Chapter XXIV — The Uncovering of the Tenth Veil: Explaining Their Phraseology and the Definitions of Their Terms and the Verities of the Ideas Which Are Signified

CHAPTER XXIV. — THE UNCOVERING OF THE TENTH VEIL: EXPLAINING THEIR PHRASEOLOGY AND THE DEFINITIONS OF THEIR TERMS AND THE VERITIES OF THE IDEAS WHICH ARE SIGNIFIED.

Those employed in every craft and business, while discussing its mysteries with one another, make use of certain words and expressions of which the meaning is known only to themselves. Such expressions are invented for a double purpose : firstly, in order to facilitate the understanding of difficulties and bring them nearer to the comprehension of the novice ; and secondly, in order to conceal the mysteries of that science from the uninitiated. The Ṣúfís also have technical terms for the purpose of expressing the matter of their discourse and in order that they may reveal or disguise their meaning as they please. I will now explain some of these terms and distinguish between the significations attached to various pairs of words.

Hál and Waqt.

Waqt (time) is a term with which Ṣúfís are familiar, and concerning which much has been said by the Shaykhs, but my object is to establish the truth, not to give long explanations. Waqt is that whereby a man becomes independent of the past and the future, as, for example, when an influence from God descends into his soul and makes his heart collected (mujtamiʿ) he has no memory of the past and no thought of that which is not yet come. All people fail in this, and do not know what our past has been or what our future will be, except the possessors of waqt who say : “Our knowledge cannot apprehend the future and the past, and we are happy with God in the present (andar waqt). If we occupy ourselves with to-morrow, or let any thought of it enter our minds, we shall be veiled (from God), and a veil is a great distraction (parágandagí).” It is absurd to think of the unattainable. Thus Abú Saʿíd Kharráz says : ” Do not occupy your precious time except with the most precious of things, and the most precious of human things is the state of being occupied between the past and the future.” And the Apostle said : ” I have a time (waqt) with God, in which none of the cherubim nor any prophet rivals me,” that is to say, ” in which the eighteen thousand worlds do not occur to my mind and have no worth in my eyes.” Therefore, on the night of the Ascension, when the kingdom of earth and heaven was arrayed before him in all its beauty, he did not look at anything (Kor. liii, 17), for Muṣṭafá was noble (ʿazíz), and the noble are not engrossed save by that which is noble. The ” times ” (awqát) of the Unitarian are two : one in the state of loss (faqd) and one in the state of gain (wajd), one in the place of union and one in the place of separation. At both these times he is overpowered (maqhúr), because both his union and his separation are effected by God without such volition or acquisition on his part as would make it possible to invest him with any attribute. When a man’s power of volition is cut off from him, whatever he does or experiences is the result of ” time ” (waqt). It is related that Junayd said : ” I saw a dervish in the desert, sitting under a mimosa-tree in a hard and uncomfortable spot, and asked him what made him sit there so still. He answered : ʿ I had a ” time ” and lost it here ; now I am sitting and mourning. I inquired how long he had been there. He answered : ʾ Twelve years. Will not the Shaykh offer up a prayer (himmatí kunad) on my behalf, that perchance I may find my ” time ” again ?ʾ I left him,” said Junayd, ” and performed the pilgrimage and prayed for him. My prayer was granted. On my return I found him seated in the same place. ʿ Why,ʾ I said, ʿ do you not go from here, since you have obtained your wish ?ʾ He replied : ʿ O Shaykh, I settled myself in this place of desolation where I lost my capital : is it right that I should leave the place where I have found my capital once more and where I enjoy the society of God? Let the Shaykh go in peace, for I will mix my dust with the dust of this spot, that I may rise at the Resurrection from this dust which is the abode of my delight.’” No man can attain to the reality of “time” by exerting his choice, for “time” is a thing that does not come within the scope of human acquisition, that it should be gained by effort, nor is it sold in the market, that anyone should give his life in exchange for it, and the will has no power either to attract or to repel it. The Shaykhs have said, “Time is a cutting sword,” because it is characteristic of a sword to cut, and “time” cuts the root of the future and the past, and obliterates care of yesterday and to-morrow from the heart. The sword is a dangerous companion: either it makes its master a king or it destroys him. Although one should pay homage to the sword and carry it on one’s own shoulder for a thousand years, in the moment of cutting it does not discriminate between its master’s neck and the neck of another. Violence (ḳahr) is its characteristic, and violence will not depart from it at the wish of its master.

Ḥál (state) is that which descends upon “time” (waqt) and adorns it, as the spirit adorns the body. Waqt has need of ḥál, for waqt is beautified by ḥál and subsists thereby. When the owner of waqt comes into possession of ḥál, he is no more subject to change and is made steadfast (mustaqím) in his state; for, when he has waqt without ḥál, he may lose it, but when ḥál attaches itself to him, all his state (rúzgár) becomes waqt, and that cannot be lost: what seems to be coming and going (ámad shud) is really the result of becoming and manifestation (takawwun ú ẓuhúr), just as, before this, waqt descended on him who has it. He who is in the state of becoming (mutakawwin) may be forgetful, and on him who is thus forgetful ḥál descends and waqt is made stable (mutamakkin); for the possessor of waqt may become forgetful, but the possessor of ḥál cannot possibly be so. The tongue of the possessor of ḥál is silent concerning his ḥál, but his actions proclaim the reality of his ḥál. Hence that spiritual director said : ” To ask about ḥál is absurd,” because ḥál is the annihilation of speech (maḥú). Master Abú ʿAlí Daqqáq says : ” If there is joy or woe in this world or the next world, the portion of waqt is that (feeling) in which thou art.” But ḥál is not like this ; when ḥál comes on a man from God, it banishes all these feelings from his heart. Thus Jacob was a possessor of waqt : now he was blinded by separation, now he was restored to sight by union, now he was mourning and wailing, now he was calm and joyful. But Abraham was a possessor of ḥál : he was not conscious of separation, that he should be stricken with grief, nor of union, that he should be filled with joy. The sun and moon and stars contributed to his ḥál, but he, while he gazed, was independent of them : whatever he looked on, he saw only God, and he said : ” I love not them that set ” (Kor. vi, 76). Accordingly, the world sometimes becomes a hell to the possessor of waqt, because he is contemplating absence (ghaybat) and his heart is distressed by the loss of his beloved ; and sometimes his heart is like a Paradise in the blessedness of contemplation, and every moment brings to him a gift and a glad message from God. On the other hand, it makes no difference to the possessor of ḥál whether he is veiled by affliction or unveiled by happiness ; for he is always in the place of actual vision (ʿiyán). Ḥál is an attribute of the object desired (murád), while waqt is the rank of the desirer (muríd). The latter is with himself in the pleasure of waqt, the former with God in the delight of ḥál. How far apart are the two degrees !

