The commentators side by side

﴿"الْحَمْدُ لِلَّه " فرجعت إليه عواقب الثناء من كل حامد ومحمود﴾

فإن الحمد صفة كمال من كمالاته تعالى يصدر منه حقيقة ، فإنه هو الظاهر في صورة الحامد . مظهرا لكماله بالحمد والثناء الذي هو حقيقة لكل محمود هو عينه المتجلى في صورة ذلك المحمود للكمال الذي يستحق به الحمد "وإِلَيْه يُرْجَعُ الأَمْرُ كُلُّه ". قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

— for praise is an attribute of perfection among His perfections, proceeding from Him in reality, since He is the One manifest in the form of the praiser, manifesting His perfection through praise and laudation, which is in reality, for every praised thing, His very selfhood self-disclosed in the form of that praised thing, by reason of the perfection for which praise is deserved — "and to Him the whole matter is returned." The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said

﴿الْحَمْدُ لِلَّه ِ " فرجعت إليه عواقب الثناء من كل حامد ومحمود . " وَإِلَيْه ِ يُرْجَعُ الأَمْرُ كُلُّه ُ " ، فعمّ ما ذمّ وما حمد ، وما ثمّ إلَّا محمود أو مذموم﴾

يشير رضي الله عنه إلى أنّ كل حمد من كل حامد لكل محمود فإنّه لله ، لأنّه المحمود بالحقيقة في كل مظهر وموجود بما ظهر فيه من الكمالات والمحامد ، والظاهر بها في ذلك الحامد ، فإذن هو الحامد والمحمود والحمد ، فاذكر أقسام حمد الحمد ، كما ذكرنا في شرح الخطبة . قال رضي الله عنه

He (may God be pleased with him) points out that every praise from every praiser for every praised one belongs to God, because He is the One truly Praised in every manifestation-locus and existent, through what has appeared in it of perfections and praiseworthy qualities, and He is the One manifest through them in that praiser; so He is therefore the Praiser, the Praised, and the Praise itself. So recall the categories of 'the praise of praise,' as we mentioned in the commentary on the Khuṭba [Introduction]. He (may God be pleased with him) said:

﴿الحمد لله﴾

فرجعت إليه عواقب الثناء من كل حامد ومحمود. وإليه يرجع الأمر كله). فعم ما ذم وحمد، وما ثمة إلا محمود أو مذموم. أي، قال تعالى : (الحمد لله رب العالمين). وخص ماهية الحمد لله. ولا شك أن الخلق يحمد أيضا ويثنى بلسان الحق، كما يثنى على الأنبياء والمؤمنين، وبلسان بعضهم بعض. والحمد إنما يكون على صفات الكمال، وهي كلها لله في الحقيقة، فرجعت عواقب الصفات الكمالية الموجبة للثناء إلى الحق تعالى بعد إضافتها إلى الخلق واتصافهم بها. سواء كان الحامد حقا أو خلقا، والمحمود حقا وخلقا، إذ هو الذي حمد نفسه تارة في مقامه الجمعي، وأخرى في مقامه التفصيلي. ولما كان في الحقيقة يسمى خلقا عدما، لا وجود له، والموجود هو الحق لا غيره، عمم الحكم وأكد ب (الكل) ، وقال

so the consequences of praise return to Him from every praiser and praised one, and to Him the whole affair returns. Thus he generalized [to cover] what is blamed and praised, and there is nothing there except praised or blamed. That is, He, exalted, said: "Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds," specifying the essential reality of praise as belonging to God. There is no doubt that created beings are also praised and lauded by the tongue of the Real, just as the prophets and believers are praised, and by the tongue of some of them upon others. Praise is only [given] for attributes of perfection, and these are all, in reality, God's; so the consequences of the perfective attributes necessitating praise return to the Real, exalted be He, after their attribution to created beings and their being qualified by them - whether the praiser be the Real or a created being, and the praised be the Real or a created being - since it is He who praises Himself, at one time in His station of all-comprehensiveness (jamʿī), and at another in His station of differentiation (tafṣīlī). And since, in reality, what is called a created being is [in itself] nonexistence, having no [independent] existence, and the Existent is the Real and none other, he generalized the ruling and emphasized it with [the word] "all" (al-kull), and said]

﴿الحمد لله﴾

الذي له الكمال الذي يستغرق به جميع الأمور الوجوديّة - ذمّا كان ذلك أو حمدا - بحيث لا يمكن أن يفوته نعت - كما سبق تحقيقه في الفصّ السابق

- to Whom belongs the perfection by which He encompasses all existential matters, whether blame or praise, such that no attribute (naʿt) can escape Him - as has already been established in the preceding chapter (faṣṣ).

﴿«الحمد لله»: فرجعت إليه عواقب الثناء من كل حامد و محمود. «و إليه يرجع الأمر كله» فعم ما ذم و حمد، و ما ثم إلا محمود و مذموم. اعلم أنه ما تخلل شي ء شيئا إلا كان محمولا فيه. فالمتخلل اسم فاعل محجوب بالمتخلل- اسم مفعول. فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر، واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور. وهو غذاء له كالماء يتخلل الصوفة فتربو به وتتسع. فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر فالخلق مستور فيه، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق سمعه و بصره و جميع نسبه و إدراكاته. وإن كان الخلق هو الظاهر فالحق مستور باطن فيه، فالحق سمع الخلق و بصره و يده و رجله و جميع قواه كما ورد في الخبر الصحيح. … " الحمد لله"﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

(الفاتحة : 2]، أي الحمد الشامل كل حامدية به ومحمودية ملك لله تعالی مختص به لا يتجاوز إلى غيره . (فرجعت إليه سبحانه عواقب الثناء) انتهاء وإن كان متعلقة بغير ابتداء

is nourishment for it [the manifest], like water that interpenetrates wool, so that it swells and expands by it. So if the Real is the Manifest, then creation is concealed within Him, in which case creation is all the Names of the Real: His hearing, His sight, and all His relations (nisab) and perceptions. And if creation is the Manifest, then the Real is concealed, nonmanifest within it, so the Real is the hearing of creation, its sight, its hand, its foot, and all its faculties, as has come in the sound report. … "Praise belongs to God"] [al-Fātiḥa: 2], i.e., the all-inclusive praise, every praiser-ness and praised-ness through Him, is a possession belonging to God, Exalted, specifically His, not extending to other than Him. ("So the ultimate outcomes of praise revert to Him") glorified be He, as a terminus, even though it is [also] connected to a starting-point

﴿"والحمد لله" فرجعت إليه عواقب الثناء من كل حامد ومحمود﴾

لاختصاص الحمد لنفسه

because praise is exclusively His

﴿فرجعت إليه عواقب الثناء من كلّ حامد ومحمود " وَإِلَيْه ِ يُرْجَعُ الأَمْرُ كُلُّه ُ " [ 11 / 123 ] فعمّ ما ذمّ وما حمد ، وما ثمّ إلَّا محمود أو مذموم﴾

إذا ظهر الحق فالخلق باطن ، وإذا ظهر الخلق فالحق باطن ثمّ إذ قد بيّن أمر هذا الموطن الكمالي وشمول جمعيّته وتمام إحاطته لا بدّ وأن ينبّه إلى كيفيّة انطوائه للطرفين ومعانقة النقيضين فيه ، فإنّه هو الدليل على تمام جمعيّته وكمال شموله ، فأشار إلى ذلك بقوله : و

- thus it comprehends what is blamed and what is praised, and there is nothing but what is praised or blamed]. When the Real manifests, the creature is nonmanifest (bāṭin); and when the creature manifests, the Real is nonmanifest. Then, having clarified the matter of this perfective station and the comprehensiveness of its all-inclusiveness and the completeness of its encompassing, it is necessary to point out how it enfolds both sides and embraces the two opposites within it - for this is the proof of the completeness of its comprehensiveness and the perfection of its all-inclusiveness. So he alluded to that by his saying: 'And...'

