (_`ilm_)\npreponderates over feeling (_\u1e25\u00e1l_) remains in the bosom of the Divine\ncommands and prohibitions, and is always praised and rewarded in the\npalace of glory; but a person in whom feeling preponderates over\nknowledge is outside of the ordinances, and dwells, having lost the\nfaculty of discrimination, in his own imperfection. This is precisely\nthe meaning of Junayd\u2019s words. There are two ways: one of knowledge and\none of action. Action without knowledge, although it may be good, is\nignorant and imperfect, but knowledge, even if it be unaccompanied by\naction, is glorious and noble. Hence Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd said, \u201cThe unbelief of\nthe magnanimous is nobler than the Islam of the covetous;\u201d and Junayd\nsaid, \u201cShibl\u00ed is intoxicated; if he became sober he would be an Im\u00e1m\nfrom whom people would benefit.\u201d It is a well-known story that Junayd\nand Mu\u1e25ammad[200] b. Masr\u00faq and Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s b. `A\u1e6d\u00e1 were together, and\nthe singer (_qaww\u00e1l_) was chanting a verse. Junayd remained calm while\nhis two friends fell into a forced ecstasy (_taw\u00e1jud_), and on their\nasking him why he did not participate in the audition (_sam\u00e1`_) he\nrecited the word of God: \u201c_Thou shall think them_ (the mountains)\n_motionless, but they shall pass like the clouds_\u201d (Kor. xxvii, 90).\n_Taw\u00e1jud_ is \u201ctaking pains to produce wajd\u201d, by representing to one\u2019s\nmind, for example, the bounties and evidences of God, and thinking of\nunion (_itti\u1e63\u00e1l_) and wishing for the practices of holy men. Some do\nthis _taw\u00e1jud_ in a formal manner, and imitate them by outward motions\nand methodical dancing and grace of gesture: such _taw\u00e1jud_ is\nabsolutely unlawful. Others do it in a spiritual manner, with the desire\nof attaining to their condition and degree. The Apostle said, \u201cHe who\nmakes himself like unto a people is one of them,\u201d and he said, \u201cWhen ye\nrecite the Koran, weep, or if ye weep not, then endeavour to weep.\u201d This\ntradition proclaims that _taw\u00e1jud_ is permissible. Hence that spiritual\ndirector said: \u201cI will go a thousand leagues in falsehood, that one step\nof the journey may be true.\u201d\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  Apparently a mistake for A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad. See _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t_, No. 83.\n\n                       _Chapter on Dancing, etc._\n\nYou must know that dancing (_raq\u1e63_) has no foundation either in the\nreligious law (of Islam) or in the path (of \u1e62\u00fafiism), because all\nreasonable men agree that it is a diversion when it is in earnest, and\nan impropriety (_laghw\u00ed_) when it is in jest. None of the Shaykhs has\ncommended it or exceeded due bounds therein, and all the traditions\ncited in its favour by anthropomorphists (_ahl-i \u1e25ashw_) are worthless.\nBut since ecstatic movements and the practices of those who endeavour to\ninduce ecstasy (_ahl-i taw\u00e1jud_) resemble it, some frivolous imitators\nhave indulged in it immoderately and have made it a religion. I have met\nwith a number of common people who adopted \u1e62\u00fafiism in the belief that it\nis this (dancing) and nothing more. Others have condemned it altogether.\nIn short, all foot-play (_p\u00e1y-b\u00e1z\u00ed_) is bad in law and reason, by\nwhomsoever it is practised, and the best of mankind cannot possibly\npractise it; but when the heart throbs with exhilaration and rapture\nbecomes intense and the agitation of ecstasy is manifested and\nconventional forms are gone, that agitation (_i\u1e0dtir\u00e1b_) is neither\ndancing nor foot-play nor bodily indulgence, but a dissolution of the\nsoul. Those who call it \u201cdancing\u201d are utterly wrong. It is a state that\ncannot be explained in words: \u201cwithout experience no knowledge.\u201d\n\n_Looking at youths_ (a\u1e25d\u00e1th). Looking at youths and associating with\nthem are forbidden practices, and anyone who declares this to be\nallowable is an unbeliever. The traditions brought forward in this\nmatter are vain and foolish. I have seen ignorant persons who suspected\nthe \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds of the crime in question and regarded them with abhorrence,\nand I observed that some have made it a religious rule (_madhhab\u00ed_). All\nthe \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, however, have recognized the wickedness of such\npractices, which the adherents of incarnation (_\u1e25ul\u00faliy\u00e1n_)\u2014may God\ncurse them!\u2014have left as a stigma on the saints of God and the aspirants\nto \u1e62\u00fafiism. But God knows best what is the truth.\n\n          _Chapter on the Rending of Garments_ (fi \u00b4l-kharq).\n\nIt is a custom of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds to rend their garments, and they have\ncommonly done this in great assemblies where eminent Shaykhs were\npresent. I have met with some theologians who objected to this practice\nand said that it is not right to tear an intact garment to pieces, and\nthat this is an evil. I reply that an evil of which the purpose is good\nmust itself be good. Anyone may cut an intact garment to pieces and sew\nit together again, e.g. detach the sleeves and body (_tana_) and gusset\n(_tir\u00edz_) and collar from one another, and then restore the garment to\nits original condition; and there is no difference between tearing a\ngarment into five pieces and tearing it into a hundred pieces. Besides,\nevery piece gladdens the heart of a believer, when he sews it on his\npatched frock, and brings about the satisfaction of his desire. Although\nthe rending of garments has no foundation in \u1e62\u00fafiism and certainly ought\nnot to be practised in audition by anyone whose senses are perfectly\ncontrolled\u2014for, in that case, it is mere extravagance\u2014nevertheless, if\nthe auditor be so overpowered that his sense of discrimination is lost\nand he becomes unconscious, then he may be excused (for tearing his\ngarment to pieces); and it is allowable that all the persons present\nshould rend their garments in sympathy with him. There are three\ncircumstances in which \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds rend their garments: firstly, when a\ndervish tears his own garment to pieces through rapture caused by\naudition; secondly, when a number of his friends tear his garment to\npieces at the command of a spiritual director on the occasion of asking\nGod to pardon an offence; and thirdly, when they do the same in the\nintoxication of ecstasy. The most difficult case is that of the garment\nthrown off or torn in audition. It may be injured or intact. If it be\ninjured, it should either be sewed together and given back to its owner\nor bestowed on another dervish or torn to pieces, for the sake of\ngaining a blessing, and divided among the members of the party. If it be\nintact, we have to consider what was the intention of the dervish who\ncast it off. If he meant it for the singer, let the singer take it; and\nif he meant it for the members of the party, let them have it; and if he\nthrew it off without any intention, the spiritual director must\ndetermine whether it shall be given to those present and divided among\nthem, or be conferred on one of them, or handed to the singer. If the\ndervish meant it for the singer, his companions need not throw off their\ngarments in sympathy, because the cast-off garment will not go to his\nfellows and he will have given it voluntarily or involuntarily without\ntheir participation. But if the garment was thrown off with the\nintention that it should fall to the members of the party, or without\nany intention, they should all throw off their garments in sympathy; and\nwhen they have done this, the spiritual director ought not to bestow the\ngarment on the singer, but it is allowable that any lover of God among\nthem should sacrifice something that belongs to him and return the\ngarment to the dervishes, in order that it may be torn to pieces and\ndistributed. If a garment drops off while its owner is in a state of\nrapture, the Shaykhs hold various opinions as to what ought to be done,\nbut the majority say that it should be given to the singer, in\naccordance with the Apostolic tradition: \u201cThe spoils belong to the\nslayer;\u201d and that not to give it to the singer is to violate the\nobligations imposed by \u1e62\u00fafiism. Others contend\u2014and I prefer this\nview\u2014that, just as some theologians are of opinion that the dress of a\nslain man should not be given to his slayer except by permission of the\nIm\u00e1m, so, here, this garment should not be given to the singer except by\ncommand of the spiritual director. But if its owner should not wish the\nspiritual director to bestow it, let no one be angry with him.\n\n                  _Chapter on the Rules of Audition._\n\nThe rules of audition prescribe that it should not be practised until it\ncomes (of its own accord), and that you must not make a habit of it, but\npractise it seldom, in order that you may not cease to hold it in\nreverence. It is necessary that a spiritual director should be present\nduring the performance, and that the place should be cleared of common\npeople, and that the singer should be a respectable person, and that the\nheart should be emptied of worldly thoughts, and that the disposition\nshould not be inclined to amusement, and that every artificial effort\n(_takalluf_) should be put aside. You must not exceed the proper bounds\nuntil audition manifests its power, and when it has become powerful you\nmust not repel it but must follow it as it requires: if it agitates, you\nmust be agitated, and if it calms, you must be calm; and you must be\nable to distinguish a strong natural impulse from the ardour of ecstasy\n(_wajd_). The auditor must have enough perception to be capable of\nreceiving the Divine influence and of doing justice to it. When its\nmight is manifested on his heart he must not endeavour to repel it, and\nwhen its force is broken he must not endeavour to attract it. While he\nis in a state of emotion, he must neither expect anyone to help him nor\nrefuse anyone\u2019s help if it be offered. And he must not disturb anyone\nwho is engaged in audition or interfere with him, or ponder what he\nmeans by the verse (to which he is listening),[201] because such\nbehaviour is very distressing and disappointing to the person who is\ntrying (to hear). He must not say to the singer, \u201cYou chant sweetly;\u201d\nand if he chants unmelodiously or distresses his hearer by reciting\npoetry unmetrically, he must not say to him, \u201cChant better!