Maqám and Tamkín, and the difference between them.

Maqám (station) denotes the perseverance of the seeker in fulfilling his obligations towards the object of his search with strenuous exertion and flawless intention. Everyone who desires God has a station (maqám), which, in the beginning of his search, is a means whereby he seeks God. Although the seeker derives some benefit from every station through which he passes, he finally rests in one, because a station and the quest thereof involve contrivance and design (tarkíb ú ḥíla), not conduct and practice (rawish ú muʿámalat). God hath said : “None of us but hath a certain station” (Kor. xxxvii, 164). The station of Adam was repentance (tawbat), that of Noah was renunciation (zuhd), that of Abraham was resignation (taslím), that of Moses was contrition (inábat), that of David was sorrow (ḥuzn), that of Jesus was hope (rajá), that of John (the Baptist) was fear (khawf), and that of our Apostle was praise (dhikr). They drew something from other sources by which they abode, but each of them returned at last to his original station. In discussing the doctrine of the Muḥásibís, I gave a partial explanation of the stations and distinguished between ḥál and maqám. Here, however, it is necessary to make some further remarks on this subject. You must know that the Way to God is of three kinds : (1) maqám, (2) ḥál, (3) tamkín. God sent all the prophets to explain the Way and to elucidate the principle of the different stations. One hundred and twenty-four thousand apostles, and a few over that number, came with as many stations. On the advent of our Apostle a ḥál appeared to those in each station and attained a pitch where all human acquisition was left behind, until religion was made perfect unto men, as God hath said : “To-day I have perfected your religion for you and have completed My bounty unto you” (Kor. v, 5) ; then the tamkín (steadfastness) of the steadfast appeared ; but if I were to enumerate every ḥál and explain every maqám, my purpose would be defeated.

Tamkín denotes the residence of spiritual adepts in the abode of perfection and in the highest grade. Those in stations can pass on from their stations, but it is impossible to pass beyond the grade of tamkín, because maqám is the grade of beginners, whereas tamkín is the resting-place of adepts, and maqámát (stations) are stages on the way, whereas tamkín is repose within the shrine. The friends of God are absent (from themselves) on the way and are strangers (to themselves) in the stages : their hearts are in the presence (of God), and in the presence every instrument is evil and every tool is (a token of) absence (from God) and infirmity. In the epoch of Paganism the poets used to praise men for noble deeds, but they did not recite their panegyric until some time had elapsed. When a poet came into the presence of the person whom he had celebrated, he used to draw his sword and hamstring his camel and then break his sword, as though to say : ” I needed a camel to bring me from a far distance to thy presence, and a sword to repel the envious who would have hindered me from paying homage to thee : now that I have reached thee, I kill my camel, for I will never depart from thee again ; and I break my sword, for I will not admit into my mind the thought of being severed from thy court.” Then, after a few days, he used to recite his poem. Similarly, when Moses attained to tamkín, God bade him put off his shoes and cast away his staff (Kor. xx, 12), these being articles of travel and Moses being in the presence of God. The beginning of love is search, but the end is rest : water flows in the river-bed, but when it reaches the ocean it ceases to flow and changes its taste, so that those who desire water avoid it, but those who desire pearls devote themselves to death and fasten the plummet of search to their feet and plunge headlong into the sea, that they may either gain the hidden pearl or lose their dear lives. And one of the Shaykhs says : ” Tamkín is the removal of talwín.” Talwín also is a technical term of the Ṣúfís, and is closely connected in meaning with tamkín, just as ḥál is connected with maqám. The signification of talwín is change and turning from one state to another, and the above-mentioned saying means that he who is steadfast (mutamakkin) is not vacillating (mutaraddid), for he has carried all that belongs to him into the presence of God and has erased every thought of other than God from his mind, so that no act that passes over him alters his outward predicament and no state changes his inward predicament. Thus Moses was subject to talwín : he fell in a swoon (Kor. vii, 139) when God revealed His glory to Mount Sinai ; but Muḥammad was steadfast : he suffered no change, although he was in the very revelation of glory from Mecca to a space of two bow-lengths from God ; and this is the highest grade. Now tamkín is of two kinds—one referring to the dominant influence of God (sháhid-i ḥaqq), and the other referring to the dominant influence of one’s self (sháhid-i khud). He whose tamkín is of the latter kind retains his attributes unimpaired, but he whose tamkín is of the former kind has no attributes ; and the terms effacement (maḥw), sobriety (ṣaḥw), attainment (laḥq), destruction (naḥq),[^p397-1] annihilation (faná), subsistence (baqá), being (wujúd), and not-being (ʿadam) are not properly applied to one whose attributes are annihilated, because a subject is necessary for the maintenance of these qualities, and when the subject is absorbed (mustaghriq) he loses the capacity for maintaining them.