﴿من كل حامد ومحمود﴾

وأشار ثانية إلى رجوع المحامد والمذام كلها إليه بقوله سبحانه : ("وإليه ترجع الأمر كله" [هود: ۱۲۳] فعم) . أي هذا القول منه تعالى ، أو الأمر الراجع إليه المفهوم من هذا القول

And he indicated secondly the reversion of all praises and blames together to Him, by His saying, glorified be He: ("And to Him the whole affair is returned" [Hūd: 123], thus encompassing) i.e., this statement of His, Exalted, or the affair that reverts to Him understood from this statement,

﴿وإليه يرجع الأمر كله﴾

أي، سواء كان محمودا أو مذموما. والسر فيه أن ما في الوجود خير كله، وكونه مذموما ليس إلا بالنسبة إلى بعض الأشياء. ألا ترى أن الشهوة من حيث إنه ظل المحبة الذاتية السارية في الوجود محمودة، وعدمها، وهو العنة، مذمومة، ومن حيث إنها سبب بناء النوع وموجبة للذة التي هي نوع من التجليات الجمالية أيضا محمودة، وعند وقوعها على غير موجب الشرع مذمومة، لكونها سببا لانقطاع النسل وموجبا للفتن العائدة إلى العدم؟ وهكذا جميع صور المذام. فالكل منه وإليه من حيث الكمال. والاستدلال بالآيات وأمثالها أنما هو تأنيس للمحجوبين وعقولهم الضعيفة، وإلا أهل الكشف يشاهدون الأمر في نفسه كذلك. قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

That is, whether praiseworthy or blameworthy. The secret in this is that what exists is all good, and its being blameworthy is only relative to certain things. Do you not see that desire (shahwa), insofar as it is the shadow of the essential love that pervades existence, is praiseworthy, while its absence, which is impotence, is blameworthy; and insofar as it is the cause of the propagation of the species and productive of pleasure, which is also a kind of beautiful self-disclosure (tajallī), it is praiseworthy, yet when it occurs contrary to what the Law requires, it is blameworthy, being a cause of the severance of progeny and productive of trials leading back to nonexistence? And thus it is with all forms of blameworthy things. So all comes from Him and returns to Him in respect of perfection. The citing of verses and the like is only a means of reassurance for the veiled and those of weak intellect; otherwise, the people of unveiling witness the matter as being so in itself. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said

