Chapter XIV (3)

The Shaykhs of this sect and all orthodox Moslems are agreed that an extraordinary act resembling a prophetic miracle (_mu`jizat_) may be performed by an unbeliever, in order that by means of his performance he may be shown beyond doubt to be an impostor. Thus, for example, Pharaoh lived four hundred years without once falling ill; and when he climbed up to any high ground the water followed him, and stopped when he stopped, and moved when he moved. Nevertheless, intelligent men did not hesitate to deny his pretensions to godship, inasmuch as every intelligent person acknowledges that God is not incarnate (_mujassam_) and composite (_murakkab_). You will judge by analogy the wondrous acts related of Shaddád, who was the lord of Iram, and Nimrod. Similarly, we are told on trustworthy authority that in the last days Dajjál will come and will claim godship, and that two mountains will go with him, one on his right hand and the other on his left; and that the mountain on his right hand will be the place of felicity, and the mountain on his left hand will be the place of torment; and that he will call the people to himself and will punish those who refuse to join him. But though he should perform a hundredfold amount of such extraordinary acts, no intelligent person would doubt the falsity of his claim, for it is well known that God does not sit on an ass and is not blind. Such things fall under the principle of Divine deception (_istidráj_). So, again, one who falsely pretends to be an apostle may perform an extraordinary act, which proves him an impostor, just as a similar act performed by a true apostle proves him genuine. But no such act can be performed if there be any possibility of doubt or any difficulty in distinguishing the true claimant from the impostor, for in that case the principle of allegiance (_bay`at_) would be nullified. It is possible, moreover, that something of the same kind as a miracle (_karámat_) may be performed by a pretender to saintship who, although his conduct is bad, is blameless in his religion, inasmuch as by that miraculous act he confirms the truth of the Apostle and manifests the grace of God vouchsafed to him and does not attribute the act in question to his own power. One who speaks the truth, without evidence, in the fundamental matter of faith (_ímán_), will always speak the truth, with evidence and firm belief, in the matter of saintship, because his belief is of the same quality as the belief of the saint; and though his actions do not square with his belief, his claim of saintship is not demonstrably contradicted by his evil conduct, any more than his claim of faith could be. In fact, miracles (_karámát_) and saintship are Divine gifts, not things acquired by Man, so that human actions (_kasb_) cannot become the cause of Divine guidance.

I have already said that the saints are not preserved from sin (_ma`ṣúm_), for sinlessness belongs to the prophets, but they are protected (_maḥfúẕ_) from any evil that involves the denial of their saintship; and the denial of saintship, after it has come into being, depends on something inconsistent with faith, namely, apostasy (_riddat_): it does not depend on sin. This is the doctrine of Muḥammad b. `Alí Ḥakím of Tirmidh, and also of Junayd, Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí, Ḥárith Muḥásibí, and many other mystics (_ahl-i ḥaqá´iq_). But those who attach importance to conduct (_ahl-i mu`ámalát_), like Sahl b. `Abdalláh of Tustar, Abú Sulaymán Dárání, Ḥamdún Qaṣṣár, and others, maintain that saintship involves unceasing obedience (_ṭá`at_), and that when a great sin (_kabíra_) occurs to the mind of a saint he is deposed from his saintship. Now, as I have stated before, there is a consensus of opinion (_ijmá`_) among Moslems that a great sin does not put anyone outside the pale of faith; and one saintship (_wiláyat_) is no better than another. Therefore, since the saintship of knowledge of God (_ma`rifat_), which is the foundation of all miracles vouchsafed by Divine grace (_karámathá_), is not lost through sin, it is impossible that what is inferior to that in excellence and grace (_karámat_) should disappear because of sin. The controversy among the Shaykhs on this matter has run to great length, and I do not intend to record it here.

It is most important, however, that you should know with certainty in what state this miraculous grace is manifested to the saint: in sobriety or intoxication, in rapture (_ghalabat_) or composure (_tamkín_). I have fully explained the meaning of intoxication and sobriety in my account of the doctrine of Abú Yazíd. He and Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian and Muḥammad b. Khafíf and Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj) and Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh Rází and others hold that miracles are not vouchsafed to a saint except when he is in the state of intoxication, whereas the miracles of the prophets are wrought in the state of sobriety. Hence, according to their doctrine, this is a clear distinction between _mu`jizát_ and _karámát_, for the saint, being enraptured, pays no heed to the people and does not call upon them to follow him, while the prophet, being sober, exerts himself to attain his object and challenges the people to rival what he has done. Moreover, the prophet may choose whether he will manifest or conceal his extraordinary powers, but the saints have no such choice; sometimes a miracle is not granted to them when they desire it, and sometimes it is bestowed when they do not desire it, for the saint has no propaganda, so that his attributes should be subsistent, but he is hidden and his proper state is to have his attributes annihilated. The prophet is a man of law (_ṣáḥib shar`_), and the saint is a man of inward feeling (_ṣáḥib sirr_). Accordingly, a miracle (_karámat_) will not be manifested to a saint unless he is in a state of absence from himself and bewilderment, and unless his faculties are entirely under the control of God. While saints are with themselves and maintain the state of humanity (_bashariyyat_), they are veiled; but when the veil is lifted they are bewildered and amazed through realizing the bounties of God. A miracle cannot be manifested except in the state of unveiledness (_kashf_), which is the rank of proximity (_qurb_); and whoever is in that state, to him worthless stones appear even as gold. This is the state of intoxication with which no human being, the prophets alone excepted, is permanently endowed. Thus, one day, Ḥáritha was transported from this world and had the next world revealed to him; he said: “I have cut myself loose from this world, so that its stones and its gold and its silver and its clay are all one to me.” Next day he was seen tending asses, and on being asked what he was doing, he said: “I am trying to get the food that I need.” Therefore, the saints, while they are sober, are as ordinary men, but while they are intoxicated their rank is the same as that of the prophets, and the whole universe becomes like gold unto them. Shiblí says—