Muḥáḍarat and Mukáshafat, and the difference between them.

Muḥáḍarat denotes the presence of the heart in the subtleties of demonstration (bayán), while mukáshafat denotes the presence of the spirit (sirr) in the domain of actual vision (ʿiyán). Muḥáḍarat refers to the evidences of God’s signs (áyát), and mukáshafat to the evidences of contemplation (musháhadát). The mark of muḥáḍarat is continual meditation upon God’s signs, while the mark of mukáshafat is continual amazement at God’s infinite greatness. There is a difference between one who meditates upon the Divine acts and one who is amazed at the Divine majesty : the one is a follower of friendship, the other is a companion of love. When the Friend of God (Abraham) looked on the kingdom of heaven and meditated on the reality of its existence, his heart was made “present” (ḥáḍir) thereby : through beholding the act he became a seeker of the Agent ; his “presence” (ḥuḍúr) made the act a proof of the Agent, and in perfect gnosis he exclaimed : “I turn my face with true belief unto Him who created the heavens and the earth” (Kor. vi, 79). But when the Beloved of God (Muhammad) was borne to Heaven he shut his eyes from the sight of all things ; he saw neither God’s act nor created beings nor himself, but the Agent was revealed to him, and in that revelation (kashf) his desire increased : in vain he sought vision, proximity, union ; in proportion as the exemption (tanzíh) of his Beloved (from all such conceptions) became more manifest to him the more did his desire increase ; he could neither turn back nor go forward, hence he fell into amazement. Where friendship was, amazement seemed infidelity, but where love was, union was polytheism, and amazement became the sole resource, because in friendship the object of amazement was being (hastí), and such amazement is polytheism, but in love the object of amazement was nature and quality (chigúnagí), and this amazement is unification (tawhíd). In this sense Shiblí used always to say : ” O Guide of the amazed, increase my amazement ! ” for in contemplation (of God) the greater one’s amazement the higher one’s degree. The story of Abú Saʿíd Kharráz and Ibráhím b. Saʿd ʿAláwí[^p398-1] is well known—how they saw a friend of God on the seashore and asked him ” What is the Way to God ? ” and how he answered that there are two ways to God, one for the vulgar and one for the elect. When they desired him to explain this he said : ” The way of the vulgar is that on which you are going : you accept for some cause and you decline for some cause ; but the way of the elect is to see only the Causer, and not to see the cause.” The true meaning of these anecdotes has already been set forth.

Qabd and Bast, and the difference between them.

Qabd (contraction) and bast (expansion) are two involuntary states which cannot be induced by any human act or banished by any human exertion. God hath said : ” God contracts and expands ” (Kor. ii, 246). Qabd denotes the contraction of the heart in the state of being veiled (hijáb), and bast denotes the expansion of the heart in the state of revelation (kashf). Both states proceed from God without effort on the part of Man. The qabd of gnostics is like the fear of novices, and the bast of gnostics is like the hope of novices. This is the sense in which the Ṣúfís use the terms qabḍ and basṭ. Some Shaykhs hold that qabḍ is superior in degree to basṭ, for two reasons : (1) it is mentioned before basṭ in the Koran, (2) qabḍ involves dissolution and oppression, whereas basṭ involves nutrition and favour : it is undoubtedly better to dissolve one’s humanity and oppress one’s lower soul than to foster and favour them, since they are the greatest veil (between Man and God). Others, again, hold that basṭ is superior to qabḍ. The fact, they say, that qabḍ is mentioned before basṭ in the Koran shows the superiority of basṭ, for the Arabs are accustomed to mention in the first place that which is inferior in merit, e.g. God hath said : ” There is one of them who injures his own soul, and one who keeps the middle way, and one who outstrips the others in good works by the permission of God ” (Kor. xxxv, 29). Moreover, they argue that in basṭ there is joy and in qabḍ grief; gnostics feel joy only in union with the object of knowledge, and grief only in separation from the object of desire, therefore rest in the abode of union is better than rest in the abode of separation. My Shaykh used to say that both qabḍ and basṭ are the result of one spiritual influence, which descends from God on Man, and either fills the heart with joy and subdues the lower soul or subdues the heart and fills the lower soul with joy ; in the latter case contraction (qabḍ) of the heart is expansion (basṭ) of the lower soul, and in the former case expansion of the heart is contraction of the lower soul. He who interprets this matter otherwise is wasting his breath. Hence Báyazíd said : ” The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of souls, and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of souls.” The contracted soul is guarded from injury, and the expanded heart is restrained from falling into defect, because jealousy is the rule in love, and contraction is a sign of God’s jealousy ; and it is necessary that lovers should reproach one another, and expansion is a sign of mutual reproach. It is a well-known tradition that John wept ever since he was born, while Jesus smiled ever since he was born, because John was in contraction and Jesus in expansion. When they met John used to say, ” O Jesus, hast thou no fear of being cut off (from God) ? ” and Jesus used to say, ” O John, hast thou no hope of God’s mercy ? Neither thy tears nor my smiles will change the eternal decree of God.”

Uns and Haybat, and the difference between them.