\u201d or bear\nmalice towards him, but he must be unconscious of the singer\u2019s presence\nand commit him to God, who hears correctly. And if he have no part in\nthe audition which is being enjoyed by others, it is not proper that he\nshould look soberly on their intoxication, but he must keep quiet with\nhis own \u201ctime\u201d (_waqt_) and establish its dominion, that the blessings\nthereof may come to him. I, `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Jull\u00e1b\u00ed, think it more\ndesirable that beginners should not be allowed to attend musical\nconcerts (_sam\u00e1`h\u00e1_), lest their natures become depraved. These concerts\nare extremely dangerous and corrupting, because women on the roofs or\nelsewhere look at the dervishes who are engaged in audition; and in\nconsequence of this the auditors have great obstacles to encounter. Or\nit may happen that a young reprobate is one of the party, since some\nignorant \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds have made a religion (_madhhab_) of all this and have\nflung truth to the winds. I ask pardon of God for my sins of this kind\nin the past, and I implore His help, that He may preserve me both\noutwardly and inwardly from contamination, and I enjoin the readers of\nthis book to hold it in due regard and to pray that the author may\nbelieve to the end and be vouchsafed the vision of God (in Paradise).\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  The text of this clause is uncertain. I have followed B.\u2019s reading, _\u00fa\n  mur\u00e1d-i \u00far\u00e1 bad\u00e1n bayt-i \u00fa bi-na-sanjad_, but I am not sure that it\n  will bear the translation given above. L. has _bad\u00e1n niyyat-i \u00fa_, and\n  J. _bad\u00e1n nisbat-i \u00fa_.\n\n\n\n\n                                 INDEX.\n\n                                   I.\n         NAMES OF PERSONS, PEOPLES, TRIBES, SECTS, AND PLACES.\n\n                                   A.\n\n Aaron, 262.\n `Abb\u00e1s, uncle of the Prophet, 99.\n `Abdall\u00e1h An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed, 26.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Badr al-Juhan\u00ed, =81=.\n \u2014\u2014 b. \u1e24an\u1e95ala, 394.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Ja`far, 319.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Khubayq. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad `Abdall\u00e1h b. Khubayq.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Mas`\u00fad al-Hudhal\u00ed, 81.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Mub\u00e1rak, 95-7, 274, 303.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Rab\u00e1\u1e25, 73.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Umar, 81, 191, 232.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Unays, 82.\n `Abd al-Razz\u00e1q \u1e62an`\u00e1n\u00ed, 98.\n Abel, 364.\n Abraham, 40, 73, 74, 91, 115, 161, 232, 237, 252, 262, 317, 318, 326,\n    327, 328, 342, 353, 365, 370, 371, 373.\n \u2014\u2014 the Station of, 326, 328.\n Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s, 173.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. Masr\u00faq, 146-7.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Ashq\u00e1n\u00ed, 150, =168=, 206, 395, 412.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1b, 161, 325, 395.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad b. Sahl al-\u00c1mul\u00ed, 149-50.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Al\u00ed, 191.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `A\u1e6da, 21, 23, 150, 158, 180, 249, 330, 395, 415.\n \u2014\u2014 Q\u00e1sim b. al-Mahd\u00ed al-Sayy\u00e1r\u00ed, =157-8=, =228=, =251-60=.\n Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1b. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63ab.\n \u2014\u2014 Sayy\u00e1r\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s Q\u00e1sim b. al-Mahd\u00ed al-Sayy\u00e1r\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Shaq\u00e1ni. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Ashq\u00e1n\u00ed.\n Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h al-Ab\u00edward\u00ed (B\u00e1ward\u00ed), 123, 124.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. `\u00c1\u1e63im al-An\u1e6d\u00e1k\u00ed, 127.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 al-Jall\u00e1, 37, 134-5.\n \u2014\u2014 al-\u1e24\u00e1rith b. Asad al-Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, 21, =108-9=, 127, 154, =176-83=, 225,\n    249, 286, 307, 335.\n \u2014\u2014 Junayd\u00ed, 173.\n \u2014\u2014 Khaf\u00edf. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf.\n \u2014\u2014 Khayy\u00e1\u1e6d\u00ed, 161.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-D\u00e1st\u00e1n\u00ed, 164.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 46, _141-2_, 147, 200, =210-41=, 338.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Fa\u1e0dl al-Balkh\u00ed, 16, 134, =140-1=, 208, 327.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24ak\u00edm, known as Mur\u00edd, 175.\n \u2014\u2014 Muh\u1ea1mmad b. Ism\u00e1`\u00edl al-Maghrib\u00ed, 147.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf, 50, 51, 150, 151, =158=, 226, =247-51=, 290,\n    323.\n \u2014\u2014 R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed, 318.\n Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n \u1e24\u00e1tim b. `Ulw\u00e1n al-A\u1e63amm, 13, =115=, 286, 300.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24usayn al-Sulam\u00ed, 81, 108, 401.\n Ab\u00fa A\u1e25mad al-Mu\u1e95affar b. A\u1e25mad b. \u1e24amd\u00e1n, 170-1.\n Abu \u00b4l-`Al\u00e1 `Abd al-Ra\u1e25\u00edm b. A\u1e25mad al-Sughd\u00ed, 175.\n Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed al-Daqq\u00e1q. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed \u1e24asan b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Daqq\u00e1q.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Fa\u1e0dl b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-F\u00e1rmadh\u00ed, 169.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d, 93, =97-100=, 103, 105, 109, 114, 127, 179, 286,\n    328.\n \u2014\u2014 al-\u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed al-J\u00fazaj\u00e1n\u00ed, 147-8, 216.\n \u2014\u2014 \u1e24asan b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Daqq\u00e1q, =162-3=, 272, 284, 370.\n \u2014\u2014 al-J\u00fazaj\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed al-\u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed al-J\u00fazaj\u00e1n\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Q\u00e1sim al-R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed, =157=, 237, 253, 293, 404, 409.\n \u2014\u2014 Qarm\u00edn\u00ed, 43.\n \u2014\u2014 al-R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Q\u00e1sim al-R\u00fadb\u00e1r\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Shaq\u00edq b. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-Azd\u00ed, =111-12=, 115, 286, 358, 359.\n \u2014\u2014 Siy\u00e1h, 57, 205, 209, 323.\n \u2014\u2014 Thaqaf\u00ed, 16.\n \u2014\u2014 Z\u00e1hir, 165.\n Ab\u00fa `Amr Dimashq\u00ed, 38.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Nujayd, 298.\n \u2014\u2014 Qazw\u00edn\u00ed, 166.\n Ab\u00fa Bakr, the Caliph, 31, 32, 45, =70-2=, 102, 204, 229, 284, 304, 315.\n \u2014\u2014 Dulaf b. Ja\u1e25dar al-Shibl\u00ed, 25, 27, 38, 39, 137, 144, 150, 151,\n    =155-6=, 158, 159, 195, 210, 227, 228, 249, 257, 275, 276, 284, 293,\n    294, 305, 313, 315, 330, 331, 351, 353, 356, 359, 374, 376, 378,\n    394, 404, 414, 415.\n \u2014\u2014 b. F\u00farak, 214.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad al-D\u00ednawar\u00ed, 408.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. M\u00fas\u00e1 al-W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed, 8, =154-5=, 157, 158, 228, 251, 265,\n    277.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Umar al-Warr\u00e1q, 17, =141=, =142-3=, 147, 229, 235, 338.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. Zakariyy\u00e1 al-R\u00e1z\u00ed, 150.\n Ab\u00fa Bakr al-Warr\u00e1q. _See_ Ab\u00fa Bakr Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Umar al-Warr\u00e1q.\n \u2014\u2014 al-W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Bakr Mu\u1e25ammad b. M\u00fas\u00e1 al-W\u00e1si\u1e6d\u00ed.\n Ab\u00fa Dard\u00e1 `Uwaym b. `\u00c1mir, 81, 232.\n Ab\u00fa Dharr Jundab b. Jun\u00e1da al-Ghif\u00e1r\u00ed, 81, =177=, =178=, 344.\n Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl b. al-Asad\u00ed, 175.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-\u1e24asan, 165, 188, 227.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan al-Khuttal\u00ed, 166-7.\n Abu \u00b4l-Fat\u1e25 b. S\u00e1liba, 173.\n Abu \u00b4l-Faw\u00e1ris Sh\u00e1h b. Shuj\u00e1` al-Kirm\u00e1n\u00ed, 52, 123, 132, =133=, =138=,\n    352.\n Abu \u00b4l-Fay\u1e0d Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan b. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-Mi\u1e63r\u00ed, 36, =100-3=, 117, 136, 143,\n    200, 208, 226, 233, 250, 275, 286, 298, 299, 303, 329, 332, 359,\n    404.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 `Amr b. S\u00e1lim al-N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far\u00ed al-\u1e24add\u00e1d\u00ed, 41, 52, 120, =123-4=,\n    132, 133, 134, 257, 276, 298.\n \u2014\u2014 al-\u1e24add\u00e1d. _See_ Ab\u00fa \u1e24af\u1e63 `Amr b. S\u00e1lim al-N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far\u00ed al-\u1e24add\u00e1d\u00ed.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e24al\u00edm \u1e24ab\u00edb b. Sal\u00edm al-R\u00e1`\u00ed, =90-1=, 109, 110.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e24\u00e1mid A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya al-Balkh\u00ed, 52, 115, =119-21=, 123, 140,\n    142, 338.\n \u2014\u2014 D\u00fast\u00e1n, 52.\n Ab\u00fa Hamza al-Baghd\u00e1d\u00ed, 144, =154=, 182, 183, 190, 249, 286.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n\u00ed, 146.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e24an\u00edfa, 46, 65, =92-5=, 98, 103, 109, 141, 286.\n Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24\u00e1rith Bun\u00e1n\u00ed, 411.\n Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan A\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed, 21, 113, =118-19=, 131, 397.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-N\u00far\u00ed, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43, =130-2=, 134, 137,\n    144, 154, 176, =189-95=, 225, 269.