“_Gold wherever we go, and pearls
Wherever we turn, and silver in the waste._”

I have heard the Master and Imám Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí say: “Once I asked Ṭábarání about the beginning of his spiritual experience. He told me that on one occasion he wanted a stone from the river-bed at Sarakhs. Every stone that he touched turned into a gem, and he threw them all away.” This was because stones and gems were the same to him, or rather, gems were of less value, since he had no desire for them. And I have heard Khwája Imám Khazá´iní at Sarakhs relate as follows: “In my boyhood I went to a certain place to get mulberry leaves for silkworms. When it was midday I climbed a tree and began to shake the branches. While I was thus employed Shaykh Abu ´l-Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan passed by, but he did not see me, and I had no doubt that he was beside himself and that his heart was with God. Suddenly he raised his head and cried with the boldness of intimacy: ‘O Lord, it is more than a year since Thou hast given me a small piece of silver (_dángí_) that I might have my hair cut. Is this the way to treat Thy friends?’ No sooner had he spoken than I saw all the leaves and boughs and roots of the trees turned to gold. Abu ´l-Faḍl exclaimed: ‘How strange! The least hint that I utter is a backsliding (_hama ta`ríḍ-i má í`ráḍ ast_). One cannot say a word to Thee for the sake of relieving one’s mind.’” It is related that Shiblí cast four hundred dínárs into the Tigris. When asked what he was doing, he replied: “Stones are better in the water.” “But why,” they said, “don’t you give the money to the poor?” He answered: “Glory to God! what plea can I urge before Him if I remove the veil from my own heart only to place it on the hearts of my brother Moslems? It is not religious to wish them worse than myself.” All these cases belong to the state of intoxication, which I have already explained.

On the other hand, Junayd and Abu ´l-`Abbás Sayyárí and Abú Bakr Wásiṭí and Muḥammad b. `Alí of Tirmidh, the author of the doctrine, hold that miracles are manifested in the state of sobriety and composure (_ṣaḥw ú tamkín_), not in the state of intoxication. They argue that the saints of God are the governors of His kingdom and the overseers of the universe, which God has committed absolutely to their charge: therefore their judgments must be the soundest of all, and their hearts must be the most tenderly disposed of all towards the creatures of God. They are mature (_rasídagán_); and whereas agitation and intoxication are marks of inexperience, with maturity agitation is transmuted into composure. Then, and only then, is one a saint in reality, and only then are miracles genuine. It is well known among Ṣúfís that every night the _Awtád_ must go round the whole universe, and if there should be any place on which their eyes have not fallen, next day some imperfection will appear in that place; and they must then inform the _Quṭb_, in order that he may fix his attention on the weak spot, and that by his blessing the imperfection may be removed. As regards the assertion that gold and earth are one to the saint, this indifference is a sign of intoxication and failure to see truly. More excellent is the man of true sight and sound perception, to whom gold is gold and earth is earth, but who recognizes the evil of the former and says: “O yellow ore! O white ore! beguile some one else, for I am aware of your corruptedness.” He who sees the corruptedness of gold and silver perceives them to be a veil (between himself and God), and God will reward him for having renounced them. Contrariwise, he to whom gold is even as earth is not made perfect by renouncing earth. Ḥáritha, being intoxicated, declared that stones and gold were alike to him, but Abú Bakr, being sober, perceived the evil of laying hands on worldly wealth, and knew that God would reward him for rejecting it. Therefore he renounced it, and when the Apostle asked him what he had left for his family he answered, “God and His Apostle.” And the following story is related by Abú Bakr Warráq of Tirmidh: “One day Muḥammad b. `Alí (al-Ḥakím) said that he would take me somewhere. I replied: ‘It is for the Shaykh to command.’ Soon after we set out I saw an exceedingly dreadful wilderness, and in the midst thereof a golden throne placed under a green tree beside a fountain of running water. Seated on the throne was a person clad in beautiful raiment, who rose when Muḥammad b. `Alí approached, and bade him sit on the throne. After a while, people came from every side until forty were gathered together. Then Muḥammad b. `Alí waved his hand, and immediately food appeared from heaven, and we ate. Afterwards Muḥammad b. `Alí asked a question of a man who was present, and he in reply made a long discourse of which I did not understand a single word. At last the Shaykh begged leave and took his departure, saying to me: ‘Go, for thou art blest.’ On our return to Tirmidh, I asked him what was that place and who was that man. He told me that the place was the Desert of the Israelites (_tíh-i Baní Isrá´íl_) and that the man was the _Quṭb_ on whom the order of the universe depends. ‘O Shaykh,’ I said, ‘how did we reach the Desert of the Israelites from Tirmidh in such a brief time?’ He answered: ‘O Abú Bakr, it is thy business to arrive (_rasídan_), not to ask questions (_pursídan_).’“ This is a mark, not of intoxication, but of sanity.