Uns (intimacy) and haybat (awe) are two states of the dervishes who travel on the Way to God. When God manifests His glory to a man’s heart so that His majesty (jalál) predominates, he feels awe (haybat), but when God’s beauty (jamál) predominates he feels intimacy (uns) : those who feel awe are distressed, while those who feel intimacy are rejoiced. There is a difference between one who is burned by His majesty in the fire of love and one who is illuminated by His beauty in the light of contemplation. Some Shaykhs have said that haybat is the degree of gnostics and uns the degree of novices, because the farther one has advanced in the presence of God and in divesting Him of attributes the more his heart is overwhelmed with awe and the more averse he is to intimacy, for one is intimate with those of one’s own kind, and intimacy with God is inconceivable, since no homogeneity or resemblance can possibly exist between God and Man. If intimacy is possible, it is possible only with the praise (dhikr) of Him, which is something different from Himself, because that is an attribute of Man ; and in love, to be satisfied with another than the Beloved is falsehood and pretension and self-conceit. Haybat, on the other hand, arises from contemplating greatness, which is an attribute of God, and there is a vast difference between one whose experience proceeds from himself through himself and one whose experience proceeds from the annihilation of himself through the subsistence of God. It is related that Shiblí said : ” For a long time I used to think that I was rejoicing in the love of God and was intimate with contemplation of Him : now I know that intimacy is impossible except with a congener.” Some, however, allege that haybat is a corollary of separation and punishment, while uns is the result of union and mercy ; therefore the friends of God must be guarded from the consequences of haybat and be attached to uns, for uns involves love, and as homogeneity is impossible in love (of God), so it is impossible in uns. My Shaykh used to say : ” I wonder at those who declare intimacy with God to be impossible, after God has said, ‘Verily My servants,’ and ‘Say to My servants,’ and ‘When My servants shall ask thee,’ and ‘O My servants, no fear shall come on you this day, and ye shall not grieve’ (Kor. xliii, 68). A servant of God, seeing this favour, cannot fail to love Him, and when he has loved he will become intimate, because awe of one’s beloved is estrangement (begánagí), whereas intimacy is oneness (yagánagí). It is characteristic of men to become intimate with their benefactors, and inasmuch as God has conferred on us so great benefits and we have knowledge of Him, it is impossible that we should talk of awe.” I, ʿAlí b. ʿUthmán al-Jullábí, say that both parties in this controversy are right, because the power of haybat is exerted upon the lower soul and its desires, and tends to annihilate human nature, while the power of uns is exerted upon the heart and tends to foster gnosis in the heart. Therefore God annihilates the souls of those who love Him by revealing His majesty and endows their hearts with everlasting life by revealing His beauty. The followers of annihilation (faná) regard haybat as superior, but the followers of subsistence (baqá) prefer uns.

Qahr and Luṭf, and the difference between them.

These two expressions are used by the Ṣúfís in reference to their own state. By qahr (violence) they signify the reinforcement given to them by God in annihilating their desires and in restraining the lower soul from its concupiscence ; and by luṭf (kindness) they signify God’s help towards the subsistence of their hearts and towards the continuance of contemplation and towards the permanence of ecstasy in the degree of steadfastness (istiḳámat). The adherents of luṭf say Divine grace (karámat) is the attainment of one’s desire, but the others say that Divine grace is this—that God through His will should restrain a man from his own will and should overpower him with will-lessness (bémurádí), so that if he were thirsty and plunged into a river, the river would become dry. It is related that in Baghdád were two eminent dervishes, the one a believer in qahr and the other a believer in luṭf, who were always quarrelling and each preferring his own state to that of his neighbour. The dervish who preferred luṭf set out for Mecca and entered the desert, but never reached his destination. No news of him was heard for many years, but at last he was seen by a traveller on the road between Mecca and Baghdád. “O my brother,” he said, “when you return to ʿIráq tell my friend at Karkh that if he wishes to see a desert, with all its hardships, like Karkh of Baghdád, with all its marvels, let him come here, for this desert is Karkh to me!” When the traveller arrived at Karkh he delivered this message to the other dervish, who said: “On your return, tell him that there is no superiority in the fact that the desert has been made like Karkh to him, in order that he may not flee from the court (of God); the superiority lies in the fact that Karkh, with all its wondrous opulence, has been made to me like a painful desert, and that nevertheless I am happy here.” And it is related that Shiblí said, in his secret converse with God: “O Lord, I will not turn from Thee, although Thou shouldst make the heaven a collar for my neck and the earth a shackle for my foot and the whole universe athirst for my blood.” My Shaykh used to say: “One year a meeting of the saints of God took place in the midst of the desert, and I accompanied my spiritual director, Ḥuṣrí, to that spot. I saw some of them approaching on camels, some borne on thrones, and some flying, but Ḥuṣrí paid no heed to them. Then I saw a youth with torn shoes and a broken staff. His feet could scarcely support him, and his head was bare and his body emaciated. As soon as he appeared Ḥuṣrí sprang up and ran to meet him and led him to a lofty seat. This astonished me, and afterwards I questioned the Shaykh about the youth. He replied : ’ He is one of God’s saints who does not follow saintship, but saintship follows him ; and he pays no attention to miracles (karámát).’ ” In short, what we choose for ourselves is noxious to us. I desire only that God should desire for me, and therein preserve me from the evil thereof and save me from the wickedness of my soul. If He keep me in qahr I do not wish for luṭf, and if He keep me in luṭf I do not wish for qahr. I have no choice beyond His choice.

Nafy and Ithbát, and the difference between them.