﴿وإليه يرجع الأمر كله﴾

(هود: 123) فعم ما ذم وحمد، وما ثم إلا محمود ومذموم اعلم أنه ما تخلل شیء شيئا إلا كان محمولا فيه، فالمتخلل، اسم فاعل، محجوب بالمتخلل، اسم مفعول، فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر، واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور. وهو غذاء له كالماء يتخلل الصوفة فتربو به وتتسع. فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر فالخلق مستور فيه، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق سمعه وبصره و جميع نسبه و إدراكاته. وإن كان الخلق هو الظاهر فالحق مستور باطن فيه، فالحق سمع الخلق و بصره و يده و رجله و جميع قواه كما ورد في الخبر الصحيح. ثم إن الذات لو تعرت عن هذه النسب لم تكن إلها. وهذه النسب أحدثتها أعياننا: فنحن جعلناه بمألوهيتنا إلها، فلا يعرف حتى نعرف. قال عليه السلام: «من عرف نفسه عرف ربه» وهو أعلم الخلق بالله. فإن بعض الحكماء وأبا حامد ادعوا أنه يعرف الله من غير نظر في العالم وهذا غلط. نعم تعرف ذات قديمة أزلية لا يعرف أنها إله حتى يعرف المألوه. فهو الدليل عليه. ثم بعد هذا في ثاني حال يعطيك الكشف أن الحق نفسه كان عين الدليل على نفسه و على ألوهيته، و أن العالم ليس إلا تجليه في صور أعيانهم الثابتة التي يستحيل وجودها بدونه ، وأنه يتنوع و يتصور بحسب حقائق هذه الأعيان و أحوالها، و هذا بعد العلم به منا أنه إله لنا. ثم يأتي الكشف الآخر فيظهر لك صورنا فيه، فيظهر بعضنا لبعض في الحق، فيعرف بعضنا بعضا، و يتميز بعضنا عن بعض. فمنا من يعرف أن في الحق وقعت هذه المعرفة لنا بنا، و منا من يجهل الحضرة التي وقعت فيها هذه المعرفة بنا: أعوذ بالله أن أكون من الجاهلين. و بالكشفين معا ما يحكم علينا إلا بنا، لا، بل نحن نحكم علينا بنا و لكن فيه، و لذلك قال «فلله الحجة البالغة»: يعني على المحجوبين إذ قالوا للحق لم فعلت بنا كذا و كذا مما لا يوافق أغراضهم، «فيكشف لهم عن ساق»: و هو الأمر الذي كشفه العارفون هنا، فيرون أن الحق ما فعل بهم ما ادعوه أنه فعله و أن ذلك منهم، فإنه ما علمهم إلا على ما هم عليه، فتدحض حجتهم و تبقى الحجة لله تعالى البالغة. فإن قلت فما فائدة قوله تعالى: «فلو شاء لهداكم أجمعين» قلنا «لو شاء» لو حرف امتناع لامتناع: فما شاء إلا ما هو الأمر عليه. و لكن عين الممكن قابل للشيء و نقيضه في حكم دليل العقل، و أي الحكمين المعقولين وقع، ذلك هو الذي كان عليه الممكن في حال ثبوته. و معنى «لهداكم لبين لكم: و ما كل ممكن من العالم فتح الله عين بصيرته لإدراك الأمر في نفسه على ما هو عليه: فمنهم العالم و الجاهل. فما شاء ، فما هداهم أجمعين، كذلك «إن يشأ»: فهل يشاء؟ هذا ما لا يكون. فمشيئته أحدية التعلق و هي نسبة تابعة للعلم و العلم نسبة تابعة للمعلوم و المعلوم أنت و أحوالك. فليس للعلم أثر في المعلوم، بل للمعلوم أثر في العلم فيعطيه من نفسه ما هو عليه في عينه. و إنما ورد الخطاب الإلهي بحسب ما تواطأ عليه المخاطبون و ما أعطاه النظر العقلي، ما ورد الخطاب على ما يعطيه الكشف. و لذلك كثر المؤمنون و قل العارفون أصحاب الكشوف. «و ما منا إلا له مقام معلوم»: و هو ما كنت به في ثبوتك ظهرت به في وجودك، هذا إن ثبت أن لك وجودا. فإن ثبت أن الوجود للحق لا لك، فالحكم لك بلا شك في وجود الحق. و إن ثبت أنك الموجود فالحكم لك بلا شك. و إن كان الحاكم الحق، فليس له إلا إفاضة الوجود عليك و الحكم لك عليك. فلا تحمد إلا نفسك و لا تذم إلا نفسك، و ما يبقى للحق إلا حمد إفاضة الوجود لأن ذلك له لا لك. فأنت غذاؤه بالأحكام، %~% و هو غذاؤك بالوجود. فتعين عليه ما تعين عليك. فالأمر منه إليك ومنك إليه. غير أنك تسمى مكلفا و ما كلفك إلا بما قلت له كلفني بحالك و بما أنت عليه. و لا يسمى مكلفا: اسم مفعول. فيحمدني و أحمده %~% و يعبدني و أعبده ففي حال أقر به %~% و في الأعيان أجحده فيعرفني و أنكره %~% و أعرفه فأشهده فأنى بالغنى و أنا %~% أساعده فأسعده؟ لذاك الحق أوجدني %~% فأعلمه فأوجده بذا جاء الحديث لنا %~% و حقق في مقصده و لما كان للخليل هذه المرتبة التي بها سمي خليلا لذلك سن القرى ، و جعله ابن مسرة مع ميكائيل للأرزاق ، و بالأرزاق يكون تغذي المرزوقين. فإذا تخلل الرزق ذات المرزوق بحيث لا يبقى فيه شيء إلا تخلله، فإن الغذاء يسري في جميع أجزاء المغتذي كلها وما هنالك أجزاء فلا بد أن يتخلل جميع المقامات الإلهية المعبر عنها بالأسماء فتظهر بها ذاته جل وعل فنحن له كما ثبتت %~% أدلتنا ونحن لن وليس له سوى كوني %~% فنحن له كنحن بن فلي وجهان هو وأنا %~% و ليس له أنا بأن ولكن في مظهره %~% فنحن له كمثل إن و الله يقول الحق و هو يهدي السبيل. قلت : أما قوله، رضي الله عنه: إن إبراهيم، عليه السلام، يخلل الوجود الإلهي فمعناه: أن إبراهيم هو جمع المعاني العدمية وبها اتصف الوجود بالكثرة مع كونه واحدا في نفسه. وأما أن الحق تعالی بخلل حقيقة إبراهيم، فهو أظهرها في وجود ذاته من الوجه الذي هي فيه ذاتية له به منه فيه. وقد تقدم معنى ذلك ويتكرر حتى يظهر إن شاء الله تعالى، وما أحسن استدلال الشيخ، رضي الله عنه، بقوله: «وإليه يرجع الأمر كله» (هود: 123) يعني محموده ومذمومه وهو، رضي الله عنه، غیر محتاج إلى الاستدلال لكن ذلك من أجل أهل الحجاب. و مقام الخلة يثبت فيه الحق والعبد لكن يكون الحق فيه أظهر في شهود الشاهد، وفي هذا المقام قيل للواقف : متى رأيت نفسك ثبتا أو ثابتا؟ ولم ترني في الرؤية مثبتا حجبت وجهى وأسفر لك وجهك فانظر ماذا بدا لك؟ وماذا توارى عنك ؟ ولما بسط، رضي الله عنه، في هذا المعنى كلامه إلى آخر الحكمة الإبراهيمية، رأيت أن المعنى قليل والتعبير عنه كثير ومع ذلك ما تدركه العقول المحجوبة لكونه غير مألوف لهم . رأيت أن اختصر الشرح في ألفاظ قليلة أرجو أن تدل على المطلوب للمكاشف والمحجوب وتعين في تسهيل المطلوب أن اصطلح على ألفاظ تدل على ما يقع من المقاصد فمن جملتها: أني أسمي ذات الحق تعالی، من أحد وجهي ما يقال عليه النور وليس هذا هو اسم للذات المشار إليها، لأنه لا اسم له لأن الإشارة هنا إلى ما قبل الأسماء في الرتبة، فالنور المشار إليه وإن فاق مرتبة الإشارة، فكيف العبارة؟ ليس اسما للذات وهذا النور يجب أن يعلم بحسب الإمكان أنه ما يقابل قولنا العدم المطلق . ولما كان العدم المطلق هو لا شيء من كل وجه، إن كان يقبل شيء من كل وجه أن يخبر عنه لكن للضرورة، فما نجد لفظا يدل عليه أحسن من قولنا: لا شيء من كل وجه وإن كان لا شيء من كل وجه لا يقبل أن يدل عليه بلفظ، لأنه لا ذات له. فنعود ونقول لا شيء من كل وجه يقابله ما هو الشيء من كل وجه . وذلك هو الذي يعني بأنه النور المعبر به عن الذات لا باعتبار الصفات. والمصطلح الثاني قولنا: المعنى و هو عالم الصفات وهذا المعنى ينبغي أن يتخيل كأنه كلي لما لا يتناهي، وفي تفسير ما لا يتناهي بيني وبين سندي وشيخي، الشيخ محيي الدين مظهر هذا الكتاب الذي هو الفصوص، خلاف أو شيء يشبه الخلاف. فأنا أقول: إن جزئیات هذا الذي فرضناه كليا أو كالكلي لا وجود لها قبل كونها، ولا ثبوت لها أصلا بوجه من الوجوه. وقد تلفظ الشيخ، رضي الله عنه، بهذا لكنه يعود يقرر غيره أيضا، وموضع ذكره لهذا الذي ذكرناه هو في الحكمة القدوسية في الكلمة الإدريسية، وصورة لفظه هكذا: لأن الأعيان التي لها العدم الثابتة فيه ما شمت رائحة من الوجود، فنعود ونقول: إن جزئیات هذا الذي فرضناه کالكلي لا وجود لها قبل كونها ولا ثبوت لها لأن الثبوت فيه رائحة الوجود وإنما سميناه نحن بالمعنى وهو لا يستحق أن يتسمی [به] لأن الوجود الذي هو النور هو الشيء من كل وجه. فلا بد أن يكون قويا على صفات غير متناهية تظهر، لكنها قبل ظهورها ما كانت لها أعيان ثابتة لأن الشيء لا يسبق وجوده وجود هذا، هو الحق. أما الشيخ فإنه يقول ": هي متمايزة قبل وجودها فهذا هو الخلف وإن كان الشيخ لا ينكر ما أقوله أنا. وأما أنا فأنكر ما يقوله الشيخ، رضي الله عنه، من " ثبوت الأعيان قبل كونها، وعذر الشيخ، رضي الله عنه، تئزله إلى عقول المحجوبين رجاء أن يمكر بهم في إثباتها ثم يخلصهم بعد ذلك إلى حضرة الوحدانية فنعود ونعيد ما اصطلحنا عليه ونقوله إن النور الوجودي كان في ذاته، و وحداني، أن يظهر كثيرا. وقولنا: في ذاته، مجاز إذ ليس في ذاته غير ذاته. فنقول: إن كونه في ذاته له قوة أن يظهر كثيرا نحن سميناه بالمعنى وفرضناه أنه بلسان الحال، يتقاضي النور الوجودي الظهور بما في قوته، لا بمجاورة" فظهر بالواحد والكثير . وهو في نفسه لا واحد ولا كثير فاحس الذهن بالمتغایرات لا بالتغايرات. فتوهم أنه احس بالتغايرات والمتغايرات فسمي هذه التغايرات التي غلط في اثباتها أعيانا ثابتة. وسميتها أنا تبعا للشيخ، رضي الله عنه: المعنى الكلي وهذه التغايرات جزؤياته. فإذا تحقق أحد بالبقاء بعد الفناء في الشهود رأى أنه ليس مع النور غيره ولا تغايرات هناك وحيث أثبتها الشيخ، رضي الله عنه، قرر فيها ما ذكره في هذه الحكمة وفي غيرها. لكنا جميعا نجتمع في التصريح بأنه ليس مع الله غيره. وبقي لنا أنه، رضي الله عنه، يقول إن العالم هو العرش والكرسي وما تحتهما من الأفلاك بما فيها . وأنا أقول كما قيل: شعر العرش والكرسي يتلوهم .... غيرهما من غير ما عالم حبابة في بحر إطلاقه ..... ما أيسر المحدود في الدائم فما ذهب إليه محدود وما ذهبت إليه غير محدود وغير متناه بالنوع فكيف بالشخص. وأنه ليس للوجود مرکز وفيه منه موجودات لها مراکز، ولست ألزم أحدا أن يتبعني في ذوقي هذا والنور الوجودي عندي لا يحيط ولا يحاط به وفيه موجودات تحيط وتحاط بها. قوله في الشعر: فيحمدني يعني أن ذلك النور يحمد المعنى، لأنه به ظهر كثيرا وهو لا واحد ولا كثير، وأحمده يعني أنه أظهرني في اعتبار الأذهان في عالم النسب والإضافات التي لا وجود لها إلا في الأذهان، فأنا أحمده على اظهاري مع ما في ظهوري من التلبيس "التلبس"، لأني ليس لي في الحقيقة ذات حتى تظهر أو لا تظهر. قوله: ففي حال أقر به، أي أقر بأن النور هو وليس يغایره ذلك المعنى، وأما في الوجودات الظاهرة فأجحده، أي أجحد أنه عين ذلك المعنى بل هو النور لا غيره. قوله: فيعرفني لأني صفته. وانكره لأني عدم لا ينسب إلى معرفته. قوله: وأعرفه فأشهده، يعني أرى النور بعين النور قوله: فأني بالغني، یعني فكيف يصح الغنى للنور وهو مفتقر في صفاته إلى المعنى وهو عالم المعاني المختلفة فهو إذن فقير إلي، فلا يدعي أنه غني فأني أساعده في ظهور صفاته وأسعده أي أصيره ذا سعد. قوله: لذلك الحق أو جدني، أي أن النور أوجدني لأساعده ولاعلمه علم الجزئي و أوجده في حضرة الألوهية بحقيقة أني المألوه، إذ لولا المألوه الكائن بالفعل ما وجد معنى الإله بالفعل. قوله: بذا جاء الحديث، يريد كنت سمعه وبصره فلولا المعنى لما كان له السمع والبصر وبالجملة الصفات، إذ كلها معان. و قوله: لذلك سن إبراهيم الخليل القرى ، أي الضيافة فهو رفیق میکائیل الذي هو متكفل بأرزاق العباد، ليوصله إلى من أمر أن يوصل إليه من السحاب المسخر بين السماء والأرض، وما ذكره ظاهر قوله: فنحن له ، يعني الله تعالى كما يثبت أدلتنا، يعني أن الدليل العقلي يقتضي بأنا لله والنقلي أولى قوله: ونحن لنا ، يعني بمقتضى الشهود ویرید ، بقوله: نحن ، الأعيان الثابتة قوله: وليس له سوي کوني ، أي وجود کوني وهو إظهار عيني الثابتة بوجوده. قوله: فنحن له، یعنی منه إليه فيه لأن الأعيان الثابتة هي أحكام صور علمه وعلمه ذاته. قوله: کنحن بنا، كما نحن بحقائق ذاتنا وماهياتنا. قوله : فلي وجهان ، يعني وجه الإمكان وهو الأعيان الثابتة و وجه له وهو وجوده الذي به ظهرنا۔ قوله: وليس له أنا بأنا ، أي ما ثبت له بي، إنما ثبت له به. قوله: ولكني في مظهره، أي محل ظهوره. فنحن له كمثل أنا . كما يقول القائل: أنا فما نحن إذن غيره