Now I will mention some miracles and stories of the Ṣúfís, and link thereto certain evidence which is to be found in the Book (the Koran).

_Discourse concerning their Miracles._

The reality of miracles having been established by logical argument, you must now become acquainted with the evidence of the Koran and the genuine Traditions of the Apostle. Both Koran and Tradition proclaim the reality of miracles and extraordinary acts wrought by saints. To deny this is to deny the authority of the sacred texts. One example is the text, ”_And We caused the clouds to overshadow you and the manna and the quails to descend upon you_” (Kor. ii, 54). If any sceptic should assert that this was an evidentiary miracle (_mu`jizat_) of Moses, I raise no objection, because all the miracles of the saints are an evidentiary miracle of Muḥammad; and if he says that this miracle was wrought in the absence of Moses, although it occurred in his time, and that therefore it was not necessarily wrought by him, I reply that the same principle holds good in the case of Moses, when he quitted his people and went to Mount Sinai, as in the case of Muḥammad; for there is no difference between being absent in time and being absent in space. We are also told of the miracle of Áṣaf b. Barkhiyá, who brought the throne of Bilqís to Solomon in the twinkling of an eye (Kor. xxvii, 40). This cannot have been a _mu`jizat_, for Áṣaf was not an apostle; had it been a _mu`jizat_, it must have been wrought by Solomon: therefore it was a _karámat_. We are told also of Mary that whenever Zacharias went into her chamber he found winter fruits in summer and summer fruits in winter, so that he said: “_‘Whence hadst thou this?’ She answered, ‘It is from God’_” (Kor. iii, 32). Everyone admits that Mary was not an apostle. Furthermore, we have the story of the men of the cave (_aṣḥáb al-kahf_), how their dog spoke to them, and how they slept and turned about in the cave (Kor. xviii, 17). All these were extraordinary acts, and since they certainly were not a _mu`jizat_, they must have been a _karámat_. Such miracles (_karámat_) may be, for example, the answering of prayers through the accomplishment of wishes conceived by one who is subject to the religious law (_ba-ḥuṣúl-i umúr-i mawhúm andar zamán-i taklíf_), or the traversing of great distances in a short time, or the appearance of food from an unaccustomed place, or power to read the thoughts of others, etc.