The Shaykhs of this Path give the names of nafy (negation) and ithbát (affirmation) to the effacement of the attributes of humanity by the affirmation of Divine aid (taʾyíd). By negation they signify the negation of the attributes of humanity, and by affirmation they mean the affirmation of the power of the Truth, because effacement (maḥw) is total loss, and total negation is applicable only to the attributes ; for negation of the essence is impossible while the Universal (kulliyyát) subsists. It is necessary, therefore, that blameworthy attributes should be negated by the affirmation of praiseworthy qualities, i.e. the pretension to love of God is negated by affirmation of the reality, for pretension is one of the vanities of the lower soul. But the Ṣúfís, when their attributes are overpowered by the might of the Truth, habitually say that the attributes of humanity are negated by affirming the subsistence of God. This matter has already been discussed in the chapter on poverty and purity and in that on annihilation and subsistence. They say also that the words in question signify the negation of Man’s choice by the affirmation of God’s choice. Hence that blessed one said : ” God’s choice for His servant with His knowledge of His servant is better than His servant’s choice for himself with his ignorance of his Lord,” because love, as all agree, is the negation of the lover’s choice by affirmation of the Beloved’s choice. I have read in the Anecdotes that a dervish was drowning in the sea, when some one cried : ” Brother, do you wish to be saved ? ” He said : ” No.” ” Then do you wish to be drowned ? ” ” No.” ” It is a wonder that you will not choose either to die or to be saved.” ” What have I to do with safety,” said the dervish, ” that I should choose it ? My choice is that God should choose for me.” The Shaykhs have said that negation of one’s own choice is the least grade in love. Now, God’s choice has no beginning in time and cannot possibly be negated, but Man’s choice is accidental (ʿaraḍí) and admits of negation, and must be trodden under foot, that the eternal choice of God may subsist for ever.[^p404-1] There has been much debate on this matter, but my sole aim is that you should know the signification of the terms used by the Ṣúfís. I have mentioned some of these, e.g., jamʿ and tafriqa, and faná and baqá, and ghaybat and ḥuḍúr, and sukr and ṣaḥw, in the chapter treating of the doctrines of the Ṣúfís, and you must look there for the explanation of them.

Musámarat and Muḥáddathat, and the difference between them.

These terms denote two states of the perfect Ṣúfí. Muḥáddathat (conversation) is really spiritual talk conjoined with silence of the tongue, and musámarat (nocturnal discourse) is really continuance of unrestraint (inbisáṭ) combined with concealment of the most secret thoughts (kitmán-i sirr). The outward meaning of musámarat is a spiritual state (waqtí) existing between God and Man at night, and muḥáddathat is a similar state, existing by day, in which there is exoteric and esoteric conversation. Hence secret prayers (munáját) by night are called musámarat, while invocations made by day are called muḥáddathat. The daily state is based on revelation (kashf), and the nightly state on occultation (satr). In love musámarat is more perfect than muḥáddathat, and is connected with the state of the Apostle, when God sent Gabriel to him with Buráq and conveyed him by night from Mecca to a space of two bow-lengths from His presence. The Apostle conversed secretly with God, and when he reached the goal his tongue became dumb before the revelation of God’s majesty, and his heart was amazed at His infinite greatness, and he said : “I cannot tell Thy praise.” Muḥdathát is connected with the state of Moses, who, seeking communion with God, after forty days came to Mount Sinai and heard the speech of God and asked for vision of Him, and failed of his desire. There is a plain difference between one who was conducted (Kor. xvii, 1) and one who came (Kor. vii, 139). Night is the time when lovers are alone with each other, and day is the time when servants wait upon their masters. When a servant transgresses he is reprimanded, but a lover has no law by the transgression of which he should incur blame, for lovers cannot do anything displeasing to each other.

ʿIlm al-Yaqín and ʿAyn al-Yaqín and Ḥaqq al-Yaqín, and the difference between them.

According to the principles of theology, all these expressions denote knowledge (ʿilm). Knowledge without certain faith (yaqín) in the reality of the object known is not knowledge, but when knowledge is gained that which is hidden is as that which is actually seen. The believers who shall see God on the Day of Judgment shall see Him then in the same wise as they know Him now : if they shall see Him otherwise, either their vision will be imperfect then or their knowledge is faulty now. Both these alternatives are in contradiction with unification (tawḥíd), which requires that men’s knowledge of God should be sound to-day and their vision of God should be sound to-morrow. Therefore certain knowledge (ʿilm-i yaqín) is like certain sight (ʿayn-i yaqín), and certain truth (ḥaqq-i yaqín) is like certain knowledge. Some have said that ʿayn al-yaqín is the complete absorption (istighráq) of knowledge in vision, but this is impossible, because vision is an instrument for the attainment of knowledge, like hearing, etc. : since knowledge cannot be absorbed in hearing, its absorption in vision is equally impossible. By ʿilm al-yaqín the Ṣúfís mean knowledge of (religious) practice in this world according to the Divine commandments ; by ʿayn al-yaqín they mean knowledge of the state of dying (nazʿ) and the time of departure from this world ; and by ḥaqq al-yaqín they mean intuitive knowledge of the vision (of God) that will be revealed in Paradise, and of its nature. Therefore ʿilm al-yaqín is the rank of theologians (ʿulamá) on account of their correct observance of the Divine commands, and ʿayn al-yaqín is the station of gnostics (ʿárifán) on account of their readiness for death, and ḥaqq al-yaqín is the annihilation-point of lovers (dústán) on account of their rejection of all created things. Hence ʿilm al-yaqín is obtained by self-mortification (mujáhadat), and ʿayn al-yaqín by intimate familiarity (muʾánasat), and ḥaqq al-yaqín by contemplation (musháhadat). The first is vulgar, the second is elect, and the third is super-elect (kháṣṣ al-kháṣṣ).

ʿIlm and Maʿrifat, and the difference between them.

Theologians have made no distinction between ʿilm and maʿrifat, except when they say that God may be called ʿálim (knowing), but not ʿárif (gnostic), inasmuch as the latter epithet lacks Divine blessing. But the Ṣúfí Shaykhs give the name of maʿrifat (gnosis) to every knowledge that is allied with (religious) practice and feeling (ḥál), and the knower of which expresses his feeling ; and the knower thereof they call ʿárif. On the other hand, they give the name of ʿilm to every knowledge that is stripped of spiritual meaning and devoid of religious practice, and one who has such knowledge they call ʿálim. One, then, who knows the meaning and reality of a thing they call ʿárif (gnostic), and one who knows merely the verbal expression and keeps it in his memory without keeping the spiritual reality they call ʿálim. For this reason, when the Ṣúfís wish to disparage a rival they call him dánishmand (possessing knowledge). To the vulgar this seems objectionable, but the Ṣúfís do not intend to blame the man for having acquired knowledge, they blame him for neglecting the practice of religion, because the ʿálim depends on himself, but the ʿárif depends on his Lord. This question has been discussed at length in the chapter entitled ” The Removal of the Veil of Gnosis ”, and I need not say any more now.