(Hūd: 123). Thus it encompasses what is blamed and what is praised, for there is nothing there except the praised and the blamed. Know that nothing permeates (yatakhallalu) a thing except that it is borne within it: so the permeator (active participle) is veiled by the permeated (passive participle), for the passive participle is the manifest (ẓāhir), while the active participle is the nonmanifest (bāṭin), the concealed one. And it is nourishment for the permeated, like water that permeates wool so that the wool swells and expands by it. If the Real is the manifest, then creation is concealed within Him, so that creation becomes all the Names of the Real — His hearing, His sight, and all His relations (nisab) and perceptions. And if creation is the manifest, then the Real is concealed, nonmanifest within it, so that the Real is the hearing of creation, its sight, its hand, its foot, and all its faculties, as reported in the sound tradition. Now, were the Essence (al-dhāt) stripped of these relations, it would not be a god. And these relations were brought about by our entities (aʿyān): we made Him, by our being objects-of-divinity (maʾlūhiyya), a god — so He is not known until we are known. He (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever knows himself knows his Lord," and he is the most knowing of creation regarding God. Some of the philosophers (ḥukamāʾ), and Abū Ḥāmid [al-Ghazālī], claimed that God can be known without reflection upon the world — but this is an error. Yes, an eternal, pre-eternal essence can be known, yet it is not known that it is a god until the object-of-divinity (maʾlūh) is known; for it is the proof of Him. Then after this, in a second state, unveiling (kashf) grants you [the understanding] that the Real Himself is the very proof of Himself and of His divinity, and that the world is nothing but His self-disclosure (tajallī) in the forms of their fixed entities (aʿyān thābita), whose existence is impossible without Him, and that He diversifies and assumes form according to the realities of these entities and their states — and this comes after our knowledge that He is a god for us. Then comes the further unveiling, and our forms appear to you within Him: some of us appear to others within the Real, so that we know one another and are distinguished from one another. Among us is one who knows that this knowledge of us, by us, occurred within the Real; and among us is one who is ignorant of the Presence (ḥaḍra) in which this knowledge of us occurred — I seek refuge in God from being among the ignorant. By the two unveilings together, nothing judges us except by us — no, rather we judge ourselves by ourselves, but within Him. Therefore He said: "To God belongs the conclusive argument" [Qur'an 6:149] — meaning against the veiled ones, when they say to the Real, "Why did You do such-and-such to us," of what does not accord with their aims. "Then it will be uncovered for them, [exposing] the Shin" [Qur'an 68:42]: this is the matter which the knowers (ʿārifūn) have uncovered here, for they see that the Real did not do to them what they claimed He did, and that this was rather from themselves; for He only knew them as they actually are. Thus their argument collapses, and the conclusive argument remains God's, exalted is He. If you say: then what is the benefit of His saying, exalted is He, "Had He willed, He would have guided you all together" [Qur'an 16:9]? We say: "had He willed" — "had" (lau) is a particle of impossibility implying impossibility [of the consequent]: for He only willed what the matter actually is. Yet the very entity of the possible (al-mumkin) is receptive to a thing and its opposite according to the judgment of rational proof, and whichever of the two rationally conceivable judgments occurs — that is what the possible [entity] was, in the state of its fixity (thubūt). And the meaning of "He would have guided you" is "He would have made it clear to you" — for not every possible entity of the world has had the eye of its insight opened by God to perceive the matter in itself as it actually is: among them are the knowing and the ignorant. So He did not will [that], and thus did not guide them all together. Likewise "if He wills" [Qur'an 14:19]: but will He will it? This is something that will not be. For His will (mashīʾa) has a single mode of attachment, and it is a relation (nisba) following upon knowledge; and knowledge is a relation following upon the known (maʿlūm); and the known is you and your states. Knowledge, then, has no effect upon the known — rather, the known has an effect upon knowledge, giving it, from itself, what it actually is in its entity (ʿayn). The divine address (khiṭāb) came only according to what those addressed agreed upon and what rational reflection afforded; it did not come according to what unveiling affords. For this reason believers (muʾminūn) are many, while knowers (ʿārifūn), the possessors of unveilings, are few. "And there is not one of us but has a known station" [Qur'an 37:164]: that is, what you were through it in your fixity, you manifested through it in your existence (wujūd) — this, if it is established that you have an existence [of your own]. For if it is established that existence belongs to the Real, not to you, then the judgment (ḥukm) belongs to you, without doubt, within the existence of the Real. And if it is established that you are the existent, then the judgment belongs to you without doubt. And if the Real is the one who judges, then He has nothing but the effusion (ifāḍa) of existence upon you, while the judgment belongs to you, upon you. So praise none but yourself, and blame none but yourself; and nothing remains for the Real except the praise due for the effusion of existence, since that belongs to Him, not to you. So you are His nourishment through the judgments (aḥkām), %~% and He is your nourishment through existence. Thus what is incumbent upon you becomes incumbent upon Him, for the matter runs from Him to you and from you to Him. Except that you are called 'one obligated' (mukallaf), and He only obligated you with what you yourself said to Him: 'Obligate me according to your state and what you actually are' — and He is not called 'one obligated' [in the passive sense]. He praises me, and I praise Him, %~% and He worships me, and I worship Him; for in one state I acknowledge Him, %~% and in the entities I deny Him; so He knows me, and I deny Him, %~% and I know Him, so I witness Him. How then [can there be] self-sufficiency, when I %~% assist Him, so that I make Him fortunate? For that the Real gave me existence, %~% so that I make Him known, and so I give Him existence. By this the ḥadīth came to us, %~% and verified it in its intended meaning. And since the Intimate Friend (al-Khalīl) held this rank by which he was named 'Khalīl,' he therefore instituted hospitality (al-qirā), and Ibn Masarra placed him together with Michael (Mīkāʾīl) in charge of provisions (arzāq); and through provisions the provided-for are nourished. So when provision permeates the essence of the one provided for, such that nothing remains in it unpermeated — for nourishment flows through all the parts of the nourished entirely, though there are no [real] parts there — it must then permeate all the divine stations expressed by the Names, so that His Essence — exalted and glorified is He — manifests through them. We are His, as our proofs %~% have established; and we are our own [through witnessing], and He has nothing except my being (kawnī): %~% so we are His, as we are through ourselves. I have two faces: Him, and I, %~% and He has no 'I' through 'I'; but [I am] in His locus of manifestation (maẕhar), %~% so we are His like [the mere particle] 'in.' "And God speaks the truth, and He guides to the way" [Qur'an 33:4]. I say: As for his statement, may God be pleased with him, that Abraham, peace be upon him, permeates the divine existence — its meaning is that Abraham is the totality (jamʿ) of the non-existential meanings (al-maʿānī al-ʿadamiyya), and by them existence is characterized by multiplicity, while being one in itself. As for [the claim] that the Real, exalted is He, permeates the reality of Abraham, He has manifested it within the existence of His Essence, from the aspect in which it is essential to Him — by Him, from Him, within Him. This meaning has already preceded, and will recur until it becomes manifest, God willing, exalted is He. How excellent is the Shaykh's — may God be pleased with him — argument by his saying "And to Him the whole matter returns" (Hūd: 123), meaning its praised and its blamed [aspects] — though he, may God be pleased with him, is not in need of [such] argumentation; rather that is for the sake of the people of the veil (ahl al-ḥijāb). In the station of Intimate Friendship (khulla), both the Real and the servant are established, but the Real is more manifest therein in the witnessing of the witness. And in this station it was said to the one standing [in witnessing]: 'When did you see yourself as fixed, or as established, and did not see Me in the vision as established? I veiled My face, and your face was unveiled to you — so look: what appeared to you, and what was concealed from you?' And since he, may God be pleased with him, extended his discourse on this meaning to the end of the Abrahamic Wisdom (al-ḥikma al-ibrāhīmiyya), I saw that the meaning is little while the expression of it is extensive, and nevertheless the veiled intellects do not grasp it, because it is unfamiliar to them. I saw fit to abbreviate the commentary into few expressions, hoping they would indicate what is sought both for the one granted unveiling (mukāshif) and the veiled one (maḥjūb), and that it would help facilitate what is sought, that I adopt [specific] terms indicating the intended meanings that occur [in this discussion]. Among