Among the genuine Traditions is the story of the cave (_ḥadíth al-ghár_), which is told as follows. One day the Companions of the Apostle begged him to relate to them some marvellous tale of the ancient peoples. He said: “Once three persons were going to a certain place. At eventide they took shelter in a cave, and while they were asleep a rock fell from the mountain and blocked the mouth of the cave. They said to one another, ‘We shall never escape from here unless we make our disinterested actions plead for us before God.’ So one of them began: ‘I had a father and mother and I had no worldly goods except a goat, whose milk I used to give to them; and every day I used to gather a bundle of firewood and sell it and spend the money in providing food for them and myself. One night I came home rather late, and before I milked the goat and steeped their food in the milk they had fallen asleep. I kept the bowl in my hand and stood there, without having eaten anything, until morning, when they awoke and ate; then I sat down.’ ‘O Lord’ (he continued), ‘if I speak the truth concerning this matter, send us deliverance and come to our aid!’” The Apostle said: “Thereupon the rock moved a little and a crevice appeared. The next man said: ‘There was a beautiful blind girl, with whom I was deeply in love, but she would not listen to my suit. I managed to send to her a hundred and twenty dínárs with a promise that she should keep the money if she would be mine for one night. When she came the fear of God seized my heart. I turned from her and let her keep the money.’ He added, ‘O God, if I speak the truth, deliver us!’” The Apostle said: “Then the rock moved a little further and the crevice widened, but they could not yet go forth. The third man said: ‘I had some labourers working for me. When the work was done they all received their wages except one, who disappeared. With his wages I bought a sheep. Next year there were two, and in the year after that there were four, and they soon became a large flock. After several years the labourer returned and asked me for his wages. I said to him, “Go and take all these sheep; they are your property.” He thought I must be mocking him, but I assured him that it was true, and he went off with the whole flock.’ The narrator added, ‘O Lord, if I speak the truth, deliver us!’” “He had scarcely finished,” said the Apostle, “when the rock moved away from the mouth of the cave and let the three men come forth.”[122] It is related that Abú Sa`íd Kharráz said: “For a long time I used to eat only once in three days. I was journeying in the desert, and on the third day I felt weak through hunger. A voice from heaven cried to me, ‘Dost thou prefer food that will quiet thy lower nature, or an expedient that will enable thee to overcome thy weakness without food?’ I replied, ‘O God, give me strength!’ Then I rose and travelled twelve stages without meat or drink.” It is well known that at the present day the house of Sahl b. `Abdalláh at Tustar is called the House of the Wild Beasts (_bayt al-sibá`_), and the people of Tustar are agreed that many wild beasts used to come to him, and that he fed and tended them. Abu ´l-Qásim of Merv tells the following story: “As I was walking on the seashore with Abú Sa`íd Kharráz, I saw a youth clad in a patched frock and carrying a bucket (_rakwa_), to which an ink-bottle was fastened. Kharráz said: ‘When I look at this youth he seems to be one of the adepts (_rasídagán_), but when I look at his ink-bottle I think he is a student. Let me question him.’ So he accosted the youth and said, ‘What is the way to God?’ The youth answered: ‘There are two ways to God: the way of the vulgar and the way of the elect. Thou hast no knowledge of the latter, but the way of the vulgar, which thou pursuest, is to regard thine own actions as the cause of attaining to God, and to suppose that an ink-bottle is one of the things that interfere with attainment.’” Dhu ´l-Nún the Egyptian says: “Once I embarked in a ship voyaging from Egypt to Jidda. Among the passengers was a youth wearing a patched frock. I was eager to be his companion, but he inspired me with such awe that I did not venture to address him, for his spiritual state was very exalted and he was constantly engaged in devotion. One day a certain man lost a purse of jewels, and suspicion fell on this youth. They were about to maltreat him, but I said, ‘Let me question him courteously.’ I told him that he was suspected of theft and that I had saved him from maltreatment. ‘And now,’ I said, ‘what is to be done?’ He looked towards Heaven and spoke a few words. The fishes came to the surface of the sea, each with a jewel in its mouth. He took a jewel and gave it to his accuser; then he set his foot on the water and walked away. Thereupon the real thief dropped the purse, and the people in the ship repented.” Ibráhím Raqqí[123] is related to have said: “In my novitiate I set out to visit Muslim Maghribí. I found him in his mosque, acting as precentor. He pronounced _al-ḥamd_ incorrectly. I said to myself, ‘My trouble has been wasted.’ Next day, when I was going to the bank of the Euphrates to perform the religious ablution, I saw a lion asleep on the road. I turned back, and was faced by another lion which had been following me. Hearing my cry of despair, Muslim came forth from his cell. When the lions saw him they humbled themselves before him. He took the ear of each one and rubbed it, saying, ‘O dogs of God, have not I told you that you must not interfere with my guests?’ Then he said to me: ‘O Abú Isḥáq, thou hast busied thyself with correcting thy exterior for the sake of God’s creatures, hence thou art afraid of them; but it has been my business to correct my interior for God’s sake, hence His creatures are afraid of me.’” One day my Shaykh set out from Bayt al-Jinn to Damascus. Heavy rain had begun to fall, and I was walking with difficulty in the mire. I noticed that the Shaykh’s shoes and clothes were perfectly dry. On my pointing this out to him, he said: “Yes; God has preserved me from mud ever since I put unquestioning trust in Him and guarded my interior from the desolation of cupidity.” Once an experience occurred to me which I could not unravel. I set out to visit Shaykh Abu `l-Qásim Gurgání at Ṭús. I found him alone in his chamber in the mosque, and he was expounding precisely the same difficulty to a pillar, so that I was answered without having asked the question. “O Shaykh,” I cried, “to whom art thou saying this?” He replied: “O son, God just now caused this pillar to speak and ask me this question.” In Farghána, at a village called Ashlátak,[124] there was an old man, one of the _Awtád_ of the earth. His name was Báb `Umar[125]—all the dervishes in that country give the title of Báb to their great Shaykhs—and he had an old wife called Fáṭima. I went from Uzkand to see him. When I entered his presence he said: “Why have you come?” I replied: “In order that I might see the Shaykh in person and that he might look on me with kindness.” He said: “I have been seeing you continually since such and such a day, and I wish to see you as long as you are not removed from my sight.” I computed the day and year: it was the very day on which my conversion began. The Shaykh said: “To traverse distance (_sipardan-i masáfat_) is child’s play: henceforth pay visits by means of thought (_himmat_); it is not worth while to visit any person (_shakhṣ_), and there is no virtue in bodily presence (_ḥuḍúr-i ashbáḥ_).” Then he bade Fáṭima bring something to eat. She brought a dish of new grapes, although it was not the season for them, and some fresh ripe dates, which cannot possibly be procured in Farghána. On another occasion, while I was sitting alone, as is my custom, beside the tomb of Shaykh Abú Sa`íd at Mihna, I saw a white pigeon fly under the cloth (_fúṭa_) covering the sepulchre. I supposed that the bird had escaped from its owner, but when I looked under the cloth nothing was to be seen. This happened again next day, and also on the third day. I was at a loss to understand it, until one night I dreamed of the saint and asked him about my experience. He answered: “That pigeon is my good conduct (_ṣafá-yi mu`ámalat_), which comes every day to my tomb to feast with me (_ba-munádamat-i man_).”[126] I might adduce many more of these tales without exhausting them, but my purpose in this book is to establish the principles of Ṣúfiism. As regards derivatives and matters of conduct books have been compiled by the traditionists (_naqqálán_), and these topics are disseminated from the pulpit by preachers (_mudhakkirán_). Now I will give, in one or two sections, an adequate account of certain points bearing on the present discussion, in order that I may not have to return to it again.