Sharíʿat and Ḥaqíqat, and the difference between them.

These terms are used by the Ṣúfís to denote soundness of the outward state and maintenance of the inward state. Two parties err in this matter : firstly, the formal theologians, who assert that there is no distinction between sharíʿat (law) and haqíqat (truth), since the Law is the Truth and the Truth is the Law ; secondly, some heretics, who hold that it is possible for one of these things to subsist without the other, and declare that when the Truth is revealed the Law is abolished. This is the doctrine of the Carmathians (Qarámiṭa) and the Shíʿites and their satanically inspired followers (muwaswisán). The proof that the Law is virtually separate from the Truth lies in the fact that in faith belief is separate from profession ; and the proof that the Law and the Truth are not fundamentally separate, but are one, lies in the fact that belief without profession is not faith, and conversely profession without belief is not faith ; and there is a manifest difference between profession and belief. Ḥaqíqat, then, signifies a reality which does not admit of abrogation and remains in equal force from the time of Adam to the end of the world, like knowledge of God and like religious practice, which is made perfect by sincere intention ; and sharíʿat signifies a reality which admits of abrogation and alteration, like ordinances and commandments. Therefore sharíʿat is Man’s act, while haqíqat is God’s keeping and preservation and protection, whence it follows that sharíʿat cannot possibly be maintained without the existence of haqíqat, and haqíqat cannot be maintained without observance of sharíʿat. Their mutual relation may be compared to that of body and spirit : when the spirit departs from the body the living body becomes a corpse and the spirit vanishes like wind, for their value depends on their conjunction with one another.

Similarly, the Law without the Truth is ostentation, and the Truth without the Law is hypocrisy. God hath said : “Whosoever mortify themselves for Our sake, We will assuredly guide them in Our ways” (Kor. xxix, 69) : mortification is Law, guidance is Truth ; the former consists in a man’s observance of the external ordinances, while the latter consists in God’s maintenance of a man’s spiritual feelings. Hence the Law is one of the acts acquired by Man, but the Truth is one of the gifts bestowed by God.

Another class of terms and expressions are used by the Ṣúfís metaphorically. These metaphorical terms are more difficult to analyse and interpret, but I will explain them concisely.

Ḥaqq. By ḥaqq (truth) the Ṣúfís mean God, for ḥaqq is one of the names of God, as He hath said : “This is because God is the Truth” (Kor. xxii, 6).

Ḥaqíqat. By this word they mean a man’s dwelling in the place of union with God, and the standing of his heart in the place of abstraction (tanzíh).

Khaṭarát. Any judgments of separation (aḥkám-i tafríq) that occur to the mind.

Waṭanát. Any Divine meanings that make their abode in the heart.

Ṭams. Negation of a substance of which some trace is left.

Rams. Negation of a substance, together with every trace thereof, from the heart.

ʿAláʾiq. Secondary causes to which seekers of God attach themselves and thereby fail to gain the object of their desire.

Wasáʾiṭ. Secondary causes to which seekers of God attach themselves and thereby gain the object of their desire.

Zawáʾid. Excess of lights (spiritual illumination) in the heart.

Fawáʾid. The apprehension by the spirit of what it cannot do without.

Maljaʾ. The heart’s confidence in the attainment of its desire. Manjá. The heart’s escape from the place of imperfection.

Kulliyyat. The absorption (istighráq) of the attributes of humanity in the Universal (kulliyyát).

Lawáʾiḥ. Affirmation of the object of desire, notwithstanding the advent of the negation thereof (ithbát-i murád bá wurúd-i nafy-i án).

Lawámiʿ. The manifestation of (spiritual) light to the heart while its acquirements (fawáʾid) continue to subsist.

Ṭawáliʿ. The appearance of the splendours of (mystical) knowledge to the heart.

Ṭawáriq. That which comes into the heart, either with glad tidings or with rebuke, in secret converse (with God) at night.

Laṭáʾif. A symbol (ishárat), presented to the heart, of subtleties of feeling.

Sirr. Concealment of feelings of love.

Najwá. Concealment of imperfections from the knowledge of other (than God).

Ishárat. Giving information to another of the object of desire, without uttering it on the tongue.

Ímá. Addressing anyone allusively, without spoken or unspoken explanation (bé ʿibárat ú ishárat).

Wárid. The descent of spiritual meanings upon the heart.

Intibáh. The departure of heedlessness from the heart.

Ishtibáh. Perplexity felt in deciding between truth and falsehood.

Qarár. The departure of vacillation from the reality of one’s feeling.

Inziʿáj. The agitation of the heart in the state of ecstasy (wajd).

Another class of technical terms are those which the Ṣúfís employ, without metaphor, in unification (tawḥíd) and in setting forth their firm belief in spiritual realities.

ʿÁlam. The term ʿálam (world) denotes the creatures of God. It is said that there are 18,000 or 50,000 worlds. Philosophers say there are two worlds, an upper and a lower, while theologians say that ʿálam is whatever exists between the Throne of God and the earth. In short, ʿálam is the collective mass of created things. The Ṣúfís speak of the world of spirits (arwáḥ) and the world of souls (nufús), but they do not mean the same thing as the philosophers. What they mean is ” the collective mass of spirits and souls ”.

Muḥdath. Posterior in existence, i.e. it was not and afterwards was.

Qadím. Anterior in existence, i.e. it always was, and its being was anterior to all beings. This is nothing but God.