them: that I name the Essence of the Real, exalted is He, from one of its two aspects, that which is called 'the Light' (al-nūr) — though this is not [truly] a name for the Essence referred to, for it has no name, since the reference here is to that which precedes the names in rank; the Light referred to, even if it surpasses the rank of reference, how much more does it surpass expression? It is not a name for the Essence. This Light must be known, insofar as possible, as that which is opposed to what we call absolute nonexistence (al-ʿadam al-muṭlaq). And since absolute nonexistence is 'not a thing from every aspect,' if it can accept — out of necessity — being spoken of as 'a thing from every aspect,' we find no expression indicating it better than our saying 'not a thing from every aspect,' even though 'not a thing from every aspect' cannot properly be indicated by any expression, since it has no essence (dhāt). So we return and say: 'not a thing from every aspect' is opposed by that which is 'a thing from every aspect.' And that is what is meant by saying it is the Light, used to express the Essence, not with respect to the Attributes. The second technical term is our saying 'the Meaning' (al-maʿnā), which is the world of the Attributes; and this Meaning should be imagined as though it were universal (kullī) for what is non-finite (lā yatanāhā). In interpreting what is non-finite, between me and my authority and master, Shaykh Muḥyī al-Dīn, the manifestor (maẕhar) of this book which is the Fuṣūṣ, there is a disagreement, or something resembling a disagreement. For I say: the particulars (juzʾiyyāt) of this which we have posited as universal, or as quasi-universal, have no existence before their coming-to-be, nor any fixity (thubūt) for them at all, in any respect whatsoever. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, has indeed stated this, but he also returns to affirm its opposite as well. The place where he mentions what we have mentioned is in the Holy Wisdom (al-ḥikma al-qudūsiyya), in the Idrīsian Word, and the form of his statement is thus: 'because the entities which belong to nonexistence, fixed therein, have not smelled any scent of existence.' So we return and say: the particulars of this which we have posited as quasi-universal have no existence before their coming-to-be, nor fixity, for fixity carries within it a scent of existence. And we have only named it 'the Meaning,' though it does not deserve to be so named, because existence, which is the Light, is 'the thing from every aspect.' It must therefore be capable of [bearing] non-finite attributes that become manifest, though before their manifestation they had no fixed entities, for a thing's existence cannot precede the existence of this [principle] — this is the truth (al-ḥaqq, i.e., the correct view). As for the Shaykh, he says: 'they are distinguished [from one another] before their existence' — and this is the contradiction (khalaf), even though the Shaykh does not deny what I myself say. As for me, I deny what the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, says regarding the fixity of the entities before their coming-to-be; and the Shaykh's excuse, may God be pleased with him, is his descending to the level of the intellects of the veiled, hoping to outwit them through affirming [the entities], then afterward delivering them to the Presence of Oneness (ḥaḍrat al-waḥdāniyya). So we return and repeat what we have agreed upon as terminology, and say: the existential Light was, in itself — being One (waḥdānī) — [capable] of manifesting as many. Our saying 'in itself' is a figurative expression (majāz), since there is nothing in its Essence other than its Essence. So we say: its being, in itself, having the power to manifest as many — this we have named 'the Meaning' — and we have posited it as though, by the tongue of its state, it demands of the existential Light manifestation according to what lies within its power, not through [external] adjacency; so it manifested as the One and the many, while it in itself is neither one nor many. So the mind perceived the differentiated things (al-mutaghāyirāt), not the differentiations (al-taghāyurāt) [themselves]; but it was [mistakenly] imagined that it perceived both the differentiations and the differentiated things. So these differentiations, in affirming which [the mind] erred, were named 'fixed entities,' while I, following the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, named it 'the universal Meaning,' and these differentiations are its particulars. So if one realizes subsistence (baqāʾ) after extinction (fanāʾ) in witnessing, he sees that there is nothing with the Light other than it, and no differentiations there at all; and wherever the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, affirmed them, he established regarding them what he mentions in this Wisdom and elsewhere. But all of us agree in declaring explicitly that there is nothing with God other than Him. What remains for us is that he, may God be pleased with him, says that the world is the Throne (al-ʿarsh) and the Footstool (al-kursī) and what lies beneath them of the celestial spheres (aflāk) with what they contain. And I say, as has been said [in verse]: 'The Throne and the Footstool follow them [the spheres] ... other than them, [belonging] to no other world — a bubble in the sea of His absoluteness ... how slight is the finite within the Everlasting!' For what he held is finite, and what I hold is non-finite — non-finite in kind (nawʿ), let alone in individual instance (shakhṣ); and existence (wujūd) has no center, while within it, from it, there are existents that have centers. I do not oblige anyone to follow me in this taste (dhawq) of mine. The existential Light, in my view, neither encompasses nor is encompassed, while within it there are existents that encompass and are encompassed. As for his saying in the verse 'He praises me' — it means that that Light praises the Meaning, because by it [the Meaning] it [the Light] manifested as many, while it is in itself neither one nor many. 'And I praise Him' means that He manifested me in the consideration of minds, in the world of relations (nisab) and ascriptions (iḍāfāt), which have no existence except in minds; so I praise Him for manifesting me, despite what is involved in my manifestation of confounding ambiguity (talbīs), for I have in reality no essence of my own such that it could manifest or not manifest. His saying 'for in one state I acknowledge Him' means: I acknowledge that the Light is He, and that the Meaning does not differ from it; whereas regarding the manifest existents, 'I deny Him' means: I deny that He is identical with that Meaning — rather He is the Light, nothing else. His saying 'so He knows me' is because I am His attribute; 'and I deny Him' is because I am nonexistence (ʿadam), which cannot be ascribed to His knowledge. His saying 'and I know Him, so I witness Him' means: I see the Light by the eye of the Light. His saying 'how then [can there be] self-sufficiency' means: how can self-sufficiency be valid for the Light, when it is dependent, in its attributes, upon the Meaning, which is the world of the diverse meanings? So He is, therefore, dependent (faqīr) upon me, and cannot claim self-sufficiency. Hence 'I assist Him' in the manifestation of His attributes, 'and I make Him fortunate,' that is, I render Him possessed of good fortune. His saying 'for that the Real gave me existence' means: the Light gave me existence so that I might assist it, and so that it might know me with particular knowledge, and give itself existence in the Presence of Divinity (ḥaḍrat al-ulūhiyya) through the reality that I am the object-of-divinity (al-maʾlūh) — since, were it not for the object-of-divinity existing in actuality, the meaning of 'god' would not exist in actuality. His saying 'by this the ḥadīth came' refers to [the tradition]: 'I was his hearing and his sight,' for were it not for the Meaning, He would not have hearing and sight, and in sum, the attributes, since they are all Meanings. His saying 'for that Abraham the Friend instituted hospitality' means the guest-hosting, for he is the companion of Michael, who is charged with the provisions of [God's] servants, so that he may deliver it to whomever he is commanded to deliver it, from the clouds made subservient between heaven and earth; and what he mentions is evident. His saying 'so we are His' means God, exalted is He, as our proofs establish — meaning that rational proof requires that we belong to God, and scriptural proof [establishes this] all the more. His saying 'and we are our own' means: according to the requirement of witnessing (shuhūd); and by his saying 'we' he means the fixed entities (al-aʿyān al-thābita). His saying 'and He has nothing except my being' means: the existence of my being, which is the manifestation of my fixed entity (ʿaynī al-thābita) through His existence. His saying 'so we are His' means: from Him, to Him, within Him — because the fixed entities are the determinations (aḥkām) of the forms of His knowledge, and His knowledge is His Essence. His saying 'as we are through ourselves' means: just as we subsist through the realities of our essence and our quiddities (māhiyyāt). His saying 'so I have two faces' means: the face of possibility (imkān), which is the fixed entities, and a face belonging to Him, which is His existence by which we manifested. His saying 'and He has no 'I' through 'I'' means: what is established for Him is not through me, but rather is established for Him through Himself. His saying 'but I am in His locus of manifestation' means: the locus of His manifestation. 'So we are His, like [the mere particle] 'in'' — as one who says 'I' [thereby affirms nothing of independent reality]; so we, then, are nothing other than Him.