\n \u2014\u2014 `Al\u00ed b. Ab\u00ed `Al\u00ed al-Aswad, 174.\n \u2014\u2014 `Al\u00ed b. A\u1e25mad al-Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed, 163, 173.\n \u2014\u2014 `Al\u00ed b. Bakr\u00e1n, 172, 247.\n \u2014\u2014 `Al\u00ed b. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed, 38, 40, 122, 150, =160=, 166, 249, 257,\n    281, 282, 378, 405.\n Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-I\u1e63fah\u00e1n\u00ed, =142-4=, 150, 351, 353.\n \u2014\u2014 B\u00fashanj\u00ed (F\u00fashanja), 44, 299.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. A\u1e25mad al-Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. Ism\u00e1`\u00edl Khayr al-Nass\u00e1j, =144-5=, 154, 155, 286, 387.\n \u2014\u2014 al-N\u00far\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-N\u00far\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 b. S\u00e1liba, 104, 166, 172.\n \u2014\u2014 Sar\u00ed b. Mughallis al-Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed, =110-11=, 114, 117, 127, 128, 129, 131,\n    143, 144, 154.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Sim`\u00fan, 21.\n \u2014\u2014 Sumn\u00fan b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Khaww\u00e1\u1e63, 59, =136-8=, 249, 286, 308, 312.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e24\u00e1zim al-Madan\u00ed, 91.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e24ulm\u00e1n, 131, 260, 261.\n Ab\u00fa Hurayra, 82, 232.\n Ab\u00fa `\u00cds\u00e1 `Uwaym b. S\u00e1`ida, 82.\n Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham b. Man\u1e63\u00far, 12, 46, 68, 93, =103-5=, 109,\n    111, 217, 232, 286, 323.\n \u2014\u2014 Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. A\u1e25mad al-Khaww\u00e1\u1e63, 147, =153-4=, 205, 207, 222, 223, 285,\n    289, 292, 293, 339, 342, 362, 399, 410.\n \u2014\u2014 Isfar\u00e1\u00b4in\u00ed, 214.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Shahriy\u00e1r, 172, 173.\n Ab\u00fa Ja`far \u1e24add\u00e1d, 249.\n \u2014\u2014 Juhan\u00ed, 396.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed, 173.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed b. \u1e24usayn al-B\u00e1qir, 77-8.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24usayn al-\u1e24aram\u00ed, 174.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Mi\u1e63b\u00e1\u1e25 al-\u1e62aydal\u00e1n\u00ed, 172, 260.\n \u2014\u2014 Tursh\u00edz\u00ed, 173.\n Ab\u00fa Jahl, 204, 394.\n Ab\u00fa Kabsha, 81.\n Abu \u00b4l-Khayr Aq\u1e6da`, 304.\n Ab\u00fa Lub\u00e1ba b `Abd al-Mundhir, 81.\n Abu \u00b4l-Ma\u1e25\u00e1sin, 137, 233.\n Ab\u00fa Ma\u1e25f\u00fa\u1e95 Ma`r\u00faf b. F\u00edr\u00faz al-Karkh\u00ed, 110, =113-15=, 117.\n Ab\u00fa Ma`mar, of I\u1e63fah\u00e1n, 56.\n Abu \u00b4l-Marthad Kin\u00e1na b. al-\u1e24usayn al-`Adaw\u00ed, 81.\n Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad `Abdall\u00e1h b. Khubayq, 128.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. al-\u1e24usayn al-Jurayr\u00ed, =148-9=, 150, 158, 249, 286, 408.\n \u2014\u2014 B\u00e1nghar\u00ed, 174, 323.\n \u2014\u2014 Ja`far b. Mu\u1e25ammad \u1e62\u00e1diq, 78-80.\n \u2014\u2014 Ja`far b. Nu\u1e63ayr al-Khuld\u00ed, 155, =156-7=, 193.\n \u2014\u2014 Murta`ish, 39, 42, 43, 53, 54, 155.\n \u2014\u2014 Ruwaym b. A\u1e25mad, 21, 25, 134, =135-6=, 194\n \u2014\u2014 Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Tustar\u00ed, 13, =139-40=, 148, 151, 189,\n    =195-210=, 225, 233, 249, 257, 283, 286, 296, 302, 311, 318, 322,\n    330, 338, 348, 349, 363.\n Ab\u00fa M\u00fas\u00e1 al-Ash`ar\u00ed, 399.\n Ab\u00fa Muslim, 358.\n \u2014\u2014 F\u00e1ris b. Gh\u00e1lib al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed, 165, =172=, 319, 346, 408.\n Ab\u00fa Na\u1e63r al-Sarr\u00e1j, 255, 323, 341.\n Ab\u00fa Nuw\u00e1s, 8, 406.\n Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim, of Merv, 233.\n \u2014\u2014 `Abd al-Kar\u00edm b. Haw\u00e1zin al-Qushayr\u00ed, 24, 114, 123, 150, 163,\n    =167-8=, 177, 227, 306, 311, 334, 408.\n \u2014\u2014 `Al\u00ed b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed, 49, 150, =169-70=, 206, 234, 339.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim `Al\u00ed b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Gurg\u00e1n\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 al-\u1e24ak\u00edm, 338.\n \u2014\u2014 Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Mu\u1e25ammad b. Ma\u1e25m\u00fad al-Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1d\u00ed, 150, =159-60=, 162.\n \u2014\u2014 Junayd, 5, 23, 27, 39, 57, 74, 103, =106=, 110, 115, 118, 123, 124,\n    =128-30=, =131=, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148,\n    149, 150, 151, 154, 156, 157, 166, 182, =185-9=, 194, 200, 206, 208,\n    216, 225, 228, 249, 250, 251, 260, 281, 282, 284, 286, 293, 296,\n    297, 299, 303, 307, 320, 328, 331, 338, 339, 343, 351, 352, 355,\n    356, 359, 368, 387, 388, 394, 408, 409, 412, 414, 415.\n Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1d\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Mu\u1e25ammad b.\n    Ma\u1e25m\u00fad al-Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1d\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Qushayr\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim `Abd al-Kar\u00edm b. Haw\u00e1zin al-Qushayr\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Sudd\u00ed, 172.\n Ab\u00fa Qat\u00e1da, 73.\n Ab\u00fa Sahl \u1e62u`l\u00fak\u00ed, 272, 284, 319.\n Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd, the Carmathian, 150.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Abi \u00b4l-Khayr Fa\u1e0dlall\u00e1h b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Mayhan\u00ed, 21, 22, 119, 150,\n    163, =164-6=, 170, 218, 235, 250, 318, 346.\n \u2014\u2014 A\u1e25mad b. `\u00cds\u00e1. al-Kharr\u00e1z, 138, =143=, 146, 149, 232, 233, =241-6=,\n    368, 374.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 6.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Kharr\u00e1z. _See_ Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd A\u1e25mad b. `\u00cds\u00e1. al-Kharr\u00e1z.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Khudr\u00ed, 396.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e62\u00e1li\u1e25 \u1e24amd\u00fan b. A\u1e25mad b. `Um\u00e1ra al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r, 66, =125-6=, =183-4=,\n    195, 225, 249.\n Abu \u00b4l-Sar\u00ed Man\u1e63\u00far b. `Amm\u00e1r, 126-7.\n Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n b. `A\u1e6diyya al-D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed, 13, =112-13=, 114,\n    118, 200, 225, 286.\n \u2014\u2014 al-D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n b. `A\u1e6diyya al-D\u00e1r\u00e1n\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 D\u00e1wud b. Nu\u1e63ayr al-\u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed, 46, 79, 93, 95, =109-10=, 114, 286, 350.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1hir \u1e24aram\u00ed, 64, 292.\n \u2014\u2014 Maksh\u00faf, 173.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e6cal\u1e25a al-M\u00e1lik\u00ed, 322.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1lib, father of the Caliph `Al\u00ed, 269.\n Ab\u00fa \u1e6c\u00e1lib, Shaykh, 173.\n Ab\u00fa Thawr Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Kh\u00e1lid, 125.\n Ab\u00fa Tur\u00e1b `Askar b. al-\u1e24usayn al-Nakhshab\u00ed, =121-2=, 125, 138, 143,\n    146.\n Ab\u00fa `Ubayda b. al-Jarr\u00e1\u1e25, 81.\n Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n al-\u1e24\u00edr\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n Sa`\u00edd b. Ism\u00e1`\u00edl al-\u1e24\u00edr\u00ed.\n Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n al-Maghrib\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Uthm\u00e1n Sa`\u00edd b. Sall\u00e1m al-Maghrib\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Sa`\u00edd b. Ism\u00e1`\u00edl al-\u1e24\u00edr\u00ed, =132-4=, 138, 140, 180, 181, 298.\n \u2014\u2014 Sa`\u00edd b. Sall\u00e1m al-Maghrib\u00ed, =158-9=, 186, 217.\n Ab\u00fa Ya`q\u00fab Aq\u1e6da`, 150.\n \u2014\u2014 Nahraj\u00far\u00ed, 150, 158, 245.\n \u2014\u2014 Y\u00fasuf b. al-\u1e24usayn al-R\u00e1z\u00ed, 134, =136=.\n Abu \u00b4l-Yaq\u1e95\u00e1n `Amm\u00e1r b. Y\u00e1sir, 81.\n Abu \u00b4l-Yasar Ka`b b. `Amr, 82.\n Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd \u1e6cayf\u00far b. `\u00cds\u00e1 al-Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed, 17, 52, 65, 68, =106-8=, 120, 176,\n    =184-8=, 200, 217, 226, 238, 250, 254, 257, 258, 275, 286, 291, 293,\n    311, 327, 331, 332, 335, 347, 351, 359, 375, 388, 415.\n Ab\u00fa Y\u00fasuf, the Cadi, 110, 286.\n Ab\u00fa Zakariyy\u00e1 Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed, 17, 21, 25, 94, 120, =122-3=,\n    132, 133, 187, 226, 312, 337, 360.\n Adam, 63, 109, 124, 130, 144, 159, 160, 208, 239, 240, 249, 252, 262,\n    297, 324, 353, 355, 357, 363, 364, 371, 383.\n \u00c1dharb\u00e1yaj\u00e1n, 57, 173, 410.\n Ad\u00edb Kamand\u00ed (Kumand\u00ed), 173, 335.\n Ahl-i \u1e25ad\u00edth, 401.\n Ahl-i ra\u00b4y, 401.\n Ahl-i \u1e62uffa, 80, =81-2=, 344.\n   _See_ A\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b-i \u1e62uffa.\n A\u1e25mad, Khw\u00e1ja, 170.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan A\u1e25mad b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e24aw\u00e1r\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `\u00c1\u1e63im al-An\u1e6d\u00e1k\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h A\u1e25mad b. `\u00c1\u1e63im al-An\u1e6d\u00e1k\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 Bukh\u00e1r\u00ed, 321.\n \u2014\u2014 b. F\u00e1tik, 66.\n \u2014\u2014 \u1e24amm\u00e1d\u00ed, 174, 193, 364.\n \u2014\u2014 b. \u1e24anbal, 116, =117-18=, 286.\n \u2014\u2014 b. \u1e24arb, 365, 366.\n \u2014\u2014 \u00cdl\u00e1q\u00ed, =174=.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya. _See_ Ab\u00fa \u1e24\u00e1mid A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya al-Balkh\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Masr\u00faq. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s A\u1e25mad b. Masr\u00faq.\n A\u1e25mad Najj\u00e1r Samarqand\u00ed, 174, 353.\n Ahriman, 280.\n `\u00c1\u00b4isha, 42, 45, 82, 320, 331, 401.\n Akh\u00ed Zanj\u00e1n\u00ed, 173.\n `Al\u00e1 b. al-\u1e24a\u1e0dram\u00ed, 232.\n `Al\u00ed b. Ab\u00ed \u1e6c\u00e1lib, 45, =74=, 83, 84, 152, 192, 269, 300, 315, 336, 361,\n    411.\n `Al\u00ed A\u1e63ghar, 76.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Bakk\u00e1r, 323.