Footnote 122:

Here follow (1) a Tradition, related by Abú Hurayra, of three infants
who were miraculously endowed with speech: (_a_) Jesus, (_b_) a child
who exculpated the monk Jurayj (George) when he was falsely accused by
a harlot, (_c_) a child who divined the characters of a horseman and a
woman. (2) A story of Zá´ida, the handmaid of the Caliph `Umar: how a
knight descended from heaven and gave her a message from Riḍwán, the
keeper of Paradise, to the Prophet; and how, when she could not lift a
bundle of firewood from a rock on which she had laid it, the Prophet
bade the rock go with her and carry the firewood to `Umar’s house. (3)
A story of `Alá b. al-Ḥaḍramí, who, having been sent on a warlike
expedition by the Prophet, walked dry-shod across a river with his
company. (4) A story of `Abdalláh b. `Umar, at whose bidding a lion
decamped and left the way open for a party of travellers. (5) A story
of a man who was seen sitting in the air, and when Abraham asked him
by what means he had obtained such power, replied that he had
renounced the world and that God had bestowed on him an aerial
dwelling-place where he was not disturbed by any thought of mankind.
(6) A story of the Caliph `Umar, who was on the point of being killed
by a Persian, when two lions suddenly appeared and caused the assassin
to desist. (7) A story of Khálid b. Walíd, who said “Bismillah” and
drank a deadly poison, which did him no harm. (8) A story, related by
Ḥasan of Baṣra, of a negro who turned the walls of a tavern into gold.
(9) A story, related by Ibráhím b. Adham, of a shepherd who smote a
rock with his staff and caused water to gush forth. (10) A story of a
cup which pronounced the words “Glory to God” in the hearing of Abú
Dardá and Salmán Fárisí.

Footnote 123:

Died in 326 A.H. See Abu ´l-Maḥásin, _Nujúm_, ii, 284, 13.

Footnote 124:

L. سلاتک. IJ. اسلاتک.

Footnote 125:

See _Nafaḥát_, No. 351.

Footnote 126:

Here the author tells the story, which has already been related (p.
142 _supra_), of Abú Bakr Warráq, who was commanded by Muḥammad b.
`Alí of Tirmidh to throw some of the latter’s mystical writings into
the Oxus.

_Discourse on the Superiority of the Prophets to the Saints._

You must know that, by universal consent of the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, the saints are at all times and in all circumstances subordinate to the prophets, whose missions they confirm. The prophets are superior to the saints, because the end of saintship is only the beginning of prophecy. Every prophet is a saint, but some saints are not prophets. The prophets are constantly exempt from the attributes of humanity, while the saints are so only temporarily; the fleeting state (_ḥál_) of the saint is the permanent station (_maqám_) of the prophet; and that which to the saints is a station (_maqám_) is to the prophets a veil (_ḥijáb_). This view is held unanimously by the Sunní divines and the Ṣúfí mystics, but it is opposed by a sect of the Ḥashwiyya—the Anthropomorphists (_mujassima_) of Khurásán—who discourse in a self-contradictory manner concerning the principles of Unification (_tawḥíd_), and who, although they do not know the fundamental doctrine of Ṣúfiism, call themselves saints. Saints they are indeed, but saints of the Devil. They maintain that the saints are superior to the prophets, and it is a sufficient proof of their error that they declare an ignoramus to be more excellent than Muḥammad, the Chosen of God. The same vicious opinion is held by another sect of Anthropomorphists (_mushabbiha_), who pretend to be Ṣúfís, and admit the doctrines of the incarnation of God and His descent (into the human body) by transmigration (_intiqál_), and the division (_tajziya_) of His essence. I will treat fully of these matters when I give my promised account of the two reprobated sects (of Ṣúfís). The sects to which I am now referring claim to be Moslems, but they agree with the Brahmans in denying special privileges to the prophets; and whoever believes in this doctrine becomes an infidel. Moreover, the prophets are propagandists and Imáms, and the saints are their followers, and it is absurd to suppose that the follower of an Imám is superior to the Imám himself. In short, the lives, experiences, and spiritual powers of all the saints together appear as nothing compared with one act of a true prophet, because the saints are seekers and pilgrims, whereas the prophets have arrived and have found and have returned with the command to preach and to convert the people. If any one of the above-mentioned heretics should urge that an ambassador sent by a king is usually inferior to the person to whom he is sent, as e.g. Gabriel is inferior to the Apostles, and that this is against my argument, I reply that an ambassador sent to a single person should be inferior to him, but when an ambassador is sent to a large number of persons or to a people, he is superior to them, as the Apostles are superior to the nations. Therefore one moment of the prophets is better than the whole life of the saints, because when the saints reach their goal they tell of contemplation (_musháhadat_) and obtain release from the veil of humanity (_bashariyyat_), although they are essentially men. On the other hand, contemplation is the first step of the apostle; and since the apostle’s starting-place is the saint’s goal, they cannot be judged by the same standard. Do not you perceive that, according to the unanimous opinion of all the saints who seek God, the station of union (_jam`_) belongs to the perfection of saintship? Now, in this station, a man attains such a degree of rapturous love that his intelligence is enraptured in gazing upon the act of God (_fi`l_), and in his longing for the Divine Agent (_fá`il_) he regards the whole universe as that and sees nothing but that. Thus Abú `Alí Rúdbárí says: “Were the vision of that which we serve to vanish from us, we should lose the name of servantship (_`ubúdiyyat_)” for we derive the glory of worship (_`ibádat_) solely from vision of Him. This is the beginning of the state of the prophets, inasmuch as separation (_tafriqa_) is inconceivable in relation to them. They are entirely in the essence of union, whether they affirm or deny, whether they approach or turn away, whether they are at the beginning or at the end. Abraham, in the beginning of his state, looked on the sun and said: “_This is my Lord_,” and he looked on the moon and stars and said: “_This is my Lord_” (Kor. vi, 76-8), because his heart was overwhelmed by the Truth and he was united in the essence of union. Therefore he saw naught else, or if he saw aught else he did not see it with the eye of “otherness” (_ghayr_), but with the eye of union (_jam`_), and in the reality of that vision he disavowed his own and said: “_I love not those that set_” (Kor. vi, 76). As he began with union, so he ended with union. Saintship has a beginning and an end, but prophecy has not. The prophets were prophets from the first, and shall be to the last, and before they existed they were prophets in the knowledge and will of God. Abú Yazíd was asked about the state of the prophets. He replied: “Far be it from me to say! We have no power to judge of them, and in our notions of them we are wholly ourselves. God has placed their denial and affirmation in such an exalted degree that human vision cannot reach unto it.” Accordingly, as the rank of the saints is hidden from the perception of mankind, so the rank of the prophets is hidden from the judgment of the saints. Abú Yazíd was the proof (_ḥujjat_) of his age, and he says: “I saw that my spirit (_sirr_) was borne to the heavens. It looked at nothing and gave no heed, though Paradise and Hell were displayed to it, for it was freed from phenomena and veils. Then I became a bird, whose body was of Oneness and whose wings were of Everlastingness, and I continued to fly in the air of the Absolute (_huwiyyat_), until I passed into the sphere of Purification (_tanzíh_), and gazed upon the field of Eternity (_azaliyyat_) and beheld there the tree of Oneness. When I looked I myself was all those. I cried: ‘O Lord, with my egoism (_maní-yi man_) I cannot attain to Thee, and I cannot escape from my selfhood. What am I to do?’ God spake: ‘O Abú Yazíd, thou must win release from thy “thou-ness” by following My beloved i.e. (Muḥammad). Smear thine eyes with the dust of his feet and follow him continually.‘” This is a long narrative. The Ṣúfís call it the Ascension (_mi`ráj_) of Báyazíd;[127] and the term “ascension” denotes proximity to God (_qurb_). The ascension of prophets takes place outwardly and in the body, whereas that of saints takes place inwardly and in the spirit. The body of an apostle resembles the heart and spirit of a saint in purity and nearness to God. This is a manifest superiority. When a saint is enraptured and intoxicated he is withdrawn from himself by means of a spiritual ladder and brought near to God; and as soon as he returns to the state of sobriety all those evidences have taken shape in his mind and he has gained knowledge of them. Accordingly, there is a great difference between one who is carried thither in person and one who is carried thither only in thought (_fikrat_), for thought involves duality.