﴿"وإليه يرجع الأمر كله"﴾

فإذا كان رجوع الأمر إليه كله (نعم) الأمر

So if the return of the whole affair is to Him (indeed) the affair

﴿فعم ما ذم وحمد وما ثم إلا محمود أو مذموم﴾

أما عمومه لما حمد فظاهر مما مر ، وأما عمومه لما ذم فإن الذم العقلي والعرفي والشرعي لا يترتب إلا على متعين نسبى ذاتا كان أو صفة ، باعتبار تعينه ونسبته إلى متعين يوجب انعدامه أو انعدام كمال له. ولو انقطع النظر عن ذلك التعين النسبي ، انقلب مدحا وحمدا بحسب الحقيقة وبحسب نسب أخرى أكثر من تلك النسبة ، كما أن الشهوة مذمومة والزاني والزنا مذمومان . ولا شك أن حقيقة الشهوة هي قوة الحب الإلهي الساري في وجود النفس وهو محمود بذاته ، ألا ترى أن العنة كيف ذمت في نفسها ، وكذا الزاني باعتبار أنه إنسان ، والزنا باعتبار أنه وقاع فعل كمالى لو لم يقدر الإنسان عليه كان ناقصا مذموما . فالشهوة باعتبار حقيقتها التي هي الحب ، وباعتبار تعينها في الصورة الذكورية أو الأنوثية ، وكونها سبب حفظ النوع وتوليد المثل وموجبة اللذة كمال محمود . وكذا الزنا باعتبار قطع النظر عن هذا العارض كان محمودا في نفسه وبسائر النسب . فانقلب الذم حمدا في الجميع ولم يبق توجه الذم إلا على عدم طاعة الشهوة العقل والشرع وترك سياستها لها . فكونها مذمومة إنما هو بالإعراض عن حكمها ، حتى أدى فعلها إلى انقطاع النسب والتربية والإرث واختلال النظام بوقوع الهرج والمرج وهو فتنة . وكلها أمور عدمية راجعة إلى اعتبار التعين الخلفي ، وجهة الإمكان وصفات الممكنات باعتبار عدميتها ، وإلا فالوجود والوجوب وأحكامهما كلها محمودة ، والأمر حمد كله . قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

— as for its encompassing what is praised, this is evident from what preceded. As for its encompassing what is blamed: rational, customary, and legal blame attaches only to a relatively determined thing (mutaʿayyin nisbī), whether essence or attribute, in respect of its determination and its relation to some determined thing which it negates or whose perfection it negates. But were consideration of that relative determination to be severed, it would turn into praise and laud in respect of reality and in respect of other relations more numerous than that [negative] relation — just as desire (shahwa) is blamed, and the fornicator and fornication are blamed. Yet there is no doubt that the reality of desire is the power of divine love pervading the existence of the soul, and this is praiseworthy in itself. Do you not see how impotence (ʿunna) is blamed in itself? Likewise the fornicator, in respect of being human, and fornication, in respect of being a coupling that is a perfective act, such that were the human incapable of it he would be deficient and blameworthy. So desire, considered in respect of its reality which is love, and in respect of its determination in male or female form, and its being the cause of preserving the species and generating like from like, and productive of pleasure, is a praiseworthy perfection. Likewise fornication, considered apart from this accidental factor, is in itself and in respect of all other relations praiseworthy. Thus blame turns into praise in every case, and the direction of blame rests only upon desire's disobedience to reason and the Law, and the abandonment of its governance over it, until its action leads to the severance of lineages, upbringing, and inheritance, and the disruption of order through the occurrence of chaos and disorder — which is sedition (fitna). All these are privative matters referring back to the consideration of the "creaturely" (khalfī) determination, and the aspect of possibility, and the attributes of possible things in respect of their privative character. Otherwise, existence and necessity and their judgments are all together praiseworthy, and the whole affair is praise. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said

﴿ما ذم﴾

من الأمور (وما حمد) منه (وما ثمة) ، أي في الواقع

of matters (and what is praised) of it (and there is nothing there), i.e., in actuality,

﴿ما ذم وحمد﴾

على بناء المجهول. (وما ثمة) أي وما في العالم

in the passive construction. ("And there is nothing there") i.e., in the cosmos

﴿إلا أمر محمود أو مذموم﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

فلا يكون أمر في الواقع إلا ويرجع إليه . ثم إنه رضي الله عنه لما ذكر التخللين المذكورين في وجه تسمية الخليل خلية أراد أن يشير إلى أن : أحدهما نتيجة قرب الفرائض والأخر نتيجة قرب النوافل. فقال

so there is no matter in actuality except that it reverts to Him. Then, since he—may God be pleased with him—had mentioned the two kinds of interpenetration in connection with the basis for naming the Khalīl "Khalīl," he wished to indicate that one of them is the result of the proximity of obligatory acts (qurb al-farāʾiḍ) and the other the result of the proximity of supererogatory acts (qurb al-nawāfil). So he said:

﴿الا محمود أو مذموم﴾

يعني الأمر إما محمود أو مذموم وكل منهما يرجع إليه تعالى من حيث الوجود . أما المحمود فظاهر لأنه مستحق بالذات أن يحمد، وأما المذموم فمن حيث ملكوته نسبته إلى الله محمود ومن حيث صورته وشيئيته مذموم . فما في العالم مذموم من هذا الوجه فما ثبت للحق إلا ملكوت صفات المحدثات لا صورتها الحسية والمراد بالملكوت هي الصفات التي تكون منشأ لخلق صفات المحدثات . فملكوت المرض والجوع محمود ومطهر ونابت للحق ومن هذا الوجه كمال من الكمالات الإلهية ومن صورة حدوثه . وكثافته نقص لا يمكن أن يكون صفة الله تعالى . وكان الحق محمودة بملكوت الذم فلا يلزم من ثبوت ملكوت الذم له ثبوته له كما لا يلزم من حدوث تعلق العلم فملكوت كل شيء حادث من حيث تعلقه إلى ذلك الشيء. ومن حيث نسبته وإضافته إلى الله قديم إذ هو اسم من أسماء الله وصفة من صفاته. فالمراد بقوله : صفات المحدثات حق للحق ملكوت الصفات لا نفس الصفات لكن ورد النص على الظاهر . أخرج كلامه على طريق النص فظهور الحق بصفات المحدثات بناء على أن الممكنات ثابتة على عدمها ما شممت رائحة من الوجود فما وجودها إلا إضافة وجود الحق إليها . فظهرت بهذه الإضافة بصفات المحمودة أو المذمومة واتصفت إضافة الوجود بتلك الصفات المذمومة . والذات مع صفاته منزه عن هذا وهذا معنى قولهم صفات المحدثات حق للحق

meaning: the affair is either praised or blamed, and each of the two returns to Him, Exalted, in respect of existence. As for the praised, it is evident, since He is essentially deserving of praise. As for the blamed, from the standpoint of its malakūt (dominion-aspect), its relation to God is praised, while from the standpoint of its form and thing-ness it is blamed. So whatever in the cosmos is blamed is so only from this [latter] aspect, and nothing is established for the Real except the malakūt of the attributes of originated things, not their sensible form. By malakūt is meant those attributes which are the source from which the attributes of originated things are created. So the malakūt of sickness and hunger is praised, purified, and rightfully belongs to the Real, and from this aspect it is one of the divine perfections; whereas from the aspect of its form of coming-into-being and its density/grossness, it is a deficiency that cannot possibly be an attribute of God Most High. The Real is praised through the malakūt of blame, so it does not follow from the establishment of the malakūt of blame for Him that blame itself is established for Him—just as it does not follow from the occurrence of the attachment of knowledge [that knowledge itself is originated]. So the malakūt of everything is originated in respect of its attachment to that thing, but in respect of its relation and attribution to God it is eternal, since it is one of the Names of God and one of His Attributes. So what is meant by his saying "the attributes of originated things are rightfully the Real's" is the malakūt of the attributes, not the attributes themselves—yet the textual statement came in the apparent sense, and he cast his discourse in the mode of the apparent text. So the Real's manifestation with the attributes of originated things is based on the fact that possible things are established in their [state of] nonexistence—they have never caught the scent of existence; their existence is nothing but the ascription of the Real's existence to them. By this ascription they manifest with praised or blamed attributes, and the ascription of existence becomes qualified by those blamed attributes, while the Essence together with Its Attributes is transcendent above this. This is the meaning of their saying: "the attributes of originated things are rightfully the Real's."