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Bund\u00e1r al-\u1e62ayraf\u00ed, 16, 41.\n \u2014\u2014 b. \u1e24usayn b. `Al\u00ed, called Zayn al-`\u00c1bid\u00edn, 76-7.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-\u1e24usayn al-S\u00edrg\u00e1n\u00ed, 173.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Is\u1e25\u00e1q, 174.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Khashram, 105.\n \u2014\u2014 b. M\u00fas\u00e1 al-Ri\u1e0d\u00e1, 114.\n \u2014\u2014 Na\u1e63r\u00e1b\u00e1d\u00ed, 125.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Sahl al-I\u1e63fah\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. Mu\u1e25ammad\n    al-I\u1e63fah\u00e1n\u00ed.\n `Amr b. al-Shar\u00edd, 397.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Makk\u00ed, 91, =138-9=, 143, 150, 151, 189, 309.\n \u00c1mul, 162.\n Anas b. M\u00e1lik, 12.\n Anthropomorphists, 117, 118, 131, 213, 236, 289, 316.\n   _See_ \u1e24ashwiyya.\n `Araf\u00e1t, 326, 328.\n `\u00c1rif, Khw\u00e1ja, 174.\n \u00c1\u1e63af b. Barkhiy\u00e1, 230.\n A\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b al-kahf, 230.\n   _See_ Cave, men of the.\n A\u1e63\u1e25\u00e1b-i \u1e62uffa, 30.\n   _See_ Ahl-i \u1e62uffa.\n Ashl\u00e1tak, 234.\n `A\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1r, Far\u00edd al-D\u00edn, 51.\n Aw\u1e25ad Qaswarat b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-Jard\u00edz\u00ed, 175.\n `Azr\u00e1\u00b4\u00edl, 412.\n\n                                   B.\n\n B\u00e1b al-\u1e6c\u00e1q, 57.\n \u2014\u2014 `Umar, 234.\n Badr, 45, 255.\n \u2014\u2014 al-D\u00edn, 173.\n Baghd\u00e1d, 53, 57, 96, 108, 110, 117, 123, 129, 137, 150, 151, 152, 154,\n    323, 356, 358, 378, 409.\n Bahsham\u00eds, a sect of the Mu`tazilites, 295.\n Bal`am, 273.\n Balkh, 103, 112, 115, 119, 120, 123, 140, 286.\n B\u00e1niy\u00e1s, 167.\n Ban\u00fa Shayba, gate of the, 94.\n \u2014\u2014 Umayya, 78.\n B\u00e1qir. _See_ Ab\u00fa Ja`far Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed b. \u1e24usayn al-B\u00e1qir.\n Bar\u1e63\u00ed\u1e63\u00e1, 273.\n Ba\u1e63ra, 13, 84, 121, 131, 408, 409.\n B\u00e1\u1e6diniy\u00e1n, 263.\n Bat\u00fal, 79.\n B\u00e1ward, 97.\n B\u00e1yaz\u00edd al-Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Yaz\u00edd \u1e6cayf\u00far b. `\u00cds\u00e1 al-Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m\u00ed.\n Bay\u1e0d\u00e1, 150.\n Bay\u1e0d\u00e1w\u00ed, 273, 348.\n Bayt al-Jinn, 167, 234.\n \u2014\u2014 al-sib\u00e1`, at Tustar, 233.\n Bil\u00e1l b. Rab\u00e1\u1e25, 81, 94, 301, 302.\n Bilq\u00eds, 230.\n Bishr b. al-\u1e24\u00e1rith al-\u1e24\u00e1f\u00ed, 25, 93, =105-6=, 117, 127, 143, 179, 286.\n Bis\u1e6d\u00e1m, 106, 164, 286.\n Brahmans, 236, 271.\n Bukh\u00e1r\u00e1, 353.\n Bund\u00e1r b. al-\u1e24usayn, 249.\n Bur\u00e1q, 380.\n Buzurjmihr, 401.\n\n                                   C.\n\n Cain, 364.\n Carmathians, 263, 383.\n Cave, the men of the, 230, 354.\n Chah\u00e1r \u1e6c\u00e1q, 358.\n China, 11.\n Chinese, 263.\n Christians, 244, 263.\n\n                                   D.\n\n Dajj\u00e1l, 224.\n Damascus, 76, 94, 131, 167, 234, 260, 343.\n Darr\u00e1j, 408.\n al-D\u00e1st\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-D\u00e1st\u00e1n\u00ed.\n David, 52, 185, 197, 255, 320, 329, 352, 371, 399, 402, 403.\n D\u00e1wud of I\u1e63fah\u00e1n, 135.\n \u2014\u2014 al-\u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Sulaym\u00e1n D\u00e1wud b. Nu\u1e63ayr al-\u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed.\n Dhahab\u00ed, 118.\n Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Fay\u1e0d Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan b. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-Mi\u1e63r\u00ed.\n D\u00edn\u00e1r, 89.\n Duqq\u00ed, 408.\n\n                                   E.\n\n Egypt, 32, 100, 101, 143, 233, 332, 404.\n Euphrates, the, 84, 90, 234.\n Eve, 353.\n\n                                   F.\n\n Fa\u1e0dl b. Rab\u00ed`, 98, 100.\n Faraj, Shaykh, 173.\n Farazdaq, 77.\n Fargh\u00e1na, 234, 235.\n F\u00e1ris, 260, 261.\n F\u00e1ris\u00eds, 131, 260.\n F\u00e1rs, 51, 151, 172.\n F\u00e1\u1e6dima, daughter of the Prophet, 79.\n \u2014\u2014 wife of A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya, 119, 120.\n \u2014\u2014 wife of B\u00e1b `Umar, 234, 235.\n Fayd, 137.\n Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed al-Fu\u1e0dayl b. `Iy\u00e1\u1e0d.\n\n                                   G.\n\n Gabriel, 73, 106, 237, 240, 241, 254, 304, 305, 320, 335, 380, 408.\n Ghazna, 53, 91, 94, 175.\n Ghul\u00e1m al-Khal\u00edl, 137, 190.\n Goliath, 185, 255.\n\n                                   H.\n\n \u1e24ab\u00edb, name of Mu\u1e25ammad, 317.\n \u2014\u2014 al-`Ajam\u00ed, 88-9.\n \u2014\u2014 al-R\u00e1`\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa \u1e24al\u00edm \u1e24ab\u00edb b. Sal\u00edm al-R\u00e1`\u00ed.\n \u1e24af\u1e63 Mi\u1e63\u1e63\u00ed\u1e63\u00ed, 323.\n \u1e24af\u1e63a, 320.\n Hagar, 74, 365.\n \u1e24ajj\u00e1j, 88.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Umar al-Aslam\u00ed, 82.\n \u1e24ak\u00edm b. `Al\u00ed b. al-\u1e24usayn al-S\u00edrg\u00e1n\u00ed, 173.\n \u1e24ak\u00edm\u00eds, 130, 141, =210-41=.\n \u1e24all\u00e1j. _See_ \u1e24usayn b. Man\u1e63\u00far al-\u1e24all\u00e1j.\n \u1e24all\u00e1j\u00eds, 131, 152, 260.\n \u1e24amd\u00fan Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r. _See_ Ab\u00fa \u1e62\u00e1li\u1e25 \u1e24amd\u00fan b. A\u1e25mad b. `Um\u00e1ra al-Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r.\n \u1e24amd\u00fan\u00eds, 195.\n   _See_ Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r\u00eds.\n Harim b. \u1e24ayy\u00e1n, 45, =84-5=.\n \u1e24\u00e1rith al-Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h al-\u1e24\u00e1rith b. Asad al-Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed.\n \u1e24\u00e1ritha, 33, 227, 229.\n H\u00e1r\u00fan al-Rash\u00edd, 98, 99, 100.\n H\u00e1r\u00fat, 364.\n \u1e24asan b. `Al\u00ed, 73, 75-6, 319, 411.\n \u2014\u2014 of Ba\u1e63ra, 45, 46, 75, =86-7=, 88, 89, 232, 362.\n \u2014\u2014 Mu\u00b4addib, 163.\n \u1e24ashwiyya, \u1e25ashwiy\u00e1n, 213, 236, 244, 289.\n   _See_ Anthropomorphists.\n \u1e24ass\u00e1n b. Th\u00e1bit, 411.\n \u1e24\u00e1tim al-A\u1e63amm. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n \u1e24\u00e1tim b. `Ulw\u00e1n al-A\u1e63amm.\n \u2014\u2014 \u1e6c\u00e1\u00b4\u00ed, 318.\n Her\u00e1t, 26.\n \u1e24ij\u00e1z, the, 65, 96, 137, 319.\n \u1e24\u00edra quarter of N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, 183.\n Hish\u00e1m b. `Abd al-Malik, 77.\n H\u00fad, 396.\n Hudhayfa al-Yam\u00e1n\u00ed, 81.\n \u1e24ulm\u00e1n\u00eds, 131, 260.\n \u1e24ul\u00fal\u00eds, 131, 183, =260-6=, 416.\n \u1e24ulw\u00e1n, 319.\n \u1e24usayn b. `Al\u00ed, =76=, 177, 178.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Fa\u1e0dl, 286.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Man\u1e63\u00far al-\u1e24all\u00e1j, 66, =150-3=, 158, 172, 189, 205, 226, 249, 259,\n    260, 281, 285, 303, 311, 344.\n \u2014\u2014 Simn\u00e1n, Khw\u00e1ja, 173.\n \u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-\u1e24u\u1e63r\u00ed.\n\n                                   I.\n\n Ib\u00e1\u1e25at\u00eds, 131.\n Ibl\u00eds, 63, 129, 130, 208, 239, 252, 268, 273, 351, 357, 402, 403, 412.\n Ibn `Abb\u00e1s, 81, 331, 351.\n \u2014\u2014 `A\u1e6d\u00e1. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-`Abb\u00e1s b. `A\u1e6d\u00e1.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Ath\u00edr, 358.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Jall\u00e1. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h A\u1e25mad b. Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 al-Jall\u00e1.\n \u2014\u2014 Khallik\u00e1n, 92, 98, 125, 214, 358, 396.\n \u2014\u2014 Mas`\u00fad, 396.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Mu`all\u00e1, 343, 344.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Q\u00fa\u1e6d\u00ed, 408.\n \u2014\u2014 `Umar. _See_ `Abdall\u00e1h b. `Umar.\n Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham. _See_ Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. Adham b. Man\u1e63\u00far.\n \u2014\u2014 b. D\u00e1wud al-Raqq\u00ed, 408.\n \u2014\u2014 Khaww\u00e1\u1e63. _See_ Ab\u00fa Is\u1e25\u00e1q Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm b. A\u1e25mad al-Khaww\u00e1\u1e63.\n \u2014\u2014 M\u00e1rist\u00e1n\u00ed, 149.\n \u2014\u2014 Nakha`\u00ed, 396.\n \u2014\u2014 Raqq\u00ed, 233.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Sa`d `Alaw\u00ed, 374.\n \u2014\u2014 Samarqand\u00ed, 147.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Shayb\u00e1n, 246.\n \u2014\u2014 Shayb\u00e1ni, 147.\n `Imr\u00e1n, 179.\n India, 243, 400, 407.\n Indians, 263.\n Iram, 224.\n `Ir\u00e1q, 110, 116, 126, 140, 172, 177, 249, 260, 345, 400.\n I\u1e63fah\u00e1n, 138.\n Is\u1e25\u00e1q of Maw\u1e63il, 399.\n Ishmael, 40, 74, 252, 353.\n Ism\u00e1`\u00edl al-Sh\u00e1sh\u00ed, 175.\n Ism\u00e1`\u00edl\u00eds, 263.\n Israelites, 192.\n \u2014\u2014 desert of the, 229.\n\n                                   J.\n\n Jabal al-Buttam, 408.\n Jabarites, 75.\n Jacob, 258, 310, 370.\n Ja`far al-Khuld\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Ja`far b. Nu\u1e63ayr al-Khuld\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 \u1e62\u00e1diq. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Ja`far b. Mu\u1e25ammad \u1e62\u00e1diq.\n J\u00e1\u1e25i\u1e95, 8.\n Jerusalem, 101, 215.\n Jesus, 40, 50, 232, 244, 262, 273, 371, 375, 376.\n Jews, 261.\n Jidda, 233.\n Job, 24, 40, 251.\n John the Baptist, 40, 371, 375, 376.\n   _See_ Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Zakariyy\u00e1.\n Joseph, 32, 258, 262, 310, 335, 365, 395.\n Junayd. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim Junayd.\n Junayd\u00eds, 130, =185-9=, 195.\n Jurayj, 232.\n Jurayr\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad A\u1e25mad b. al-\u1e24usayn al-Jurayr\u00ed.\n Jurj\u00e1n\u00ed, 373.\n\n                                   K.\n\n Ka`ba, the, 12, 121, 141, 239, 240, 258, 300, 326, 327, 329, 337, 397.\n Kamand (Kumand), 335.\n Karbal\u00e1, 76.\n Karkh, 356, 378.\n Katt\u00e1n\u00ed, 325.\n Khabb\u00e1b b. al-Aratt, 81.\n Kha\u1e0dir. _See_ Khi\u1e0dr.\n Khaf\u00edf\u00eds, 130, =247-51=.\n Kh\u00e1lid b. Wal\u00edd, 232.\n Khal\u00edl, 73, 91, 317.\n   _See_ Abraham.\n Kh\u00e1rijites, 286.\n Kharr\u00e1z. _See_ Ab\u00fa Sa`\u00edd A\u1e25mad b. `\u00cds\u00e1 al-Kharr\u00e1z.\n Kharr\u00e1z\u00eds, 130, =241-6=.\n Khayr al-Nass\u00e1j. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan Mu\u1e25ammad b. Ism\u00e1`\u00edl Khayr\n    al-Nass\u00e1j.\n Khaz\u00e1\u00b4in\u00ed, Im\u00e1m, 227.\n Khi\u1e0dr, 103, 141, 142, 153, 290, 342.\n Khubayb, 221.\n Khur\u00e1s\u00e1n, 69, 115, 121, 123, 126, 134, 140, 146, 151, 159, 173, 174,\n    177, 236, 335, 400.\n Khurq\u00e1n, 163.\n Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan `Al\u00ed b. A\u1e25mad al-Khurq\u00e1n\u00ed.\n Khusraw. _See_ N\u00fash\u00edrw\u00e1n.\n al-Khuttal\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Fa\u1e0dl Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-\u1e24asan al-Khuttal\u00ed.\n Kh\u00fazist\u00e1n, 151.\n Kirm\u00e1n, 51, 123, 132, 133, 173.\n Kish, 173.\n Korah, 347.\n K\u00fafa, 46, 75, 84, 98, 104, 118, 145, 205, 339, 360, 396.\n Kumish, 173.\n\n                                   L.\n\n Lab\u00edd, 397.\n Lah\u00e1wur, 91.\n Layl\u00e1, 258, 353.\n Luk\u00e1m, Mount, 166.\n Luqm\u00e1n of Sarakhs, 188.\n\n                                   M.\n\n Magians, 280, 404.\n Ma\u1e25m\u00fad, Khw\u00e1ja, 174.\n Majn\u00fan, 258, 353.\n Mal\u00e1mat\u00eds, 50, =62-9=.\n M\u00e1lik, the Im\u00e1m, 116, 286.\n M\u00e1lik b. D\u00edn\u00e1r, 46, =89-90=, 337.\n M\u00e1n\u00ed (Manes), 407.\n Manich\u00e6ans, 31.\n Man\u1e63\u00far, the Caliph, 93.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Amm\u00e1r. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Sar\u00ed Man\u1e63\u00far b. `Amm\u00e1r.\n Maq\u00e1m-i Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm, 326.\n Maqdis\u00ed, 260.\n Ma`r\u00faf Karkh\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Ma\u1e25f\u00fa\u1e95 Ma`r\u00faf b. F\u00edr\u00faz al-Karkh\u00ed.\n M\u00e1r\u00fat, 364.\n Marv al-R\u00fad, 50.\n Marwa, 326, 328.\n Marw\u00e1n b. Mu`\u00e1wiya, 118.\n Mary, the Virgin, 230, 244.\n Mash`ar al-\u1e24ar\u00e1m, 326.\n Mas`\u00fad, spiritual director, 323.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Rab\u00ed` al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed, 81.\n Mayhana, 164, 235.\n Mecca, 77, 83, 84, 87, 91, 94, 96, 98, 107, 145, 158, 186, 192, 215,\n    221, 258, 290, 292, 326, 327, 329, 339, 340, 372, 378.\n Med\u00edna, 116, 221.\n Merv, 52, 96, 97, 154, 158, 174, 205, 209, 251, 323, 401.\n Michael, 241.\n Mihna. _See_ Mayhana.\n Min\u00e1, 326, 328, 329, 340.\n Miqd\u00e1d b. al-Aswad, 81.\n Mis`ar b. Kid\u00e1m, 93.\n Mis\u1e6da\u1e25 b. Uth\u00e1tha b. `Abb\u00e1d, 82.\n Moses, 40, 41, 74, 76, 90, 101, 167, 179, 230, 262, 296, 297, 324, 332,\n    371, 372, 380, 381.\n Mu`\u00e1dh b. al-\u1e24\u00e1rith, 82.\n Mu`\u00e1wiya, the Caliph, 411.\n Mu\u00b4ayyad, 53.\n Mu\u1e0dar, 83.\n Mugh\u00edra b. Shu`ba, 337.\n Muh\u00e1jir\u00edn, 19, 396.\n Mu\u1e25ammad, the Prophet, 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 19, 31, 32, 33, 36, 40, 41, 42,\n    44, 45, 46, 52, 53, 62, 70, 72, 76, 79, 80, 81,82, 83, 90, 91, 92,\n    93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 116, 117, 127, 129, 140, 141, 158,\n    185, 186, 192, 200, 202, 209, 211, 213, 215, 221, 222, 223, 225,\n    229, 230, 231, 232, 236, 238, 254, 255, 258, 259, 261, 269, 283,\n    287, 312, 315, 317, 318, 319, 324, 330, 331, 332, 333, 336, 344,\n    346, 348, 353, 358, 365, 371, 372, 373, 380, 381, 394, 396, 397,\n    401, 408, 411.\n   _See_ Traditions of the Prophet.\n Mu\u1e25ammad b. A\u1e25mad al-Muqr\u00ed, 41.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Al\u00ed \u1e24ak\u00edm. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Al\u00ed b. al-\u1e24usayn b. `Al\u00ed b. Ab\u00ed \u1e6c\u00e1lib, 38.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Fa\u1e0dl al-Balkh\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. al-Fa\u1e0dl\n    al-Balkh\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 \u1e24ak\u00edm. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-\u1e24asan, 110, 116, 286.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-\u1e24usayn al-`Alaw\u00ed, 205.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Ka`b al-Qura\u1e95\u00ed, 99.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Khaf\u00edf. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Abdall\u00e1h Mu\u1e25ammad b. Khaf\u00edf.\n \u2014\u2014 Ma`sh\u00faq, 174.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Masr\u00faq, 415.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Salama, 173.\n \u2014\u2014 b. S\u00edr\u00edn, 92.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Uly\u00e1n, 206.\n \u2014\u2014 b. W\u00e1si`, 91-2, 276, 330.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Zakariyy\u00e1, 51.\n   _See_ Ab\u00fa Bakr Mu\u1e25ammad b. Zakariyy\u00e1 al-R\u00e1z\u00ed.\n Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00eds, 130, =176-83=, 371.\n Mujassima, 236.\n M\u00falt\u00e1n, 91.\n Muqaddas\u00ed, 260.\n Mur\u00edd, 175.\n Murjites, 66, 67.\n Murta`ish. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Murta`ish.\n Mushabbiha, 236.\n Muslim Maghrib\u00ed, 233, 234.\n Mu\u1e63\u1e6daf\u00e1, 99, 368.\n   _See_ Mu\u1e25ammad, the Prophet.\n Mutanabb\u00ed, 8.\n Mu`tazilites, 6, 106, 117, 118, 213, 215, 239, 253, 268, 280, 286, 295,\n    393.\n Mu\u1e95affar, Khw\u00e1ja. _See_ Ab\u00fa A\u1e25mad al-Mu\u1e95affar b. A\u1e25mad b. \u1e24amd\u00e1n.\n \u2014\u2014 Kirm\u00e1nsh\u00e1h\u00ed Qarm\u00edn\u00ed, 43.\n Muzayyin the Elder, 257.\n Muzdalifa, 326, 328.\n\n                                   N.\n\n Na\u1e0dr b. al-\u1e24\u00e1rith, 261, 394.\n N\u00e1fi`, 191.\n Najd, 83.\n Nas\u00e1, 206, 251.\n Nestorians, 244.\n Nib\u00e1j\u00ed, 138.\n Nile, the river, 101, 211, 212.\n Nimrod, 73, 224, 327.\n N\u00edsh\u00e1p\u00far, 16, 41, 120, 123, 124, 125, 133, 134, 159, 165, 170, 174,\n    183, 272, 318, 365.\n Noah, 371.\n N\u00fa\u1e25, a brigand, 183.\n N\u00far\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan A\u1e25mad b. Mu\u1e25ammad al-N\u00far\u00ed.\n N\u00far\u00eds, 130, 189-95.\n N\u00fash\u00edrw\u00e1n, 401.\n\n                                   O.\n\n Oxus, the river, 142, 235.\n\n                                   P.\n\n P\u00e1dish\u00e1h-i T\u00e1\u00b4ib, 173.\n Pharaoh, 76, 102, 223, 224, 347.\n Prophet, the House of the, 75.\n Purg, 51.\n\n                                   Q.\n\n Qadarites, 6, 66, 67, 75.\n Qar\u00e1mi\u1e6da, 383. _See_ Carmathians.\n Qaran, 83, 84.\n Q\u00e1r\u00fan, 347.\n Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r\u00eds, 130, =183-4=.\n   _See_ \u1e24amd\u00fan\u00eds and Mal\u00e1mat\u00eds.\n Qays of the Ban\u00fa `\u00c1mir, 353.\n Quhist\u00e1n, 173.\n Quraysh, 261, 394.\n Qushayr\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Q\u00e1sim `Abd al-Kar\u00edm b. Haw\u00e1zin al-Qushayr\u00ed.\n\n                                   R.\n\n Rab\u00ed`a, 83.\n R\u00e1bi`a `Adawiyya, 358.\n R\u00e1fi\u1e0d\u00eds, 152.\n Raj\u00e1 b. \u1e24ay\u00e1t, 99.\n Ramla, 343.\n Raqq\u00e1m, 190.\n Raqq\u00ed, 408.\n Rayy, 65, 120, 123, 133, 293.\n Ri\u1e0dw\u00e1n, 232.\n R\u00fam, 207, 222, 244, 407.\n Ru\u1e63\u00e1fa mosque, 154.\n Ruwaym. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Ruwaym b. A\u1e25mad.\n\n                                   S.\n\n \u1e62\u00e1bians, 222.\n \u1e62af\u00e1, 326, 328.\n \u1e62afw\u00e1n b. Bay\u1e0d\u00e1, 81.\n Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Tustar\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Mu\u1e25ammad Sahl b. `Abdall\u00e1h\n    al-Tustar\u00ed.\n Sahlag\u00ed, Shaykh, 164, 173.\n Sahl\u00eds, 130, =195-210=, 296.\n S\u00e1\u00b4ib b. Khall\u00e1d, 82.\n Sa`\u00edd b. Ab\u00ed Sa`\u00edd al-`Ayy\u00e1r, 175.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-Musayyib, 87.\n S\u00e1l\u00e1r-i \u1e6cabar\u00ed, 175.\n \u1e62\u00e1li\u1e25 Murr\u00ed, 396.\n S\u00e1lim, 81.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Abdall\u00e1h, 99.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Umayr b. Th\u00e1bit, 82.\n S\u00e1lim\u00eds, 131.\n Salm\u00e1n al-F\u00e1ris\u00ed, 45, 81, 90, 232, 344.\n Samarcand, 140, 408.\n S\u00e1marr\u00e1, 145, 359.\n Sarah, 365.\n Sarakhs, 164, 165, 174, 193, 227, 364.\n Sar\u00ed al-Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan Sar\u00ed Mughallis al-Saqa\u1e6d\u00ed.\n Sayy\u00e1r\u00eds, 130, =251-60=.\n Shadd\u00e1d, 224.\n al-Sh\u00e1fi`\u00ed, =116=, 125, 286, 347.\n Sh\u00e1h b. Shuj\u00e1`. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-Faw\u00e1ris Sh\u00e1h b. Shuj\u00e1` al-Kirm\u00e1n\u00ed.\n Shahrist\u00e1n\u00ed, 131, 295.\n Shaq\u00edq of Balkh. _See_ Ab\u00fa `Al\u00ed Shaq\u00edq b. Ibr\u00e1h\u00edm al-Azd\u00ed.\n Sha`r\u00e1n\u00ed, 396.\n Shibl\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Bakr Dulaf b. Ja\u1e25dar al-Shibl\u00ed.\n Sh\u00ed`ites, 152, 263, 383, 404.\n Sh\u00edr\u00e1z, 247.\n Sh\u00edr\u00edn, 411.\n Shu`ayb, 74.\n Sh\u00fan\u00edziyya mosque, 123, 323.\n Shuray\u1e25, 93, 94.\n \u1e62iff\u00edn, 84.\n Sinai, Mount, 230, 372, 381.\n \u1e62ir\u00e1\u1e6d, 18, 107, 199.\n S\u00edraw\u00e1n\u00ed, 166.\n Solomon, 24, 230.\n Sophists, 15.\n S\u00fafis\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4iy\u00e1n, 15.\n Sufy\u00e1n Thawr\u00ed, 46, 93, 103, 128, 293.\n \u2014\u2014 b. `Uyayna, 98, 118.\n \u1e62uhayb b. Sin\u00e1n, 81.\n Sulaym\u00e1n R\u00e1`\u00ed, 116.\n Sumn\u00fan al-Mu\u1e25ibb. _See_ Abu \u00b4l-\u1e24asan Sumn\u00fan b. `Abdall\u00e1h al-Khaww\u00e1\u1e63.\n Syria, 94, 118, 172.\n\n                                   T.\n\n \u1e6c\u00e1bar\u00e1n\u00ed, 227.\n \u1e6cabarist\u00e1n, 161, 163, 173.\n al-T\u00e1bi`\u00fan, 83, 88.\n \u1e6cayf\u00far\u00eds, 130, =184-8=, 189.\n Th\u00e1bit b. Wad\u00ed`at, 82.\n Tha`laba, 348.\n Thawb\u00e1n, 82.\n \u2014\u2014 name of Dhu \u00b4l-N\u00fan, 100.\n Tibetans, 263.\n Tigris, 180, 408.\n T\u00edh-i Ban\u00ed Isr\u00e1\u00b4\u00edl, 229.\n Tirmidh, 17, 141, 229.\n Transoxania, 50, 67, 161, 174, 288, 364.\n Turkist\u00e1n, 407.\n \u1e6c\u00fas, 49, 165, 166, 234.\n Tustar, 195, 225, 233.\n\n                                   U.\n\n Ubulla, 408.\n U\u1e25ud, 192.\n `Ukk\u00e1sha b. Mi\u1e25\u1e63an, 81.\n `Umar b. `Abd al-`Az\u00edz, 99.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b, the Caliph, 31, 45, 70, =72-3=, 76, 81, 83, 208, 211,\n    212, 232, 254, 304, 361, 394, 401, 411.\n Umayya b. Abi \u00b4l-\u1e62alt, 397.\n Umm Kulth\u00fam, 361.\n `Utba b. Ghazw\u00e1n, 81.\n \u2014\u2014 al-Ghul\u00e1m, 180.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Mas`\u00fad, 81.\n \u2014\u2014 b. Rab\u00ed`a, 394.\n `Uthm\u00e1n, the Caliph, 65, =73-4=.\n Uways al-Qaran\u00ed, 45, =83-4=.\n Uzkand, 234.\n\n                                   W.