Footnote 127:

A full account of Báyazíd’s ascension is given in the _Tadhkirat
al-Awliyá_, i, 172 ff.

_Discourse on the Superiority of the Prophets and Saints to the Angels._

The whole community of orthodox Moslems and all the Ṣúfí Shaykhs agree that the prophets and such of the saints as are guarded from sin (_maḥfúẕ_) are superior to the angels. The opposite view is held by the Mu`tazilites, who declare that the angels are superior to the prophets, being of more exalted rank, of more subtle constitution, and more obedient to God. I reply that this is not as you imagine, for an obedient body, an exalted rank, and a subtle constitution cannot be causes of superiority, which belongs only to those on whom God has bestowed it. Iblís had all the qualities that you mention, yet he is universally acknowledged to have become accursed. The superiority of the prophets is indicated by the fact that God commanded the angels to worship Adam; for the state of one who is worshipped is higher than the state of the worshipper. If they argue that, just as a true believer is superior to the Ka`ba, an inanimate mass of stone, although he bows down before it, so the angels may be superior to Adam, although they bowed down before him, I reply: “No one says that a believer bows down to a house or an altar or a wall, but all say that he bows down to God, and it is admitted by all that the angels bowed down to Adam (Kor. ii, 32). How, then, can the Ka`ba be compared to Adam? A traveller may worship God on the back of the animal which he is riding, and he is excused if his face be not turned towards the Ka`ba; and, in like manner, one who has lost his bearings in a desert, so that he cannot tell the direction of the Ka`ba, will have done his duty in whatever direction he may turn to pray. The angels offered no excuse when they bowed down to Adam, and the one who made an excuse for himself became accursed.” These are clear proofs to any person of insight.

Again, the angels are equal to the prophets in knowledge of God, but not in rank. The angels are without lust, covetousness, and evil; their nature is devoid of hypocrisy and guile, and they are instinctively obedient to God; whereas lust is an impediment in human nature; and men have a propensity to commit sins and to be impressed by the vanities of this world; and Satan has so much power over their bodies that he circulates with the blood in their veins; and closely attached to them is the lower soul (_nafs_), which incites them to all manner of wickedness. Therefore, one whose nature has all these characteristics and who, in spite of the violence of his lust, refrains from immorality, and notwithstanding his covetousness renounces this world, and, though his heart is still tempted by the Devil, turns back from sin and averts his face from sensual depravity in order to occupy himself with devotion and persevere in piety and mortify his lower soul and contend against the Devil, such a one is in reality superior to the angel who is not the battle-field of lust, and is naturally without desire of food and pleasures, and has no care for wife and child and kinsfolk, and need not have recourse to means and instruments, and is not absorbed in corrupt ambitions. A Gabriel, who worships God so many thousands of years in the hope of gaining a robe of honour, and the honour bestowed on him was that of acting as Muḥammad’s groom on the night of the Ascension—how should he be superior to one who disciplines and mortifies his lower soul by day and night in this world, until God looks on him with favour and grants to him the grace of seeing Himself and delivers him from all distracting thoughts? When the pride of the angels passed all bounds, and every one of them vaunted the purity of his conduct and spoke with an unbridled tongue in blame of mankind, God resolved that He would show to them their real state. He therefore bade them choose three of the chief among them, in whom they had confidence, to go to the earth and be its governors and reform its people. So three angels were chosen, but before they came to the earth one of them perceived its corruption and begged God to let him return. When the other two arrived on the earth God changed their nature so that they felt a desire for food and drink and were inclined to lust, and God punished them on that account, and the angels were forced to recognize the superiority of mankind to themselves.[128] In short, the elect among the true believers are superior to the elect among the angels, and the ordinary believers are superior to the ordinary angels. Accordingly those men who are preserved (_ma`ṣúm_) and protected (_maḥfúẕ_) from sin are more excellent than Gabriel and Michael, and those who are not thus preserved are better than the Recording Angels (_ḥafaẕa_) and the noble Scribes (_kirám-i kátibín_).