﴿اعلم أنه ما تخلل شيء شيئا إلا كان محمولا فيه ، فالمتخلل : اسم فاعل محجوب ، بالمتخلَّل : اسم مفعول فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر ، واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

المتخلل : هو النافذ في الشيء المتغلغل في جوهره كالماء في الشجر. ولا شك أن ذلك الشيء حامل له ظاهر ، والمحمول مستور فيه باطن ( وهو ) أي المتخلل

the permeated (al-mutakhallal), a passive participle — so the passive participle is the manifest, and the active participle is the nonmanifest, concealed] — al-mutakhallil is that which penetrates into a thing, interfusing into its substance, like water in a tree. There is no doubt that that thing is its bearer, manifest, while the borne is concealed within it, nonmanifest. ("It" i.e. the permeator)

﴿اعلم أنّه ما تخلَّل شيء شيئا إلَّا كان محمولا فيه ، فالمتخلَّل باسم فاعل محجوب بالمتخلَّل اسم مفعول فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر ، واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور ، وهو غذاء له ، كالماء يتخلَّل الصوفة فتربو به وتتّسع﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

يعني رضي الله عنه : أنّ إبراهيم عليه السّلام بتخلَّله جميع الحضرات الإلهية يكون محمولا في الحق ، محجوبا ، فهو للحق جميع أسمائه وصفاته الظاهرة عليه ، فهو غذاؤه بالأحكام والنعوت والأسماء والصفات ، وكذلك بتخلَّل الوجود الحق صورة إبراهيم يكون محمولا في إبراهيم ، فيكون الحق سمعه وبصره ولسانه وسائر قواه . قال رضي الله عنه

He - may God be pleased with him - means that Abraham, peace be upon him, through his interpenetrating all the divine Presences, is carried within the Real, veiled, so he is, for the Real, all of His Names and Attributes manifest upon him; thus he is His nourishment through the rulings, descriptions, Names and Attributes. Likewise, through the interpenetration of the Real Existence into the form of Abraham, he is carried within Abraham, so the Real becomes his hearing, his sight, his tongue and all his other faculties. He - may God be pleased with him - said:

﴿اعلم، أنه ما تخلل شئ شيئا إلا كان محمولا فيه﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

لأن المتخلل هو الذي ينفذ في الشئ ويدخل في جوهره، فالداخل محمول ومستور فيه، والمدخول فيه حامل له وظاهره. فالمتخلل - اسم فاعل - محجوب بالمتخلل - اسم مفعول. فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر. واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور. وهو غذاء له، كالماء يتخلل الصوفة، فتربو به وتتسع. فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر، فالخلق مستور فيه، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق سمعه وبصره، وجميع نسبه وإدراكاته. وإن كان الخلق هو الظاهر، فالحق مستور باطن فيه، فالحق سمع الخلق وبصره ويده ورجله وجميع قواه كما ورد في الخبر الصحيح. لما بنى تقريره على التخلل، رجع أيضا إليه فقال : (ما تخلل شئ شيئا) أي، ما دخل شئ في شئ إلا كان الداخل مستورا في المدخول فيه. فالمتخلل الذي هو اسم الفاعل، أي الداخل، محجوب مستور في المتخلل الذي هو اسم المفعول، أي المدخول فيه، في المدخول فيه هو الظاهر، والداخل هو الباطن، والظاهر إنما يغتذي بالباطن، لأن الفيض لا يحصل إلا منه، فالباطن غذاء الظاهر، إذ به قوامه ووجوده. وأورد الشيخ رضي الله عنه المثال المحسوس لزيادة الإيضاح. وإذا كان الأمر هكذا، ولا يخلو إما أن يكون الحق ظاهرا والخلق باطنا، أو بالعكس. فإن كان الحق ظاهرا، أي، محسوسا بتجليه في مرتبة من مراتب الاسم (الظاهر)، فالخلق مستور فيه وباطنه، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق وصفاته من السمع والبصر والإرادة وغيرها، وجميع النسب التي هي ملحقة بالحق شرعا. كما مر منأن الحق إذا كان متجليا في مرايا الأعيان، لا يكون الظاهر إلا هو، والأعيان باقية في الغيب على حالها. وإن كان الخلق هو الظاهر في مرآة الحق، فالحق مستور فيه وباطنه، فالحق سمع الخلق وبصره وجميع قواه الباطنة. وهذا نتيجة قرب النوافل ، والأول نتيجة قرب الفرائض . وإنما جاء ب (اليد) و (الرجل) الذين هما من الظاهر مع أن كلامه في الباطن، لورود الخبر الصحيح كذلك. وفي الحديث تنبيه على أن الحق عين باطن العبد وعين ظاهره، لما جاء بالسمع والبصر، وهما أسماء القوى، وباليد والرجل، وهما أسماء الجوارح، فالحق عين قوى العبد وجوارحه. قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

For the interpenetrating thing is that which permeates the thing and enters into its substance. So the entering thing is carried and concealed within it, and that which is entered into is the bearer of it and its manifest aspect (ẓāhir). Thus the interpenetrator (active participle) is veiled by that which is interpenetrated (passive participle). The passive-participle form is the manifest (al-ẓāhir), while the active-participle form is the nonmanifest (al-bāṭin), concealed. And it is nourishment for it, like water permeating a tuft of wool, causing it to swell and expand by it. So if the Real is the manifest, then creation is concealed within Him, and creation becomes all the Names of the Real—His hearing, His sight, and all His relations (nisab) and perceptions. And if creation is the manifest, then the Real is concealed, nonmanifest within it, so the Real becomes the hearing of creation, its sight, its hand, its foot, and all its faculties, as reported in the authentic tradition. Since he based his exposition on interpenetration (takhallul), he returned to it again, saying: "Nothing interpenetrates a thing"—that is, nothing enters into a thing without the entering thing being concealed within that which is entered. So the interpenetrator, which is the active-participle form—i.e., the entering thing—is veiled, concealed within the interpenetrated, which is the passive-participle form—i.e., that which is entered into. That which is entered into is the manifest, and the entering thing is the nonmanifest; and the manifest is nourished only by the nonmanifest, for the effusion (fayḍ) occurs only from it. So the nonmanifest is the nourishment of the manifest, since by it is its subsistence and existence. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, cited the sensory example for the sake of further clarification. And given that this is the case, it must be either that the Real is manifest and creation nonmanifest, or the reverse. If the Real is manifest—that is, perceived through His self-disclosure (tajallī) in one of the levels of the Name "the Manifest"—then creation is concealed within Him and is His nonmanifest aspect, so that creation becomes all the Names and Attributes of the Real, such as hearing, sight, will, and others, and all the relations (nisab) that are attached to the Real according to the Law. As was mentioned before, that when the Real discloses Himself in the mirrors of the entities (aʿyān), the manifest is none other than He, while the entities remain in the unseen as they are. And if creation is the manifest in the mirror of the Real, then the Real is concealed within it and is its nonmanifest aspect, so that the Real becomes the hearing of creation, its sight, and all its inner faculties. This is the result of the proximity of the supererogatory acts (qurb al-nawāfil), while the former is the result of the proximity of the obligatory acts (qurb al-farāʾiḍ). And he mentioned "the hand" and "the foot," which belong to the manifest, even though his discourse concerns the nonmanifest, because the authentic tradition came in this form. In the ḥadīth there is an indication that the Real is identical with the nonmanifest aspect of the servant and identical with his manifest aspect, since mention was made of hearing and sight, which are names of the inner faculties, and of the hand and foot, which are names of the limbs; so the Real is identical with the servant's faculties and limbs. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said

﴿اعلم أنّه ما تخلَّل شيء شيئا إلَّا كان محمولا فيه﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

أي ذلك الشيء يكون حاملا للمتخلَّل ، شاملا لكليّته ، شمول الإحاطة والحصر

- that is, that thing becomes the bearer of the interpenetrating thing, comprehending its entirety with the comprehensiveness of encompassment and inclusion.

﴿اعلم أنه ما تخلل شيء شيئا إلا كان﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

الشيء المتخلل اسم فاعل

the interpenetrating thing is an active participle

﴿اعلم أنه ما تخلل شيء شيئا إلا كان﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

ذلك المتخلل اسم فاعل

that which interpenetrates [is] an active participle

﴿محمولا فيه﴾

أي في المتخلل اسم مفعول، أي مستور

i.e., within the interpenetrated thing, the passive participle, i.e., concealed

﴿محمولا فيه﴾

أي في التخلل اسم مفعول

i.e., within the interpenetration, [the] passive participle

﴿فالمتخلَّل - اسم فاعل - محجوب بالمتخلَّل - اسم مفعول - فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور ، وهو غذاء له﴾

أي اسم الفاعل الباطن غذاء لاسم المفعول الظاهر

- that is, the active participle, the nonmanifest, is nourishment for the passive participle, the manifest.