\n\n Wahb b. Ma`qal, 82.\n\n                                   Y.\n\n Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed. _See_ Ab\u00fa Zakariyy\u00e1 Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Mu`\u00e1dh al-R\u00e1z\u00ed.\n Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 b. Zakariyy\u00e1, 122.\n   _See_ John the Baptist.\n Yazd\u00e1n, 280.\n Yaz\u00edd b. Mu`\u00e1wiya, 76.\n Y\u00fasuf, 32, 136.\n   _See_ Joseph.\n \u2014\u2014 b. al-\u1e24usayn. _See_ Ab\u00fa Ya`q\u00fab Y\u00fasuf b. al-\u1e24usayn al-R\u00e1z\u00ed.\n\n                                   Z.\n\n Zacharias, 40, 230.\n \u1e92\u00e1hirite school of law, 135.\n Z\u00e1\u00b4ida, 232.\n Zakariyy\u00e1 al-An\u1e63\u00e1r\u00ed, 408.\n Zak\u00ed b. al-`Al\u00e1, 172.\n Zayd b. al-Kha\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1b, 81.\n Zayn al-`\u00c1bid\u00edn, 76.\n Zuhr\u00ed, 71.\n Zulaykh\u00e1, 136, 310, 335, 365.\n Zur\u00e1ra b. Ab\u00ed Awf\u00e1, 396.\n\n\n                                  II.\n             SUBJECTS, ORIENTAL WORDS, AND TECHNICAL TERMS.\n\nArabic and Persian words are printed in italics. In their arrangement no\naccount is taken of the definite article _al_.\n\n                                   A.\n\n _`ab\u00e1_, 48, 52, 133.\n _abad_, 386.\n _Abd\u00e1l_, 214.\n _Abr\u00e1r_, 214.\n Actions, the Divine, 14.\n _adab_, _\u00e1d\u00e1b_, 334, 341.\n _\u00e1d\u00e1b-i \u1e95\u00e1hir_, 292.\n _`adam_, 28, 168, 253, 373.\n _\u00e1damiyyat_, 246, 254.\n _`adl_, 387.\n _\u00e1f\u00e1t_, 281.\n _aghy\u00e1r_, 31.\n _a\u1e25d\u00e1th_, 416.\n _ahl-i darg\u00e1h_, 169.\n \u2014\u2014 _\u1e25aq\u00e1\u00b4iq_, 225.\n \u2014\u2014 _\u1e25aq\u00edqat_, 25.\n \u2014\u2014 _\u1e25aqq_, 62, 402.\n \u2014\u2014 _\u1e25ashw_, 316, 416.\n \u2014\u2014 _himmat_, 167.\n \u2014\u2014 _`ib\u00e1rat_, 59.\n _ahl al-`ilm_, 253.\n _ahl-i ma`n\u00ed_, 403.\n \u2014\u2014 _maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_, 61.\n \u2014\u2014 _minan_, 265.\n \u2014\u2014 _mu`\u00e1malat_, 225.\n \u2014\u2014 _rus\u00fam_, 172.\n \u2014\u2014 _waf\u00e1_, 265.\n _a\u1e25r\u00e1r_, 43.\n _a\u1e25w\u00e1l_, 33, 110, 157, 177.\n   See _\u1e25\u00e1l_ and States of Mystics.\n _\u00e1\u00b4ib_, 391.\n _`ajz_, 276.\n _akhl\u00e1q_, 42.\n _Akhy\u00e1r_, 214.\n _`al\u00e1\u00b4iq_, 165, 384.\n _`\u00e1lam_, 385, 386.\n _\u00e1lat-i maws\u00fam_, 199.\n _`\u00e1lim_, 382, 383.\n _`\u00e1lim-i rabb\u00e1n\u00ed_, 151.\n Alms, 314-17.\n _am\u00edr_, 388.\n _amn_, 216.\n _anf\u00e1s_, 164.\n _angaly\u00fan_, 407.\n Angels, 239-41, 302, 303, 351.\n Annihilation, 20, 23, 25, 28, 36, 37, 40, 48, =58-60=, 95, 170, 171,\n    205, =241-6=.\n   See _fan\u00e1_.\n _`aql_, 309.\n _`ara\u1e0d_, 261, 264, 386.\n _arb\u00e1b-i a\u1e25w\u00e1l_, 302.\n \u2014\u2014 _\u1e25\u00e1l_, 32.\n \u2014\u2014 _la\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4if_, 353.\n \u2014\u2014 _ma`\u00e1n\u00ed_, 38, 59.\n _`\u00e1rif_, 79, 100, 265, 267, 382-3, 414.\n _`arsh_, 33.\n Ascension of B\u00e1yaz\u00edd, 238.\n \u2014\u2014 of Mu\u1e25ammad, 186, 215, 240, 259, 262, 277, 283, 302, 330, 331, 336,\n    368.\n \u2014\u2014 of Prophets and Saints, 238.\n Asceticism, 17, 37, 86.\n   _See_ Mortification and _zuhd_.\n Asking, rules in, 357-60.\n _asr\u00e1r_, 255.\n Association. _See_ Companionship.\n \u2014\u2014 with the wicked, 86.\n Attributes, the Divine, 12, 14, 21, 36, 252, 253, 279, 288.\n _awbat_, 295.\n _awliy\u00e1_, 210, 211, 212, 215, 295.\n   _See_ Saints.\n _awr\u00e1d_, 303.\n _Awt\u00e1d_, 146, 214, 228, 234.\n _aww\u00e1b_, 295.\n _\u00e1y\u00e1t_, 373.\n _`ayy\u00e1r_, 100.\n _`ayn_, 149, 171, 196, 206.\n _`ayn al-yaq\u00ed_n, 381-2.\n _azal_, 386.\n _azaliyyat_, 238.\n\n                                   B.\n\n _B\u00e1b_, a title given to \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs, =234=.\n _badhl-i r\u00fa\u1e25_, 194.\n _bal\u00e1_, 388, 389.\n _baq\u00e1_, 23, 58, 59, 73, 143, 170, 171, 185, 205, =241-6=, 253, 266,\n    373, 377, 380.\n _b\u00e1q\u00ed_, 26, 32, 85, 311.\n _bashariyyat_, 32, 159, 217, 226, 237.\n _bas\u1e6d_, 181, =374-6=.\n _bay\u00e1n_, 356, 373.\n _b\u00e9g\u00e1na_, 200, 222.\n _b\u00e9g\u00e1nag\u00ed_, 24, 333, 377.\n Begging, 105.\n \u2014\u2014 rules in, 357, 360.\n _birs\u00e1m_, 167.\n Blame, the doctrine of, 62-9, 183-4.\n   See _mal\u00e1mat_, Mal\u00e1mat\u00eds, Qa\u1e63\u1e63\u00e1r\u00eds.\n Blue garments, worn by \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, 53.\n\n                                   C.\n\n Cave, story of the, 231.\n Celibacy, 360-6.\n _chig\u00fanag\u00ed_, 374.\n _chilla_, 51, 324.\n Companionship, 189, 190, =334-45=.\n   See _\u1e63u\u1e25bat_.\n Contemplation, 70, 91, 92, 105, 165, 171, =201-5=, 300, 327, =329-33=,\n    346.\n   See _mush\u00e1hadat_.\n Covetousness, 128, 136, 217.\n\n                                   D.\n\n _dahr_, =244=.\n _dahriy\u00e1n_, 281.\n Daily bread, 106, 157.\n Dancing, 416.\n _d\u00e1nishmand_, 382.\n _\u1e0dar\u00far\u00ed_, 261, 271.\n _da`w\u00e1_, 274.\n _daw\u00e1 al-misk_, 8.\n Dervishes, 142, 143, 146, 165.\n   See _faq\u00edr_ and _fuqar\u00e1_.\n \u2014\u2014 resident, 340-5.\n \u2014\u2014 travelling, 340, 345-7.\n _dh\u00e1t_, 5, 386.\n _dhawq_, 58, 392.\n _dhikr_, 87, 126, 128, 154, 155, 242, 254, 300, 301, 307, 371, 376.\n _d\u00edd\u00e1r_, 175.\n _\u1e0didd\u00e1n_, 386.\n _dil_, 33, 144, 309.\n Directors, spiritual, 55-7, 128, 129, 133, 134, 166, 169, 301, 353,\n    354, 357, 387, 408, 418, 419.\n Divines, 116, 142, 143, 213.\n   See _`ulam\u00e1_.\n \u2014\u2014 disagreement of the, 106, 176.\n Dreams, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 116, 129, 138, 145, 218, 282, 321,\n    358, 359.\n Dualism, 259, 273, 280.\n _d\u00fast\u00e1n_, 265, 382.\n\n                                   E.\n\n Eating, rules in, 347-9.\n Ecstasy, 138, 152, 167.\n   _See_ Intoxication and _sam\u00e1`_ and _wajd_.\n Essence, the Divine, 14.\n\n                                   F.\n\n _fa\u1e0dl_, 201.\n _f\u00e1`il_, 237.\n Faith, 225, =286-90=.\n _falakiy\u00e1n_, 280.\n _fan\u00e1_, 28, 37, 58, 73, 143, 168, 170, 185, 205, =241-6=, 253, 266,\n    373, 377, 380.\n   _See_ Annihilation.\n _fan\u00e1-yi `ayn_, 244.\n \u2014\u2014 _kull\u00ed_, 37.\n \u2014\u2014 _kulliyyat_, 243.\n _f\u00e1n\u00ed_, 26, 32, 33, 311.\n _f\u00e1qa_, 325.\n _faqd_, 368.\n _faq\u00edr_, 20, 59, 60, 165, 309.\n   _See_ Dervishes.\n _faqr_, 36, 60, 109, 189, 309, 364.\n   _See_ Poverty.\n _far\u00e1ghat_, 109.\n _fard\u00e1niyyat_, 281.\n Fasting, 36, 52, 201, =320-5=.\n _faw\u00e1\u00b4id_, 384, 385.\n Fear, 112, 113, 122, 128.\n _fikrat_, 239.\n _fi`l_, 237, 256.\n Free will, 17, 288.\n   _See_ Predestination.\n Frocks, patched, worn by \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, 45-57.\n   See _muraqqa`\u00e1t_.\n _fuqar\u00e1_, 19, 110, 126, 142, 165.\n _furqat_, 26.\n _fut\u00fa\u1e25_, 355.\n\n                                   G.\n\n Garments, the rending of, 56, 57, =417-18=.\n Generosity, 114, 123, 124, 183, 184, =317-19=.\n _ghaflat_, 17, 155, 187, 242.\n _ghalabat_, 184, 226.\n _ghan\u00e1._ See _ghin\u00e1_.\n _ghar\u00edb_, 146.\n _Ghawth_, 214.\n _ghaybat_, 155, 178, =248-51=, 256, 301, 370, 380, 405.\n _ghayn_, 5, 391.\n _ghayr_, 62, 105, 237, 274.\n _ghayr\u00e1n_, 386.\n _ghayrat_, 156.\n _ghin\u00e1_, 21, 22, 23, 74.\n _ghusl_, 293.\n _gil\u00edm_, 32, 45.\n _girawish_, 289.\n Gnosis, 16, 100, 134, 140, =267-77=, 325, 392.\n   See _ma`rifat_.\n Grace. See _fa\u1e0dl_, _`in\u00e1yat_, _kar\u00e1mat_.\n\n                                   H.\n\n _\u1e25adath_, 293.\n _hadhay\u00e1n_, 167.\n _\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0dir_, 373.\n _\u1e25a\u1e0drat_, 256.\n _\u1e25ajj_, 326.\n   _See_ Pilgrimage.\n _\u1e25\u00e1l_, 49, 50, 112, 177, =180-3=, 236, 242, 243, 258, 267, 309,\n    =367-70=, 371, 372, 382, 415.\n   _See_ States of mystics and _a\u1e25w\u00e1l_.\n _\u1e25\u00e1l\u00ed_, 267.\n _\u1e25\u00e1ll_, 244, 254, 279.\n _\u1e25aq\u00e1\u00b4iq_, 117.\n _\u1e25aq\u00edqat_, 14, 51, 149, =383-4=.\n   _See_ Truth, the.\n _\u1e25aqq_, 384, 404.\n   _See_ Truth, the.\n _\u1e25aqq al-yaq\u00edn_, 381, 382.\n _\u1e25ashw_, 167.\n _hast\u00ed_, 374.\n _haw\u00e1_, 196, 207, 208.\n _haybat_, 376, 377.\n _\u1e25ayrat_, 275.\n _\u1e25azan_, 413.\n Hell, the result of God\u2019s anger, 199.\n _hid\u00e1yat_, 95, 203, 204.\n _\u1e25ij\u00e1b_, 22, 149, 236, 325, 374, 414.\n   _See_ Veils, spiritual.\n _\u1e25ij\u00e1b-i ghayn\u00ed_, 5.\n _\u1e25ij\u00e1b-i rayn\u00ed_, 4, 5.\n _himmat_, 155, 235.\n Hope, 112, 113, 122, 133.\n _\u1e25ubb_, 305, 306.\n _\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_, 33, 129, 144, 155, 178, =248-51=, 301, 373, 380.\n _\u1e25ud\u00fath_, 280.\n _\u1e25ul\u00fal_, 131, 260.\n Hunger, 324, 325.\n _\u1e25urmat_, 334.\n _\u1e25urqat_, 47.\n _\u1e25usn_, 386.\n _huwiyyat_, 238.\n _\u1e25uzn_, 371.\n Hypocrisy, 87, 89, 291, 292, 304.\n\n                                   I.\n\n _ib\u00e1\u1e25\u00ed_, 131.\n _`ib\u00e1dat_, 79.\n _`ib\u00e1rat_, 203, 276, 385.\n _ibtid\u00e1_, 119, 169.\n _`idda_, 11.\n _i`j\u00e1z_, 219, 221, 223, 255.\n _ijm\u00e1_`, 14, 225.\n _ikhl\u00e1\u1e63_, 103, 117, 246.\n _ikhtiy\u00e1r_, 171, 297, 316, =388=.\n _il\u00e1hiyyat_, 245.\n _ilh\u00e1m_, 166, 271.\n _ilh\u00e1miy\u00e1n_, 271.\n _`ilm_, 103, 267, 381, =382-3=, 415.\n   _See_ Knowledge.\n _`ilm-i ma`rifat_, 16.\n \u2014\u2014 _mu`\u00e1malat_, 86, 115.\n \u2014\u2014 _shar\u00ed`at_, 16.\n \u2014\u2014 _waqt_, 13, 112.\n _`ilm al-yaq\u00edn_, 381, 382.\n _`ilm\u00ed_, 267.\n _\u00edm\u00e1_, 385.\n _\u00edm\u00e1n_, 225, =286-90=.\n _imti\u1e25\u00e1n_, 388, 389, 390.\n _imtiz\u00e1j_, 131, 152, 254, 260.\n _in\u00e1bat_, 181, 295, 371.\n _`in\u00e1yat_, 203, 268.\n _inbis\u00e1\u1e6d_, 380.\n Incarnation, 92, 236, =260-6=.\n   See _\u1e25ul\u00fal_.\n Indulgences, 116.\n _ins\u00e1n_, 197.\n _ins\u00e1niyyat_, 197.\n Inspiration, 271.\n Intention, the power of, 4.\n _intib\u00e1h_, 385.\n _intiq\u00e1l_, 236.\n Intoxication, spiritual, =226-9=, 248, 352.\n   See _sukr_.\n _inzi`\u00e1j_, 385.\n _ir\u00e1dat_, 199, 307.\n _ish\u00e1rat_, 56, 129, 155, 385, 404.\n _`ishq_, 310.\n _ishtib\u00e1h_, 385.\n _ism_, 386.\n _istidl\u00e1l_, 268.\n _istidl\u00e1l\u00ed_, 330.\n _istidr\u00e1j_, 221, 224.\n _i\u1e63\u1e6dif\u00e1_, 265, 390.\n _istighr\u00e1q_, 381, 385.\n _istikh\u00e1rat,_ 3.\n _i\u1e63\u1e6dil\u00e1m_, 390.\n _i\u1e63\u1e6din\u00e1`_, 390.\n _istiq\u00e1mat_, 104, 177, 301, 377.\n _isti\u1e6d\u00e1`at_, 75.\n _istiw\u00e1_, 307.\n _\u00edth\u00e1r_, 189-95.\n _ithb\u00e1t_, 379, 380, 386.\n _itti\u1e25\u00e1d_, 152, 198, 254.