Footnote 128:

See Kor. ii, 96 ff.

Something has been said on this subject by every one of the Shaykhs. God awards superiority to whom He pleases, over whom He pleases. You must know that saintship is a Divine mystery which is revealed only through conduct (_rawish_). A saint is known only to a saint. If this matter could be made plain to all reasonable men it would be impossible to distinguish the friend from the foe or the spiritual adept from the careless worldling. Therefore God so willed that the pearl of His love should be set in the shell of popular contempt and be cast into the sea of affliction, in order that those who seek it may hazard their lives on account of its preciousness and dive to the bottom of this ocean of death, where they will either win their desire or bring their mortal state to an end.

8.THE KHARRÁZÍS.

They are the followers of Abú Sa`íd Kharráz, who wrote brilliant works on Ṣúfiism and attained a high degree in detachment from the world. He was the first to explain the state of annihilation and subsistence (_faná ú baqá_), and he comprehended his whole doctrine in these two terms. Now I will declare their meaning and show the errors into which some have fallen in this respect, in order that you may know what his doctrine is and what the Ṣúfís intend when they employ these current expressions.

_Discourse on Subsistence_ (baqá) _and Annihilation_ (faná).

You must know that annihilation and subsistence have one meaning in science and another meaning in mysticism, and that formalists (_ẕáhiriyán_) are more puzzled by these words than by any other technical terms of the Ṣúfís. Subsistence in its scientific and etymological acceptation is of three kinds: (1) a subsistence that begins and ends in annihilation, e.g. this world, which had a beginning and will have an end, and is now subsistent; (2) a subsistence that came into being and will never be annihilated, viz. Paradise and Hell and the next world and its inhabitants; (3) a subsistence that always was and always will be, viz. the subsistence of God and His eternal attributes. Accordingly, knowledge of annihilation lies in your knowing that this world is perishable, and knowledge of subsistence lies in your knowledge that the next world is everlasting.

But the subsistence and annihilation of a state (_ḥál_) denotes, for example, that when ignorance is annihilated knowledge is necessarily subsistent, and that when sin is annihilated piety is subsistent, and that when a man acquires knowledge of his piety his forgetfulness (_ghaflat_) is annihilated by remembrance of God (_dhikr_), i.e., when anyone gains knowledge of God and becomes subsistent in knowledge of Him he is annihilated from (entirely loses) ignorance of Him, and when he is annihilated from forgetfulness he becomes subsistent in remembrance of Him, and this involves the discarding of blameworthy attributes and the substitution of praiseworthy attributes. A different signification, however, is attached to the terms in question by the elect among the Ṣúfís. They do not refer these expressions to “knowledge” (_`ilm_) or to “state” (_ḥál_), but apply them solely to the degree of perfection attained by the saints who have become free from the pains of mortification and have escaped from the prison of “stations” and the vicissitude of “states”, and whose search has ended in discovery, so that they have seen all things visible, and have heard all things audible, and have discovered all the secrets of the heart; and who, recognizing the imperfection of their own discovery, have turned away from all things and have purposely become annihilated in the object of desire, and in the very essence of desire have lost all desires of their own, for when a man becomes annihilated from his attributes he attains to perfect subsistence, he is neither near nor far, neither stranger nor intimate, neither sober nor intoxicated, neither separated nor united; he has no name, or sign, or brand, or mark.