Azal. That which has no beginning.

Abad. That which has no end.

Dhát. The being and reality of a thing.

Ṣifat. That which does not admit of qualification (naʿt), because it is not self-subsistent.

Ism. That which is not the object named (ghayr-i musammá).

Tasmiyat. Information concerning the object named.

Nafy. That which entails the non-existence of every object of negation.

Ithbát. That which entails the existence of every object of affirmation.

Siyyán. The possibility of the existence of one thing with another.

Ḍiddán. The impossibility of the existence of one thing simultaneously with the existence of another.

Ghayrán. The possibility of the existence of either of two things, notwithstanding the annihilation of the other.

Jawhar. The basis (aṣl) of a thing ; that which is self-subsistent.

ʿAraḍ. That which subsists in jawhar (substance).

Jism. That which is composed of separate parts.

Suʾál. Seeking a reality.

Jawáb. Giving information concerning the subject-matter of a question (suʾál).

Ḥusn. That which is conformable to the (Divine) command. Qubḥ. That which is not conformable to the (Divine) command.

Safah. Neglect of the (Divine) command.

Ẓulm. Putting a thing in a place that is not worthy of it.

ʿAdl. Putting everything in its proper place.

Málik. He with whose actions it is impossible to interfere.

Another class of terms requiring explanation are those which are commonly used by the Ṣúfís in a mystical sense that is not familiar to philologists.

Kháṭir. By kháṭir (passing thought) the Ṣúfís signify the occurrence in the mind of something which is quickly removed by another thought, and which its owner is able to repel from his mind. Those who have such thoughts follow the first thought in matters which come directly from God to Man. It is said that the thought occurred to Khayr Nassáj that Junayd was waiting at his door, but he wished to repel it. The same thought returned twice and thrice, whereupon he went out and discovered Junayd, who said to him: ” If you had followed the first thought it would not have been necessary for me to stand here all this time.” How was Junayd acquainted with the thought which occurred to Khayr? This question has been asked, and has been answered by the remark that Junayd was Khayr’s spiritual director, and a spiritual director cannot fail to be acquainted with all that happens to one of his disciples.

Wáqiʿa. By wáqiʿa they signify a thought which appears in the mind and remains there, unlike kháṭir, and which the seeker has no means whatever of repelling : thus they say, khaṭara ʿaláʾlqalbí, ” it occurred to my mind,” but waqaʿa fí qalbí, ” it sank into my mind.” All minds are subject to kháṭir (passing thought), but wáqiʿa is possible only in a mind that is entirely filled with the notion of God. Hence, when any obstacle appears to the novice on the Way to God, they call it ” a fetter” (qayd) and say : ” A wáqiʿa has befallen him.” Philologists also use the term wáqiʿa to signify any difficult question, and when it is answered satisfactorily they say, wáqiʿa ḥall shud, “the difficulty is solved.” But the mystics say that wáqiʿa is that which is insoluble, and that whatever is solved is a khátir, not a wáqiʿa, since the obstacles which confront mystics are not unimportant matters on which varying judgments are continually being formed.

Ikhtiyár. By ikhtiyár they signify their preference of God’s choice to their own, i.e. they are content with the good and evil which God has chosen for them. A man’s preference of God’s choice is itself the result of God’s choice, for unless God had caused him to have no choice, he would never have let his own choice go. When Abú Yazíd was asked, “Who is the prince (amír)?” he replied, “He to whom no choice is left, and to whom God’s choice has become the only choice.” It is related that Junayd, having caught fever, implored God to give him health. A voice spoke in his heart: “Who art thou to plead in My kingdom and make a choice? I can manage My kingdom better than thou. Do thou choose My choice instead of coming forward with thine.”

Imtiḥán. By this expression they signify the probation of the hearts of the saints by diverse afflictions which come to them from God, such as fear, grief, contraction, awe, etc. God hath said: “They whose hearts God hath proved for piety’s sake: they shall win pardon and a great reward” (Kor. xlix, 3). This is a lofty grade.

Balá. By balá (affliction) they signify the probation of the bodies of God’s friends by diverse troubles and sicknesses and tribulations. The more severely a man is afflicted the nearer does he approach unto God, for affliction is the vesture of the saints and the cradle of the pure and the nourishment of the prophets. The Apostle said, “We prophets are the most afflicted of mankind;” and he also said, “The prophets are the most afflicted of mankind, then the saints, and then other men according to their respective ranks.” Balá is the name of a tribulation, which descends on the heart and body of a true believer and which is really a blessing; and inasmuch as the mystery thereof is concealed from him, he is divinely recompensed for supporting the pains thereof. Tribulation that befalls unbelievers is not affliction (balá), but misery (shaqáwat), and unbelievers never obtain relief from misery. The degree of balá is more honourable than that of imtiḥán, for imtiḥán affects the heart only, whereas balá affects both the heart and the body and is thus more powerful.

Taḥallí. Imitation of praiseworthy people in word and deed. The Apostle said : ” Faith is not acquired by taḥallí (adorning one’s self with the qualities of others) and tamanní (wishing), but it is that which sinks deep into the heart and is verified by action.” Taḥallí, then, is to imitate people without really acting like them. Those who seem to be what they are not will soon be put to shame, and their secret character will be revealed. In the view of spiritualists, however, they are already disgraced and their secret character is clear.

Tajallí. The blessed effect of Divine illumination on the hearts of the blest, whereby they are made capable of seeing God with their hearts. The difference between spiritual vision (ruʾyat ba-dil) and actual vision (ruʾyat-i ʿiyání) is this, that those who experience tajallí (manifestation of God) see or do not see, according as they wish, or see at one time and do not see at another time, while those who experience actual vision in Paradise cannot but see, even though they wish not to see ; for it is possible that tajallí should be hidden, whereas ruʾyat (vision) cannot possibly be veiled.