\n _itti\u1e63\u00e1l_, 415.\n _`iy\u00e1n_, 356, 370, 373.\n\n                                   J.\n\n _jabr_, 17, 272, 288, 324.\n   _See_ Predestination.\n _jadhb_, 195.\n _jadhbat_, 248.\n _jadhb\u00ed_, 330.\n _jal\u00e1l_, 177, 288, 376.\n _jam`_, 237, 238, =251-60=, 266, 285, 380.\n   _See_ Union with God.\n _jam`-i himmat_ (_himam_), 258, 282.\n _jam` al-jam`_, 39, 259.\n _jam`-i sal\u00e1mat_, 257.\n _jam`-i taks\u00edr_, 257, 258.\n _jam\u00e1l_, 177, 288, 376.\n _j\u00e1n_, 197, 199, 309.\n _jan\u00e1bat_, 293.\n _jaw\u00e1b_, 386.\n _jawhar_, 386.\n _jih\u00e1d_, 364.\n _al-jih\u00e1d al-akbar_, 200.\n _jism_, 386.\n _jubba_, 50, 102.\n _j\u00fad_, 317.\n\n                                   K.\n\n _kab\u00edra_, 225, 295.\n _kab\u00fad\u00ed_, 17.\n _kadar_, 30, 32.\n _kafsh_, 345.\n _kal\u00e1m_, 17, 307.\n _kam\u00e1l_, 288.\n _k\u00e1mil_, 85, 407.\n _kar\u00e1mat_, _kar\u00e1m\u00e1t_, 109, 177, 213, 214, =218-35=, 255, 282, 291, 323,\n    324, 377, 379.\n   _See_ Miracles.\n _kasb_, 28, 195, 225, 254.\n _kashf_, 4, 47, 59, 111, 226, 265, 374, 380, 414.\n _kh\u00e1naq\u00e1h_, 69.\n _kharq_, 57, 417.\n _khash\u00edsh\u00ed_, 94.\n _kh\u00e1\u1e63\u1e63 al-kh\u00e1\u1e63\u1e63_, 382.\n _kha\u1e6dar_, 5, 149.\n _kha\u1e6dar\u00e1t_, 144, 384.\n _kh\u00e1\u1e6dir_, 387, 388.\n _khatm_, 5.\n _khaw\u00e1\u1e6dir_, 149.\n _khawf_, 371.\n _khidmat_, 191, 218, 271.\n _khirqat_, 47.\n _khi\u1e6d\u00e1b_, 415.\n _khullat_, 73, 326.\n _khu\u1e63\u00fa\u1e63iyyat_, 257.\n _kibr\u00edt-i a\u1e25mar_, 7.\n _kitm\u00e1n-i sirr_, 380.\n Knowledge, 11-18, 108.\n   See _`ilm_.\n \u2014\u2014 of God. _See_ Gnosis and _ma`rifat_.\n _kulliyyat_, 26, 379, 385.\n\n                                   L.\n\n _la\u1e25q_, 373.\n _la\u1e6d\u00e1\u00b4if_, 385.\n Law, the, 14, 15, 139, 140.\n   See _shar\u00ed`at_.\n _law\u00e1\u00b4i\u1e25_, 385.\n _law\u00e1mi`_, 385.\n Liberality, 317-19.\n _lis\u00e1n al-\u1e25\u00e1l_, 356.\n Love, Divine, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34, 38, 67, 102, 103, 107, 136, 137, 138,\n    156, 157, 180, 187, 211, 258, 288, 297, =304-13=, 330, 331, 376,\n    377, 390, 405.\n   See _ma\u1e25abbat_.\n Lust, 115, 128, 208, 209, 240.\n _lu\u1e6df_, 377-9.\n\n                                   M.\n\n _madhhab-i Thawr\u00ed_, 125.\n _mafq\u00fad_, 164.\n _maghl\u00fab_, 246, 312.\n \u2014\u2014 _al-qul\u00fab_, 85.\n Magic, 151, 152.\n _ma\u1e25abbat_, 26, 117, 157, 178, 187, 211, 297, 305, 306, 310.\n _ma\u1e25all_, 244.\n _ma\u1e25f\u00faz_, 225, 239, 241.\n _ma\u1e25q_, 373.\n _ma\u1e25ram_, 349.\n _ma\u1e25w_, 59, 373, 379.\n _mak\u00e1sib_, 254.\n _mal\u00e1mat_, =62-9=, 94, 100, 119, 175, =183-4=.\n _malik_, 387.\n _malja\u00b4_, 384.\n Man, the constitution of, 198, 199.\n _man\u00ed_, 238.\n _ma`n\u00ed_, 35.\n _manj\u00e1_, 385.\n _maq\u00e1m_, _maq\u00e1m\u00e1t_, 7, 33, 58, 110, 157, 177, =180-3=, 236, 258, 265,\n    291, 301, =370-3=.\n   _See_ Stations of the Mystic Path.\n _maqh\u00far_, 368.\n _mard\u00e1n_, 327.\n _ma`rifat_, 16, 79, 152, 178, 194, 225, =267-77=, 326, =382-3=, 390.\n   _See_ Gnosis.\n Marriage, 360-6.\n _mash\u00e1rib_, 301.\n _mashrab_, 414.\n _maskanat_, 60.\n _ma`\u1e63\u00fam_, 225, 241, 298.\n _ma`t\u00fah_, 312.\n _mawaddat_, 187.\n _maw\u00e1hib_, 254.\n _mawj\u00fad_, 164.\n _mi\u1e25nat_, 26.\n Miracles, 152, 168, 213, 214, 215, =218-35=, 323, 324.\n   See _kar\u00e1mat_.\n _mi`r\u00e1j_, 238.\n _misk\u00edn_, 60.\n _mizaj_, 281.\n Mortification, =195-210=, 256, 257, 346.\n   See _muj\u00e1hadat_.\n _mu`\u00e1mal\u00e1t_, 30, 38, 41.\n _mu\u00b4\u00e1nasat_, 382.\n _mu`\u00e1yanat_, 331.\n _mubtad\u00ed_, 167, 407.\n _mu\u1e0dtarr_, 316.\n _mufarrid_, 362.\n _muftariq_, 255.\n _mu\u1e25\u00e1\u1e0darat_, 373, 374.\n _mu\u1e25\u00e1dathat_, 380, 381.\n _mu\u1e25awwil-i a\u1e25w\u00e1l_, 41.\n _mu\u1e25dath_, 92, 263, 270, 293, 386.\n _mu\u1e25ibb_, 26.\n _muj\u00e1hadat_, 35, 36, 47, 50, 70, 85, 95, 113, 127, 170, 176, 182, 184,\n    =195-210=, 292, 296, 325, 329, 382.\n   _See_ Mortification.\n _muj\u00e1lasat_, 159.\n _mujarrad_, 61.\n _mu`jizat_, =219-26=, 230, 324, 394.\n _mujtami`_, 255, 367.\n _muk\u00e1shafat_, 4, 22, =373-4=.\n _mukhla\u1e63_, 85.\n _mukhli\u1e63_, 85, 265.\n _muk\u1e25ula_, 345.\n _mun\u00e1j\u00e1t_, 344, 380.\n _mun\u00edb_, 295.\n _muntah\u00ed_, 168.\n _muqarrab\u00e1n_, 4, 295.\n _m\u00faqin_, 144.\n _muraqqa`\u00e1t_, =45-57=, 69, 73, 94.\n _mur\u00edd_, 85, 107, 157, 211, 265, 370, 414.\n _murshid_, 172.\n _muruwwat_, 328, 334.\n _musabbib_, 327.\n _mus\u00e1fir\u00e1n_, 340.\n _mus\u00e1marat_, 380, 381.\n _mush\u00e1hadat_, 37, 50, 70, 85, 95, 113, 127, 129, 155, 165, 170, 176,\n    184, 201, 237, 275, 280, 296, 325, 329, 373, 382.\n   _See_ Contemplation.\n _musht\u00e1q_, 265.\n Music, 399-413.\n _mustaghriq_, 373.\n _mustahlik_, 308.\n _mustami`_, 174, 402.\n _mustaq\u00edm_, 184, 369.\n _musta\u1e63wif_, 35.\n _muta\u00b4ahhil_, 349.\n _mutakallim_, 131, 154.\n _mutakawwin_, 369.\n _mutamakkin_, 119, 152, 168, 369, 372.\n _mutaraddid_, 372.\n _muta\u1e63awwif_, 34, 35, 172.\n _muta\u1e63awwifa_, 16.\n _mutawassi\u1e6d_, 407.\n _muwa\u1e25\u1e25id_, 270, 278.\n\n                                   N.\n\n _nab\u00ed_, 129.\n _nadam_, 294.\n _nad\u00e1mat_, 295, 296, 297.\n _nafs_, 149, 154, 182, =196-210=, 240, 277, 303, 404.\n   _See_ Soul, the lower.\n _nafs-i laww\u00e1ma_, 62.\n _nafy_, 379, 380, 386.\n _najw\u00e1_, 352, 385.\n _nakirat_, 79, 178.\n _na`layn_, 345.\n _nam\u00e1z_, 300.\n Name, the great, of God, 105.\n Names of God, 317, 382.\n _naskh-i arw\u00e1\u1e25_, 260.\n _nif\u00e1q_, 89, 291.\n Novices, discipline of, 54, 195, 301, 302, 338, 354.\n _num\u00fad_, 167.\n _Nuqab\u00e1_, 214.\n\n                                   O.\n\n Obedience, 85, 90, 287, 288, 311, 312.\n\n                                   P.\n\n _pal\u00e1s_, 51.\n Pantheism, 243, 246.\n   See _\u1e25ul\u00fal_, _itti\u1e25\u00e1d_, _imtiz\u00e1j_, _fan\u00e1_, _taw\u1e25\u00edd_, Union with God.\n Paradise, of no account, 107, 111;\n   the effect of God\u2019s satisfaction, 199.\n _p\u00e1rs\u00e1-mard\u00e1n_, 265.\n Passion, 207-10.\n   See _haw\u00e1_.\n Patience, 86.\n Persecution of \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, 137, 140, 154, 190, 191.\n Pilgrimage, the, 107, =326-9=.\n _pind\u00e1sht_, 150, 155.\n _p\u00edr_, 17, 55.\n Poetry, the hearing of, 397, 398.\n Poets, the pre-Islamic, 372.\n Polytheism, 38, 113, 132.\n   See _shirk_.\n Poverty, practical, 60;\n   spiritual, =19-29=, 49, =58-61=, 121, 127, 349;\n   voluntary and compulsory, 71, 316.\n   See _faqr_.\n Praise of God. See _dhikr_.\n Prayer, 11, =300-4=.\n Predestination, 17, 104, 203, 209, 210, 273.\n   See _jabr_.\n Prophets, miracles of the, 219-26.\n   See _mu`jizat_.\n \u2014\u2014 the, superior to the Saints, 129, 219, =235-9=.\n \u2014\u2014 and Saints, the, superior to the Angels, 239-41.\n Purgation, 70.\n   _See_ Mortification.\n Purification, 291-4.\n Purity, spiritual, 58-61.\n   See _saf\u00e1_ and _\u1e63afwat_.\n\n                                   Q.\n\n _qab\u00e1_, 48, 52, 133, 183.\n _qab\u1e0d_, 181, =374-6=.\n _qadar_, 75.\n _qad\u00edm_, 92, 262, 386.\n _qahr_, 369, =377-9=.\n _qar\u00e1r_, 385.\n _qaww\u00e1l_, 139, 171, 415.\n _qayd_, 387.\n _qibla_, 12, 300, 301, 354.\n _qidam_, 263.\n _qub\u1e25_, 387.\n _qudrat_, 300.\n Quietism. See _ri\u1e0d\u00e1_ and _tawakkul_.\n Quietists, four classes of, 178.\n _qurb_, 85, 226, 238, 309.\n _qurbat_, 26, 191, 249, 300.\n _qu\u1e63\u00fad_, 390.\n _Qu\u1e6db_, 147, 206, 214, 228, 229.\n _quwwat_, 280.\n\n                                   R.\n\n _rabb\u00e1n\u00ed_, 21, 33.\n _r\u00e1hib_, 96.\n _raj\u00e1_, 133, 371.\n _rakwa_, 69.\n _rams_, 384.\n _raq\u1e63_, 416.\n _ras\u00eddag\u00e1n_, 228, 233.\n _rasm_, 35, 36.\n Rationalism, 75.\n   _See_ Mu`tazilites, Qadarites.\n _rayn_, 5, 391.\n Renunciation, 70, 71, 104.\n   _See_ Asceticism and _\u00edth\u00e1r_ and _zuhd_.\n Repentance, 294-9.\n   See _tawbat_.\n Resignation, 73.\n   See _tasl\u00edm_ and _ri\u1e0d\u00e1_.\n _rib\u00e1t_, 96.\n _ri\u1e0d\u00e1_, 7, 20, 26, 89, 91, 99, 117, 126, 157, =177-80=, =182=, 217,\n    246.\n _riddat_, 225.\n _riy\u00e1_, 304.\n _riy\u00e1\u1e0dat_, 196, 202.\n _rub\u00fabiyyat_, 141, 157, 210.\n _r\u00fa\u1e25_, 196, 197, 261.\n _r\u00fa\u1e25\u00e1n\u00ed_, 20.\n _r\u00fa\u1e25iy\u00e1n_, 266.\n _ruj\u00fa`_, 391.\n _rukha\u1e63_, 116.\n _rus\u00fam_, 42.\n _ru\u00b4yat_, 389.\n   _See_ Vision.\n _ru\u00b4yat-i \u00e1f\u00e1t_, 159.\n _r\u00faza-i wi\u1e63\u00e1l_, 322.\n\n                                   S.\n\n _\u1e63a`\u00e1l\u00edk_, 97, 173.\n _\u1e63abr_, 86.\n Sacrifice, spiritual, 194.\n   See _\u00edth\u00e1r_.\n _\u1e63\u00e1diq_, 325.\n _\u1e63af\u00e1_, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 48, 52, 58, 328.\n   _See_ Purity.\n _safah_, 387.\n _\u1e63afwat_, 58, 109, 167, 309, 310.\n   _See_ Purity.\n _\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25i \u00b4l-qul\u00fab_, 85.\n _\u1e63\u00e1\u1e25ib jam`_, 258.\n \u2014\u2014 _shar`_, 226.\n \u2014\u2014 _sirr_, 226.\n \u2014\u2014 _\u1e6dab`_, 158.\n _sa\u1e25w_, 58, 85, =184-8=, 228, 373, 380.\n   _See_ Sobriety.\n Saints, the, 63, 116, 129, 130, 138, =210-41=, 295.\n Saintship, definitions of, 216-18.\n _sakh\u00e1_, 317.\n _\u1e63al\u00e1t_, 300.\n _sam\u00e1`_, 50, 57, 171, =393-420=.\n _satr_, 380.\n _\u1e63awm_, 36, 320.\n _sayy\u00e1\u1e25_, 118, 173.\n Self-conceit, 62, 63, 148, 155, 156, 214, 346.\n Self-knowledge, 197.\n Selfishness, 3.\n   See _nafs_.\n Senses, the five, 209, 321, 322, 393.\n _shafaqat_, 134.\n _shah\u00e1dat_, 333.\n _sh\u00e1hid_, 265, 373.\n _shahwat_, 208.\n   _See_ Lust.\n _shal\u00edth\u00e1_, 8.\n _shaq\u00e1wat_, 389.\n _shar\u00ed`at_, 14, 16, =383-4=.\n   _See_ Law, the.\n _sha\u1e6d\u1e25_, 168.\n _shaw\u00e1hid_, 40.\n _shawq_, 92, 128.\n Shaykhs, the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed, character of the, 55-7.\n _shirk_, 113, 273.\n   _See_ Polytheism.\n _shurb_, 58, 392.\n _shur\u00fad_, 389, 390.\n _\u1e63idd\u00edq_, 31, 45, 115, 129, 136.\n _\u1e63idq_, 101.\n _\u1e63ifat_, 5, 181, 264, 386.\n Silence, rules in, 355.\n Sin, 196, 225, 286, 294-9.\n Sincerity, 89, 101, 103, 291.\n _sirr_, 309, 333, 373, 385.\n _siy\u00e1\u1e25at_, 53, 192.\n _siyy\u00e1n_, 386.\n Sleep, 109.\n Sleeping, rules in, 351-4.\n Sobriety, spiritual, 226-9, 248, 352.\n   See _\u1e63a\u1e25w_.\n Solitude, 103, 188, 338.\n   See _`uzlat_ and _wa\u1e25dat_.\n Soul, the lower or animal, 9, =196-210=, 325.\n   See _nafs_.\n Speech, rules in, 355.\n Spirit, the, 196-200, 261-6.\n   See _r\u00fa\u1e25_.\n States of mystics, 13, 32, 33, 41, 47, 55, =180-3=, 249, 308, =367-70=.