﴿فالمتخلل اسم فاعل محجوب بالمتخلل والمتخلل اسم مفعول فاسم المفعول هو الظاهر واسم الفاعل هو الباطن المستور وهو … غذاء له … كالماء يتخلل الصوفة فتربو به﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

أي بالماء وتتسع تلك الصوفة

the interpenetrated, a passive participle [is the manifest one]. So the passive participle is the manifest, and the active participle is the hidden, concealed one, and it is... nourishment for it... like water interpenetrating the wool-tuft so that it swells thereby] i.e., by the water, and that wool-tuft expands

﴿بالمتخلل اسم مفعول فإسم المفعول هو الظاهر واسم الفاعل هو﴾

الباطن المستور. وهو أي الباطن

the nonmanifest, concealed one. And it, i.e., the nonmanifest,

﴿غذاء له﴾

أي لما يتخلله

— that is, for that which it permeates

﴿غذاء له﴾

أي للظاهر لاختفائه كالغذاء في الظاهر ويقوي الظاهر به ، ثم أورد رضي الله عنه مثالا محسوسة للتوضيح فقال

i.e., for the manifest, due to its being hidden, like nourishment in the manifest [realm], strengthening the manifest by means of it. Then he—may God be pleased with him—adduced a sensible example for clarification, saying:

﴿كالماء يتخلل الصوفة فتربو به وتتسع﴾

قوله رضي الله عنه

— His saying, may God be pleased with him

﴿كالماء يتخلَّل الصوفة فتربو به وتتّسع … فإن كان الحقّ هو الظاهر﴾

- كما هو مقام قرب الفرائض على ما ورد : « إنّ الله قال على لسان عبده : سمع الله لمن حمده » ، وقال : " وَلكِنَّ الله رَمى " [ 8 / 17 ] -

- as is the station of the proximity of obligatory acts, according to what is related: 'God said upon the tongue of His servant: God has heard him who praises Him,' and His saying: 'But it was God who threw' [8:17] -

﴿كالماء يتخلل الصوفة فتربو﴾

أي تزداد الصوفة (به) ، أي بالماء (وتتسع) ، أي تمتد في الأطراف فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر في نظر العبد المتجلى له بأن براه ظاهرة بالفعل والتأثير ويرى الأحكام والآثار مستندة إليه لا إلى نفسه . (فالخلق) يعني ذلك العبد المنجلي له

i.e., the wool increases (by it), i.e., by the water, (and expands), i.e., extends at the edges. For if the Real is the manifest one in the servant's view, the one to whom self-disclosure occurs, such that He sees it manifestly through act and effect, and sees the rulings and effects as attributed to Him and not to himself — (then creation) means that manifested-to servant

﴿فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر فالخلق مستور فيه ، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق ، سمعه وبصره وجميع نسبه وإدراكاته وإن كان الخلق هو الظاهر فالحق مستور باطن فيه ، فالحق سمع الخلق وبصره ويده ورجله وجميع قواه ، كما ورد في الخبر الصحيح﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

إشارة "" من حاشية تعليقات بالى أفندي : ( وإدراكاته ) عطف بيان لقوله

— an allusion. "" From the marginal commentary of Bālī Efendi: ("and His perceptions") is an explanatory apposition to his saying

﴿فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر ، فالخلق مستور فيه ، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق سمعه وبصره وجميع نسبه وإدراكاته . وإن كان الخلق هو الظاهر ، فالحق مستور ، باطن فيه ، فالحق سمع الخلق وبصره ويده ورجله وجميع قواه ، كما ورد في الخبر الصحيح﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

قال العبد : يشير رضي الله عنه : إلى مقامي قرب الفرائض والنوافل ، وذلك أنّ وجود الحق هو الأصل الواجب وهو الفرض ووجود العالم وهو العبد نقل وفرع عليه . لأنّ الوجود الحق لكمال سعته وسع الحق المطلق ، والخلق المقيّد ، فإذا ظهر الحق ، خفي العبد فيه ، كان الله ولا شيء معه أوّل " لِمَنِ الْمُلْكُ الْيَوْمَ لِلَّه ِ الْواحِدِ الْقَهَّارِ " آخرا ، فكان العبد سمع الحق وبصره وسائر قواه ، كما قال صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم « إنّ الله قال على لسان عبده : سمع الله لمن حمده . هذه يد الله ، واليد يد محمّد صلَّى الله عليه وسلَّم وكذلك هو الرامي حقيقة في " إِذْ رَمَيْتَ " ، فيده يد الحق والحق هو الرامي ، لنفيه الرمي عن محمّد في قوله : " وَما رَمَيْتَ إِذْ رَمَيْتَ " ، وإثباته الرمي للحق بقوله : " وَلكِنَّ الله رَمى " . والثاني قرب النوافل ، فهو كون الحق بوجوده محمولا في إنّيّة العبد وهويّته له فهو سمع العبد وبصره ولسانه وسائر قواه ، والحديث الثابت في الصحيح المثبت سرّ المقامين قد ذكر فيما ذكر ، فتذكَّر . قال رضي الله عنه

The servant says: he - may God be pleased with him - alludes to the two stations of 'proximity of the obligatory acts' (qurb al-farāʾiḍ) and 'proximity of the supererogatory acts' (qurb al-nawāfil). This is because the Existence of the Real is the necessary root and the obligatory (al-farḍ), while the existence of the cosmos - which is the servant - is derivative and a branch built upon it. For the Real Existence, by virtue of the perfection of its vastness, encompasses both the Absolute Real and the delimited creature. So when the Real becomes manifest, the servant becomes hidden within Him - 'God was, and nothing was with Him' as the first [state], and 'To whom belongs the dominion today? To God, the One, the Overpowering' as the last. Thus the servant becomes the hearing of the Real, His sight, and all His other faculties, as he - may God bless him and grant him peace - said: 'God said upon the tongue of His servant: God hears whoever praises Him. This is the Hand of God, and the hand is the hand of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace.' Likewise he is truly the thrower in [the verse] 'when you threw,' for his hand is the Hand of the Real, and the Real is the thrower, since He negated the throwing from Muhammad in His saying, 'and you did not throw when you threw,' and affirmed the throwing for the Real in His saying, 'but God threw.' The second [station] is the proximity of the supererogatory acts, which consists in the Real, through His Existence, being carried within the selfhood (inniyya) and identity (huwiyya) of the servant belonging to him, so that He becomes the servant's hearing, his sight, his tongue, and all his other faculties. The established tradition in the sound collection, which fixes the secret of the two stations, has already been mentioned among what was mentioned, so recall it. He - may God be pleased with him - said:

﴿فإن كان الحق هو الظاهر فالخلق مستور فيه فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق … سمعه وبصره وجميع نسبه و إدراكاته﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

عطف بيان. لقوله : جميع أسماء الحق هذا نتيجة قرب الفرائض فشاهد العبد في ذلك المقام في مرآة وجوده الوجود الحق ويرى أن الحق يسمع به ويبصر به. وكأن الأحكام كلها للحق لكن بسبب العبد وهذا إذا تجلى الله لعباده باسمه الباطن وحينئذ كان العبد باطنا والحق ظاهرا له

conjunction of explication for his saying "all the Names of the Real." This is the result of the proximity of the obligatory devotions (qurb al-farāʾiḍ). The servant witnesses, in that station, in the mirror of his own existence, the Existence of the Real, and sees that the Real hears by him and sees by him. It is as though all the attributions belong to the Real, but by means of the servant. This is when God discloses Himself to His servants by His hidden Name; and then the servant is the hidden/nonmanifest one and the Real the manifest one to him

﴿فالخلق مستور فيه ، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحقّ وسمعه وبصره وجميع نسبه وإدراكاته﴾

ضرورة أنّه هو الغذاء المقوّم له فالخلق حينئذ في عين ستره واختفائه هو الظاهر بأوصافه وبآثاره

- necessarily, because it is the nourishment that sustains Him. The creature, then, in the very state of its concealment and hiddenness, is the manifest one through its attributes and effects.

﴿مستور فيه، فيكون الخلق جميع أسماء الحق﴾

وصفاته (من سمعه وبصره وجميع نسبه من الإرادة والقدرة وغيرهما (وإدراكاته) .أي علمه المتعدد بتعدد متعلقاته. وهذا نتيجة قرب الفرائض

and His attributes, from His hearing, His sight, and all His relations (nisab) such as will, power, and others, (and His perceptions), i.e., His knowledge multiplied according to the multiplicity of its objects. This is the result of the proximity of the obligatory acts (qurb al-farāʾiḍ)

﴿جميع أسماء الحق﴾

هذا نتيجة قرب الفرائض ، فشاهد العهد في ذلك المقام في مرآة وجوده الوجود الحق ، ويرى أن الحق يسمع به ويبصر به ، وكأن الأحكام كلها للحق لكن بسبب العبد ، وهذا إذا تجلى الله لعباده باسمه الباطن ، وحينئذ كان العبد باطنا والحق ظاهرا له

— this is the result of the nearness of obligatory works (qurb al-farāʾiḍ); so he witnesses the covenant (ʿahd) in that station, in the mirror of his existence, as the Real Existence, and sees that the Real hears through him and sees through him, and as though all the judgments belong to the Real, but by means of the servant. This is when God discloses Himself to His servants by His Name the Nonmanifest (al-bāṭin), at which point the servant is nonmanifest and the Real is manifest through him