In short, real annihilation from anything involves consciousness of its imperfection and absence of desire for it, not merely that a man should say, when he likes a thing, “I am subsistent therein,” or when he dislikes it, that he should say, “I am annihilated therefrom”; for these qualities are characteristic of one who is still seeking. In annihilation there is no love or hate, and in subsistence there is no consciousness of union or separation. Some wrongly imagine that annihilation signifies loss of essence and destruction of personality, and that subsistence indicates the subsistence of God in Man; both these notions are absurd. In India I had a dispute on this subject with a man who claimed to be versed in Koranic exegesis and theology. When I examined his pretensions I found that he knew nothing of annihilation and subsistence, and that he could not distinguish the eternal from the phenomenal. Many ignorant Ṣúfís consider that total annihilation (_faná-yi kulliyyat_) is possible, but this is a manifest error, for annihilation of the different parts of a material substance (_ṭínatí_) can never take place. I ask these ignorant and mistaken men: “What do you mean by this kind of annihilation?” If they answer, “Annihilation of substance” (_faná-yi `ayn_), that is impossible; and if they answer, “Annihilation of attributes,” that is only possible in so far as one attribute may be annihilated through the subsistence of another attribute, both attributes belonging to Man; but it is absurd to suppose that anyone can subsist through the attributes of another individual. The Nestorians of Rúm and the Christians hold that Mary annihilated by self-mortification all the attributes of humanity (_awṣáf-i násútí_) and that the Divine subsistence became attached to her, so that she was made subsistent through the subsistence of God, and that Jesus was the result thereof, and that he was not originally composed of the stuff of humanity, because his subsistence is produced by realization of the subsistence of God; and that, in consequence of this, he and his mother and God are all subsistent through one subsistence, which is eternal and an attribute of God. All this agrees with the doctrine of the anthropomorphistic sects of the Ḥashwiyya, who maintain that the Divine essence is a _locus_ of phenomena (_maḥall-i ḥawádith_) and that the Eternal may have phenomenal attributes. I ask all who proclaim such tenets: “What difference is there between the view that the Eternal is the _locus_ of the phenomenal and the view that the phenomenal is the _locus_ of the Eternal, or between the assertion that the Eternal has phenomenal attributes and the assertion that the phenomenal has eternal attributes?” Such doctrines involve materialism (_dahr_) and destroy the proof of the phenomenal nature of the universe, and compel us to say that both the Creator and His creation are eternal or that both are phenomenal, or that what is created may be commingled with what is uncreated, and that what is uncreated may descend into what is created. If, as they cannot help admitting, the creation is phenomenal, then their Creator also must be phenomenal, because the _locus_ of a thing is like its substance; if the _locus_ (_maḥall_) is phenomenal, it follows that the contents of the _locus_ (_ḥáll_) are phenomenal too. In fine, when one thing is linked and united and commingled with another, both things are in principle as one.

Accordingly, our subsistence and annihilation are attributes of ourselves, and resemble each other in respect of their being our attributes. Annihilation is the annihilation of one attribute through the subsistence of another attribute. One may speak, however, of an annihilation that is independent of subsistence, and also of a subsistence that is independent of annihilation: in that case annihilation means “annihilation of all remembrance of other”, and subsistence means “subsistence of the remembrance of God” (_baqá-yi dhikr-i ḥaqq_). Whoever is annihilated from his own will subsists in the will of God, because thy will is perishable and the will of God is everlasting: when thou standest by thine own will thou standest by annihilation, but when thou art absolutely controlled by the will of God thou standest by subsistence. Similarly, the power of fire transmutes to its own quality anything that falls into it, and surely the power of God’s will is greater than that of fire; but fire affects only the quality of iron without changing its substance, for iron can never become fire.

SECTION.

All the Shaykhs have given subtle indications on this subject. Abú Sa’íd Kharráz, the author of the doctrine, says: “Annihilation is annihilation of consciousness of manhood (_`ubúdiyyat_), and subsistence is subsistence in the contemplation of Godhead (_iláhiyyat_),” i.e., it is an imperfection to be conscious in one’s actions that one is a man, and one attains to real manhood (_bandagí_) when one is not conscious of them, but is annihilated so as not to see them, and becomes subsistent through beholding the action of God. Hence all one’s actions are referred to God, not to one’s self, and whereas a man’s actions that are connected with himself are imperfect, those which are attached to him by God are perfect. Therefore, when anyone becomes annihilated from things that depend on himself, he becomes subsistent through the beauty of Godhead. Abú Ya`qúb Nahrajúrí says: “A man’s true servantship (_`ubúdiyyat_) lies in annihilation and subsistence,” because no one is capable of serving God with sincerity until he renounces all self-interest: therefore to renounce humanity (_ádamiyyat_) is annihilation, and to be sincere in servantship is subsistence. And Ibráhím b. Shaybán says: “The science of annihilation and subsistence turns on sincerity (_ikhláṣ_) and unity (_wáḥid—iyyat_) and true servantship; all else is error and heresy,” i.e., when anyone acknowledges the unity of God he feels himself overpowered by the omnipotence of God, and one who is overpowered (_maghlúb_) is annihilated in the might of his vanquisher; and when his annihilation is rightly fulfilled on him, he confesses his weakness and sees no resource except to serve God, and tries to gain His satisfaction (_riḍá_). And whoever explains these terms otherwise, i.e. annihilation as meaning “annihilation of substance” and subsistence as meaning “subsistence of God (in Man)”, is a heretic and a Christian, as has been stated above.

Now I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, declare that all these sayings are near to each other in meaning, although they differ in expression; and their real gist is this, that annihilation comes to a man through vision of the majesty of God and through the revelation of Divine omnipotence to his heart, so that in the overwhelming sense of His majesty this world and the next world are obliterated from his mind, and “states” and “stations” appear contemptible in the sight of his aspiring thought, and what is shown to him of miraculous grace vanishes into nothing: he becomes dead to reason and passion alike, dead even to annihilation itself; and in that annihilation of annihilation his tongue proclaims God, and his mind and body are humble and abased, as in the beginning when Adam’s posterity were drawn forth from his loins without admixture of evil and took the pledge of servantship to God (Kor. vii, 171).

Such are the principles of annihilation and subsistence. I have discussed a portion of the subject in the chapter on Poverty and Ṣúfiism, and wherever these terms occur in the present work they bear the meaning which I have explained.

9.THE KHAFÍFÍS.