\n   See _a\u1e25w\u00e1l_ and _\u1e25\u00e1l_.\n Stations of the mystic Path, 26, 33, 58, 133, 168, =180-3=, 249, 302,\n    308, =370-1=.\n   See _maq\u00e1m_.\n _su\u00b4\u00e1l_, 386.\n \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed and \u1e62\u00fafiism, definitions of, 34-44, 165.\n \u2014\u2014 origin of the name, 30.\n \u2014\u2014 sects, the twelve, 130, 176-266.\n _\u1e63u\u1e25bat_, 157, 159, 175, 189.\n   _See_ Companionship.\n _sukr_, 85, 118, =184-8=, 380.\n   _See_ Intoxication.\n Sunna, the, 6, 14, 23, 46, 334, 345, 361.\n _\u1e63\u00farat-i ma`h\u00fad_, 199.\n\n                                   T.\n\n _\u1e6d\u00e1`at_, 203, 225, 287.\n _\u1e6dab`_, 5.\n _\u1e6d\u00e1b\u00e1\u00b4i`iy\u00e1n_, 280.\n _\u1e6dab\u00e1yi`_, 197.\n _tadb\u00edr_, 140.\n _tafr\u00edd_, 281.\n _tafriqat_ (_tafriqa_), 194, 237, =251-60=, 266, 285, 380.\n _\u1e6d\u00e1gh\u00fat_, 78.\n _ta\u1e25all\u00ed_, 389.\n _\u1e6dah\u00e1rat_, 291-4.\n _t\u00e1\u00b4ib_, 295, 391.\n _tajall\u00ed_, 276, 389, 390.\n _tajr\u00edd_, 45, 60, 121, 135, 158, 165, 176, 222.\n _tajziya_, 236.\n _takalluf_, 51, 318, 334, 364, 419.\n _takawwun_, 369.\n _takb\u00edr_, 109, 303.\n _takhall\u00ed_, 389.\n _takhl\u00edl-i ma\u1e25\u00e1sin_, 293.\n _takl\u00edf_, 184, 204, 272, 393.\n _\u1e6dalab_, 97, 201.\n _talb\u00eds_, 175, 391-92.\n _\u1e6d\u00e1lib_, 34, 39, 169.\n _talw\u00edn_, 372.\n _tamk\u00edn_, 71, 72, 147, 158, 226, 228, =370-3=.\n _\u1e6dams_, 384.\n _tan\u00e1sukhiy\u00e1n_, 264.\n _tanz\u00edh_, 238, 326, 374, 384.\n _taqw\u00e1_, 334.\n _\u1e6darab_, 97.\n _\u1e6dar\u00edq_, 90.\n _tar\u00edqat_, 51, 54, 321.\n _\u1e6da\u1e63arruf_, 282.\n _ta\u1e63awwuf_, 35, 189.\n _ta\u1e63d\u00edq_, 286.\n _tashb\u00edh_, 270, 271, 280, 332.\n _tasl\u00edm_, 140, 209, 268, 371.\n _tasmiyat_, 386.\n _ta`\u1e6d\u00edl_, 104, 202, 256, 257, 270, 271.\n _taw\u00e1jud_, 410, 413-16.\n _tawakkul_, 19, 117, 126, 146, 153, 177, 181, 205, 290.\n _\u1e6daw\u00e1li`_, 385.\n _\u1e6daw\u00e1riq_, 385.\n _tawbat_, 79, 88, 181, =294-9=, 371, 391.\n _tawf\u00edq_, 6, 203, 288.\n _taw\u1e25\u00edd_, 9, 17, 36, 104, 107, 113, 158, 172, 202, 205, 236, 253,\n    =278-85=, 335, 374, 381, 385.\n _ta\u00b4w\u00edl_, 404.\n _ta\u00b4y\u00edd_, 379.\n Technical terms of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00eds, =367-92=.\n _than\u00e1-yi jam\u00edl_, 306, 307.\n _thaw\u00e1b_, 4, 146.\n Time, mystical meaning of, 13.\n   See _waqt_.\n Traditions of the Prophet, 4, 19, 20, 30, 46, 52, 55, 60, 61, 63, 70,\n    72, 80, 90, 99, 108, 116, 122, 143, 148, 161, 168, 179, 184, 186,\n    192, 197, 200, 202, 208, 211, 212, 230, 231, 232, 254, 261, 262,\n    263, 267, 275, 277, 278, 283, 287, 291, 294, 296, 300, 301, 302,\n    304, 305, 312, 314, 320, 321, 322, 324, 329, 333, 334, 335, 336,\n    337, 338, 344, 351, 352, 355, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364, 368, 381,\n    388, 389, 391, 396, 397, 398, 399, 401, 403, 413, 415, 418.\n Transmigration of spirits, 260, 262-4.\n Travel, 345-7.\n Trinity, the Christian, 285.\n Trust in God, 115, 157, 163, 359.\n   See _tawakkul_.\n Truth, the, 139, 140.\n   See _\u1e25aqq_ and _\u1e25aq\u00edqat_.\n\n                                   U.\n\n _`ub\u00fadiyyat_, 79, 141, 157, 159, 237, 245, 257.\n _`ukk\u00e1za_, 102.\n _`ulam\u00e1_, 7, 11, 31, 213, 382.\n   _See_ Divines.\n _ulfat_, 158, 326.\n Unification, 106, 158, 164, 176, =278-85=, 289, 291.\n   See _taw\u1e25\u00edd_.\n Union with God, 118, 119, 131, 163, 201, =202-5=, 208, 302.\n   See _fan\u00e1_, _jam`_, _\u1e25u\u1e0d\u00far_.\n Unity of God, the. _See_ Unification.\n _uns_, 301, 309, =376-7=.\n _u\u1e63\u00fal_, 74.\n _`uzlat_, 72, 190.\n\n                                   V.\n\n Veils, spiritual, 4, 5, 8, 9, 111, 168, 200, 249, 331, 332.\n   See _\u1e25ij\u00e1b_.\n Vigils, 138.\n Vision, spiritual, 38, 111, 185, 186, 332, 381, 382, 389, 393, 403.\n Visions, 151, 167.\n\n                                   W.\n\n _wa\u1e25d\u00e1niyyat_, 281.\n _wa\u1e25dat_, 84.\n _w\u00e1\u1e25idiyyat_, 246.\n _wa\u1e25shat_, 147.\n _wajd_, 167, 368, 385, =413-16=, 419.\n _wal\u00e1yat_, 210.\n _wal\u00ed_, 129, 211, 212, 215.\n Walking, rules in, 349-51.\n _w\u00e1qi`a_, 387, 388.\n _waqt_, 13, 27, 329, =367-70=, 380, 419.\n _wara`_, 17.\n _w\u00e1rid_, 385, 404, 407.\n _was\u00e1\u00b4i\u1e6d_, 384.\n _wa\u1e63l_, 309.\n _wasw\u00e1s_, 166, 208, 293.\n _wa\u1e6dan_, 5.\n _wa\u1e6dan\u00e1t_, 144, 384.\n Way to God, the, 121, 233, 269, 270, 274, 371.\n Wealth, spiritual, =21-3=, 58, 123, 127.\n _wil\u00e1yat_, 210, 211, 225.\n Wool, garments of, 30, 32, 40, 45, 46, 51.\n _wuj\u00fad_, 253, 373, 413-16.\n _wu\u1e63\u00fal_, 118, 119.\n\n                                   Y.\n\n _yad-i sufl\u00e1_, 316.\n _yad-i `uly\u00e1_, 316.\n _y\u00e1ft_, 201.\n _yag\u00e1nag\u00ed_, 24, 333, 377.\n _yaq\u00edn_, 130, 144, 248, 272, 330, 381.\n\n                                   Z.\n\n _zadd\u00edq_, =31=.\n _\u1e95\u00e1hiriy\u00e1n_, 154, 241.\n _zak\u00e1t_, 314-17.\n _zand \u00fa p\u00e1zand_, 404.\n _zandaqa_, 8, 152, 404.\n _zaw\u00e1\u00b4id_, 384.\n _zind\u00edq_, 17, 404.\n _zuhd_, 17, 179, 181, 371.\n _\u1e95uh\u00far_, 369.\n _\u1e95ulm_, 387.\n _zunn\u00e1r_, 259, 273.\n\n\n                                  III.\n                                 BOOKS.\n\n                                   A.\n\n _\u00c1d\u00e1b al-mur\u00edd\u00edn_, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 338.\n _Asr\u00e1r al-khiraq wa \u00b4l-ma\u00b4\u00fan\u00e1t_, by `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 56.\n\n                                   B.\n\n _Ba\u1e25r al-qul\u00fab_, by `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 259.\n\n                                   G.\n\n _Ghala\u1e6d al-w\u00e1jid\u00edn_, by Ruwaym, 135.\n Gospel, the, 407.\n\n                                   K.\n\n _Khatm al-wil\u00e1yat_, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 141.\n _Kit\u00e1b `adh\u00e1b al-qabr_, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 141.\n _Kit\u00e1b al-bay\u00e1n li-ahl al-`iy\u00e1n_, by `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 259.\n _Kit\u00e1b-i fan\u00e1 \u00fa baq\u00e1_, by `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 60.\n _Kit\u00e1b al-luma`_, by Ab\u00fa Na\u1e63r al-Sarr\u00e1j, 255, 323, 341.\n _Kit\u00e1b-i ma\u1e25abbat_, by `Amr b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Makk\u00ed, 309.\n _Kit\u00e1b al-nahj_, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 141.\n _Kit\u00e1b al-sam\u00e1`_, by Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed, 401.\n _Kit\u00e1b al-taw\u1e25\u00edd_, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 141.\n Koran, the, 6, 14, 19, 23, 70, 77, 88, 96, 97, 98, 117, 124, 135, 149,\n    230, 300, 301, 304, 307, 317, 323, =394-7=, 411, 415.\n Koran, citations from the, 3, 5, 9, 11, 19, 22, 24, 30, 32, 40, 41, 42,\n    45, 47, 57, 62, 63, 74, 78, 79, 81, 85, 90, 91, 97, 102, 103, 109,\n    122, 156, 159, 160, 167, 185, 186, 190, 193, 194, 197, 198, 200,\n    201, 202, 204, 208, 210, 211, 212, 215, 230, 237, 238, 239, 241,\n    246, 249, 251, 252, 255, 261, 267, 268, 269, 273, 278, 283, 289,\n    291, 294, 295, 296, 297, 304, 311, 312, 316, 320, 324, 330, 336,\n    338, 348, 349, 350, 354, 355, 357, 360, 368, 370, 371, 372, 373,\n    374, 375, 377, 380, 381, 384, 388, 390, 391, 392, 394-7, 399, 403,\n    415.\n Koran, commentary on the, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 141.\n\n                                   L.\n\n _Luma`._ See _Kit\u00e1b al-luma`_.\n\n                                   M.\n\n _Minh\u00e1j al-d\u00edn_, by `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 2, 80, 153.\n _Mir\u00b4\u00e1t al-\u1e25ukam\u00e1_, by Sh\u00e1h b. Shuj\u00e1` al-Kirm\u00e1n\u00ed, 138.\n\n                                   N.\n\n _Nafa\u1e25\u00e1t al-uns_, by J\u00e1m\u00ed, 16, 21, 41, 43, 44, 169, 172, 173, 234, 249,\n    257, 260, 298, 304, 323, 325, 335, 338, 358, 374, 408, 415.\n _Naw\u00e1dir al-u\u1e63\u00fal_, by Mu\u1e25ammad b. `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 141.\n _Nuzhat al-qul\u00fab_, by \u1e24amdall\u00e1h Mustawf\u00ed, 51.\n\n                                   R.\n\n _Ri`\u00e1yat_, by \u1e24\u00e1rith al-Mu\u1e25\u00e1sib\u00ed, 108.\n _al-Ri`\u00e1yat bi-\u1e25uq\u00faq Allah_, by A\u1e25mad b. Kha\u1e0dr\u00faya, 338.\n _al-Ri`\u00e1yat li-\u1e25uq\u00faq Allah_, by `Al\u00ed b. `Uthm\u00e1n al-Hujw\u00edr\u00ed, 280.\n\n                                   T.\n\n _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-\u1e25uff\u00e1\u1e95_, by Dhahab\u00ed, 118.\n _\u1e6cabaq\u00e1t al-\u1e62\u00fafiyya_, by Ab\u00fa `Abd al-Ra\u1e25m\u00e1n al-Sulam\u00ed, 108, 114.\n _Tadhkirat al-awliy\u00e1_, by `A\u1e6d\u1e6d\u00e1r, 51, 137, 238.\n _Ta`r\u00edf\u00e1t_, by Jurj\u00e1n\u00ed, 373.\n _Ta\u00b4r\u00edkh-i mash\u00e1yikh_ (History of the \u1e62\u00faf\u00ed Shaykhs), by Mu\u1e25ammad b.\n    `Al\u00ed al-Tirmidh\u00ed, 46.\n _Ta\u1e63\u1e25\u00ed\u1e25 al-ir\u00e1dat_, by Junayd, 338.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                           Transcriber\u2019s Note\n\nOccasional lapses of punctuation in the various indexes have been\nsilently corrected.\n\nOther errors deemed most likely to be the printer\u2019s have been corrected,\nand are noted here. The references are either to the page and line, or,\nwhere three numbers are employed, to the line within a footnote in the\noriginal.\n\n  2.28     The truth is best known to God God[.]          Added.\n  39.33    _fa-li-Ya\u1e25y\u00e1 wa-amm[\u00e1/a] labs_                 Replaced.\n  82.21    Abu \u00b4l-Marthad Kin\u00e1na b. al-\u1e24u[\u1e63/s]ayn         Replaced.\n  91.10    [`Amr b.] `Uthm\u00e1n al-Makk\u00ed                     Restored.\n  96.36    yet I feel fear within myself[\u2019./.\u2019]           Transposed.\n  108.1.1  _Ri`\u00e1yat li-\u1e25uq\u00faq All[\u00e1/a]h_                   Replaced.\n  141.5.1  \u201cThe Book [of] Unification.\u201d                   Missing.\n  193.17   [\u201c/\u2018]_They> prefer them to themselves,_ ...    Replaced.\n  200.27   (_al-jih\u00e1d al-akbar_)[\u201d].                      Added.\n  193.18   ... _although they are indigent_[\u201d/\u2019]          Replaced.\n  229.23   Afterwards Mu\u1e25ammad b. [`]Al\u00ed asked a question Inserted.\n  436.29   _khu\u1e63\u00fa[s/\u1e63]iyyat_, 257.                        Replaced.","title":"The Kashf al-mahj\u00fab: The oldest Persian treatise on S\u00fafiism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":161226}