Takhallí. Turning away from distractions which prevent a man from attaining to God. One of these is the present world, of which he should empty his hands ; another is desire for the next world, of which he should empty his heart ; a third is indulgence in vanity, of which he should empty his spirit ; and a fourth is association with created beings, of which he should empty himself and from the thought of which he should disengage his mind.

Shurúd. The meaning of shurúd is ” seeking restlessly to escape from (worldly) corruptions and veils ” ; for all the misfortunes of the seeker arise from his being veiled, and when the veil is lifted he becomes united with God. The Ṣúfís apply the term shurúd to his becoming unveiled (isfár) and his using every resource for that purpose ; for in the beginning, i.e. in search, he is more restless ; in the end, i.e. in union, he becomes more steadfast.

Qaṣd. By qaṣd (aims) they signify perfect resolution to seek the reality of the object of search. The aims of the Ṣúfís do not depend on motion and rest, because the lover, although he be at rest in love, is still pursuing an aim (qáṣid). In this respect the Ṣúfís differ from ordinary men, whose aims produce in them some effect outwardly or inwardly ; whereas the lovers of God seek Him without any cause and pursue their aim without movement of their own, and all their qualities are directed towards that goal. Where love exists, all is an aim.

Iṣṭiná.[^p414-1] By this term they mean that God makes a man faultless through the annihilation of all his selfish interests and sensual pleasures, and transforms in him the attributes of his lower soul, so that he becomes selfless. This degree belongs exclusively to the prophets, but some Shaykhs hold that it may be attained by the saints also.

Iṣṭifá. This signifies that God makes a man’s heart empty to receive the knowledge of Himself, so that His knowledge (maʿrifat) diffuses its purity through his heart. In this degree all believers, the vulgar as well as the elect, are alike, whether they are sinful or pious or saints or prophets, for God hath said : ” We have given the Book as a heritage unto those of our servants whom We have chosen (iṣṭafayná) : some of them are they who injure their own souls ; some are they who keep the mean ; and some are they who excel in good works ” (Kor. xxxv, 29).

Istilám. The manifestations (tajalliyát) of God which cause a man to be entirely overpowered by a merciful probation (imtiḥán), while his will is reduced to naught. Qalb-i mumtaḥan, ” a proved heart,” and qalb-i mustalam, ” a destroyed heart,” bear the same meaning, although in the current usage of Ṣúfí phraseology istilám is more particular and exquisite than imtiḥán. Rayn. A veil on the heart, i.e. the veil of infidelity and error, which cannot be removed except by faith. God hath said, describing the hearts of the unbelievers (Kor. lxxxiii, 14) : “By no means, but what they used to do hath covered their hearts” (rána ʿalá qulúbihim). Some have said that rayn cannot possibly be removed in any manner, since the hearts of unbelievers are not capable of receiving Islam, and those who do receive it must have been, in the foreknowledge of God, true believers.

Ghayn. A veil on the heart which is removed by asking pardon of God. It may be either thin or dense. The latter is for those who forget (God) and commit great sins; the former is for all, not excepting saint or prophet. Did not the Apostle say, “Verily, my heart is obscured (yughánu ʿalá qalbí), and verily I ask pardon of God a hundred times every day.” For removing the dense veil a proper repentance is necessary, and for removing the thin veil a sincere return to God. Repentance (tawbat) is a turning back from disobedience to obedience, and return (rujúʿ) is a turning back from self to God. Repentance is repentance from sin : the sin of common men is opposition to God’s command, while the sin of lovers (of God) is opposition to God’s will : therefore, the sin of common men is disobedience, and that of lovers is consciousness of their own existence. If anyone turns back from wrong to right, they say, “He is repentant (táʾib) ; ” but if anyone turns back from what is right to what is more right, they say, “He is returning (ráʾiʿ).” All this I have set forth in the chapter on repentance.

Talbís. They denote by talbís the appearance of a thing when its appearance is contrary to its reality, as God hath said : “We should assuredly have deceived them (labasná ʿalayhim) as they deceive others” (Kor. vi, 9). This quality of deception cannot possibly belong to anyone except God, who shows the unbeliever in the guise of a believer and the believer in the guise of an unbeliever, until the time shall come for the manifestation of His decree and of the reality in every case. When a Súfí conceals good qualities under a mask of bad, they say : “He is practising deception (talbís),” but they use this term in such instances only, and do not apply it to ostentation and hypocrisy, which are fundamentally talbís, because talbís is not used except in reference to an act performed by God.

Shurb. The Ṣúfís call the sweetness of piety and the delight of miraculous grace and the pleasure of intimacy shurb (drinking) ; and they can do nothing without the delight of shurb. As the body’s drink is of water, so the heart’s drink is of (spiritual) pleasure and sweetness. My Shaykh used to say that a novice without shurb is a stranger to (i.e. unacquainted with the duties of) the novitiate, and that a gnostic with shurb is a stranger to gnosis, because the novice must derive some pleasure (shurbí) from his actions in order that he may fulfil the obligations of a novice who is seeking God ; but the gnostic ought not to feel such pleasure, lest he should be transported with that pleasure instead of with God : if he turn back to his lower soul he will not rest (with God).

Dhawq. Dhawq resembles shurb, but shurb is used solely in reference to pleasures, whereas dhawq is applied to pleasure and pain alike. One says dhuqtu ʾl-ḥaláwat, ” I tasted sweetness,” and dhuqtu ʾl-balá, ” I tasted affliction ; ” but of shurb they say, sharibtu bi-kásí ʾl-waṣl, ” I drank the cup of union,” and sharibtu bi-kásí ʾl-wudd, ” I drank the cup of love,” and so forth.[^p416-1]