﴿. ومعنى التعبير الجواز من صورة ما رآه إلى أمر آخر. فكانت البقر سنين في المحل والخصب. فلو صدق في الرؤيا لذبح ابنه، وإنما صدق الرؤيا في أن ذلك عين ولده، وما كان عند الله إلا الذبح العظيم في صورة ولده ففداه لما وقع في ذهن إبراهيم عليه السلام: ما هو فداء في نفس الأمر عند الله. فصور الحس الذبح وصور الخيال ابن إبراهيم عليه السلام. فلو رأى الكبش في الخيال لعبره بابنه أو بأمر آخر. ثم قال «إن هذا لهو البلاء المبين» أي الاختبار المبين أي الظاهر يعني الاختبار في العلم: هل يعلم ما يقتضيه موطن الرؤيا من التعبير أم لا؟ لأنه يعلم أن موطن الخيال يطلب التعبير: فغفل فما وفى الموطن حقه، وصدق الرؤيا لهذا السبب كما فعل تقي بن مخلد الإمام صاحب المسند، سمع في الخبر الذي ثبت عنده أنه عليه السلام قال: «من رآني في النوم فقد رآني في اليقظة فإن الشيطان لا يتمثل على صورتي» فرآه تقي بن مخلد وسقاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في هذه الرؤيا لبنا فصدق تقي بن مخلد رؤياه فاستقاء فقاء لبنا. ولو عبر رؤياه لكان ذلك اللبن علما. فحرمه الله علما كثيرا على قدر ما شرب. ألا ترى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أتي في المنام بقدح لبن: «فشربته حتى خرج الري من أظافيري ثم أعطيت فضلي عمر﴾
Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).
قيل ما أولته يا رسول الله؟ قال العلم، وما تركه لبنا على صورة ما رآه لعلمه بموطن الرؤيا وما تقتضيه من التعبير. وقد علم أن صورة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم التي شاهدها الحس أنها في المدينة مدفونة، وأن صورة روحه ولطيفته ما شاهدها أحد من أحد ولا من نفسه. كل روح بهذه المثابة فتتجسد له روح النبي في المنام بصورة جسده كما مات عليه لا يخرم منه شيء. فهو محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم المرئي من حيث روحه في صورة جسدية تشبه المدفونة لا يمكن للشيطان أن يتصور بصورة جسده صلى الله عليه وسلم عصما من الله في حق الرائي. ولهذا من رآه بهذه الصورة يأخذ عنه جميع ما يأمره أو ينهاه عنه أو يخبره كما كان يأخذ عنه في الحياة الدنيا من الأحكام على حسب ما يكون منه اللفظ الدال عليه من نص أو ظاهر أو مجمل أو ما كان فإن أعصاه شيئا فإن ذلك الشيء هو الذي يدخله التعبير، فإن خرج في الحس كما كان في الخيال فتلك رؤيا لا تعبير لها. وبهذا القدر وعليه اعتمد إبراهيم عليه السلام وتقي بن مخلد. ولما كان للرؤيا هذان الوجهان. وعلمنا الله: فيما فعل بإبراهيم وما قال له: الأدب لما يعطيه مقام النبوة، علمنا في رؤيتنا الحق تعالى في صورة يردها الدليل العقلي أن نعبر تلك الصورة بالحق المشروع إما في حق حال الرائي أو المكان الذي رآه فيه أو هما معا. وإن لم يردها الدليل العقلي أبقيناها على ما رأيناها كما نرى الحق في الآخرة سواء. فللواحد الرحمن في كل موطن %~% من الصور ما يخفي وما هو ظاهر فإن قلت هذا الحق قد تك صادقا %~% وإن قلت أمرا آخرا أنت عابر وما حكمه في موطن دون موطن %~% ولكنه بالحق للخلق سافر إذا ما تجلى للعيون ترده %~% عقول ببرهان عليه تثابر ويقبل في مجلي العقول وفي الذي %~% يسمى خيالا والصحيح النواظر يقول أبو يزيد في هذا المقام لو أن العرش وما حواه مائة ألف ألف مرة في زاوية من زوايا قلب العارف ما أحس بها. وهذا وسع أبي يزيد في عالم الأجسام. بل أقول لو أن ما لا يتناهى وجوده يقدر انتهاء وجوده مع العين الموجدة له في زاوية من زوايا قلب العارف ما أحس بذلك في علمه. فإنه قد ثبت أن القلب وسع الحق ومع ذلك ما اتصف بالري فلو امتلأ ارتوى. وقد قال ذلك أبو يزيد. ولقد نبهنا على هذا المقام بقولنا: يا خالق الأشياء في نفسه %~% أنت لما تخلقه جامع تخلق ما لا ينتهي كونه فيه %~% بك فأنت الضيق الواسع لو أن ما قد خلق الله ما لاح %~% بقلبي فجره الساطع من وسع الحق فما ضاق عن %~% خلق فكيف الأمر يا سامع؟ بالوهم يخلق كل إنسان في قوة خياله ما لا وجود له إلا فيها، وهذا هو الأمر العام. والعارف يخلق بالهمة ما يكون له وجود من خارج محل الهمة و لكن لا تزال الهمة تحفظه. ولا يئودها حفظه، أي حفظ ما خلقته. فمتى طرأ على العارف غفلة عن حفظ ما خلق عدم ذلك المخلوق، إلا أن يكون العارف قد ضبط جميع الحضرات وهو لا يغفل مطلقا، بل لا بد من حضرة يشهدها. فإذا خلق العارف بهمته ما خلق وله هذه الإحاطة ظهر ذلك الخلق بصورته في كل حضرة، وصارت الصور يحفظ بعضها بعضا. فإذا غفل العارف عن حضرة ما أو عن حضرات وهو شاهد حضرة ما من الحضرات، حافظ لما فيها من صورة خلقه، انحفظت جميع الصور بحفظه تلك الصورة الواحدة في الحضرة التي ما غفل عنها، لأن الغفلة ما تعم قط لا في العموم ولا في الخصوص. وقد أوضحت هنا سرا لم يزل أهل الله يغارون على مثل هذا أن يظهر لما فيه من رد دعواهم أنهم الحق، فإن الحق لا يغفل والعبد لا بد له أن يغفل عن شيء دون شيء. فمن حيث الحفظ لما خلق له أن يقول «أنا الحق»، ولكن ما حفظه لها حفظ الحق: وقد بينا الفرق. ومن حيث ما غفل عن صورة ما وحضرتها فقد تميز العبد من الحق. ولا بد أن يتميز مع بقاء الحفظ لجميع الصور بحفظه صورة واحدة منها في الحضرة التي ما غفل عنها. فهذا حفظ بالتضمن، وحفظ الحق ما خلق ليس كذلك بل حفظه لكل صورة على التعيين. وهذه مسألة أخبرت أنه ما سطرها أحد في كتاب لا أنا ولا غيري إلا في هذا الكتاب: فهي يتيمة الدهر وفريدته. فإياك أن تغفل عنها فإن تلك الحضرة التي يبقي لك الحضور فيها مع الصورة، مثلها مثل الكتاب الذي قال الله فيه «ما فرطنا في الكتاب من شيء» فهو الجامع للواقع وغير الواقع ولا يعرف ما قلناه إلا من كان قرآنا في نفسه ، فإن المتقي الله «يجعل له فرقانا» وهو مثل ما ذكرناه في هذه المسألة فيما يتميز به العبد من الرب. وهذا الفرقان أرفع فرقان. فوقتا يكون العبد ربا بلا شك %~% ووقتا يكون العبد عبدا بلا إفك فإن كان عبدا كان بالحق واسعا %~% وإن كان ربا كان في عيشة ضنك فمن كونه عبدا يرى عين نفسه %~% وتتسع الآمال منه بلا شك ومن كونه ربا يرى الخلق كله %~% يطالبه من حضرة الملك و الملك ويعجز عما طالبوه بذاته %~% لذا تر بعض العارفين به يبكي فكن عبد رب لا تكن رب عبده %~% فتذهب بالتعليق في النار والسبك قلت: ثواج الكبش، صورته. ونوس الإنسان حركته. قوله : وعظمه الله، إشارة إلى قوله: "وفدیناه بذبح عظيم" (الصافات: 107) قال: والتردد واقع في هذه العظمة هل هي من أجل اسحاق أو من أجل المذبوح فإن البدنة وهي الناقة أعظم قدرا في العادة وما ذكر تعظيمها كما ذكر تعظيم الكبش. والذبيح، خليفة الله من أجل أن آدم و بنيه كل منهم يستحق الخلافة من حيث الانسانية . وليس من غير نوع الانسان يكون خليفة في الأرض ثم ذکر في الأبيات أن الموجودات الجسمانية أشرفها في الرتبة الجماد وأشرف منه النبات. وأشرف منه الحيوان . وأشرف من الحيوان الإنسان . فكيف يكون المشروف الذي هو الحيوان بدلا من الإنسان في فدائه من الذبح. وأقول: إن ذلك سهل وهو فداء الأشرف بالأدنى ولا يلزم أن يكون الفداء بالكفؤ. ثم ذكر أن آدم وبنيه مقيدون بالعقل أو بالتصديق ونقل الشيخ عن سهل التستري في ذلك نقل وقال: لا يلتفت إلى المخالف وهم الذين قيل فيهم: "صم بكم عمى فهم لا يرجعون" (البقرة: 18) كما ورد على لسان المعصوم محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم قوله: اعلم أيدنا الله وإياك وما بعده، یعنی، رضي الله عنه، أن الذي رأى إبراهيم عليه السلام، أنه يذبحه هو الكبش في الحقيقة، ولكن رأه إبراهيم، عليه السلام ، في صورة ولده وما ذكره ظاهر من لفظه، رضي الله عنه، وأما الرؤيا التي عبرها أبو بكر ، رضي الله عنه، فهي أن رجلا قص رؤيا على النبي ، صلى الله عليه وسلم، وهي أنه رأى ظلة تنطف سمنا وعسلا. فقال أبو بكر ، رضي الله عنه: یا رسول الله، دعني أعبرها له، فأذن له، عليه السلام. فقال أبو بكر: الظلة كتاب الله والسمن والعسل، الأحكام والحكم الذي يستفاد منه أو ما هذا معناه. فقال: يا رسول الله هل أصبت؟ فقال عليه السلام: أصبت بعضا وأخطأت بعضا، فأقسم علي النبي عليه السلام، ليعلمه بما فيه أصاب وبما فيه أخطاء. والشيخ، رضي الله عنه، أورد هذا شاهدا على احتياج الرؤيا إلى التعبير. قال وسماه الحق تعالی فداء لأن من المرائي ما يرى على صورة ما رأه بعينه فحمله الحق تعالى على ذلك الحكم مراعاة لظن ابراهیم، عليه السلام، وإلا فقد رأى الذبح وظهر على ظاهر ما رآه من غير تعبیر. قوله: في البلاء المبين أنه الاختيار الظاهر وقد يكون معناه أنه الاختيار المظهر، فإن المبين هو المظهر وأما بقي بن مخلد فإن كان قد قاء لبنا فعندي أنه ما رأى إلا كشفا بصورة الرؤيا. فإن بعض الناس يقع له الرؤيا في اليقظة وقد ورد ذلك كثيرا ومن جرب وقائع الخلوة رای من هذا كثيرا ثم إن بقي بن مخلد حصر الأمر في رؤيا النبي عليه السلام، بين أن يكون هو جسده، عليه السلام. بعينه أو يكون الشيطان قد تمثل على صورته، عليه السلام، وليس الأمر محصورا فإنه قد لا تكون تلك الصورة صورة النبي عليه السلام، الجسمانية المدفونة بیثرب بل صورة أوجدها الله تعالى في خيال الرأي وأوقع في نفسه أنها صورته عليه السلام. ولا تكون الصورة هي صورة ابلیس خصوصا إذا أمرت تلك الصورة بما يناسب شريعته، عليه السلام. فإن الشيطان يستحيل منه أن يأمر بالشرع، لأنه مظهر الاسم المضل و مظاهر الاسم المضل لا يتمثل بمظاهر الاسم الهادي قوله: وأن صورة روحه و لطيفته ما شاهده أحد، يعني أن الأرواح غير مرئية بالحس ما دامت أرواحا فإن رأها أحد فإنما يراها متجسدة. والكاف في قوله: كما يرى الحق في الآخرة، متعلقة بقوله: أبقيناها، والصور التي ذكرها في البيت الأول من المقطوع الشعر، هو اسم جمع لـ "صورة" مثل تمرة وتمر وهو جمع معروف في العربية. ويعني أنه يرى في كل عالم بما يناسب حال ذلك العالم. فلذلك قال في البيت الثاني: فإن قلت: هذا الحق قد تك صادقا، أي قد تصدق. وأما إن قلت : أمرا آخر فهو من باب تعبير الرؤيا وهو قوله: أنت عابر. ثم قال: وما حكمه في موطن دون موطن، بل حكمه واحد في المواطن كلها وذلك الحكم الواحد هو أنه يظهر بصور مخلوقاته، ومن مخلوقاته الخيال فهو يظهر فيه بما يقتضيه . وكذلك الحس في الآخرة وغيرها وكذلك بقية العوالم الروحانية والمعنوية، وتلك الظهورات كلها بالحق تظهر للخلق فإذا ظهر العالم الحس أنكرته العقول، فإن ظهر للعقول بمقتضاها أقرت له و به وكذلك في الخيال قوله رضي الله عنه عن أبي يزيد قدس الله روحه. أنه قال: لو أن العرش وما حواه مائة ألف ألف مرة في زاوية من زوايا قلب العارف ما أحس بها. ثم قال: وهذا وسع أبي يزيد في عالم الأجسام. بل أقول لو أن ما لا يتناهی بقدر انتهاء وجوده مع العين الموجدة له في زاوية من زوايا قلب العارف ما أحس به، فإنه قد ثبت أن القلب وسع الحق ومع ذلك ما اتصف بالري فلو امتلأ ارتوی. فأقول في التمثيل هذا أن من عرف نقطة من ماء البحر فقد عرف ماء البحر وعلى تقدير أن يكون ماء البحر غير متناه . فقد عرف ما لا يتناهي من نفس معرفته بنقطة واحدة ولا شك أن وجود الحق تعالى لا يتناهي موجوداته. والوجود عند العارف معروف فهو يعرف ما لا يتناهي ويكفي في معرفة صور ما لا يتناهي أن يعرف أنها لا تتناهي . ويكفي في معرفة ماهية ذلك أن يعرف حقيقة البحر من نقطة واحدة، فقد حصل للعارف معنى ما لا يتناهي ذاتا كالنقطة. وصفتا كصور الموجودات التي ليس حصرها إلا بمعرفة عدم حصرها وهذا هو کشف ما استتر من هذه المسألة. قوله في الشعر: يا خالق الأشياء في نفسه، معناه أن الموجودات جوهرها هو وجوده ووجوده هو عين ذاته لأنه هو عين وجوده لا أن وجوده زائد على ماهيته، فحصل من هذا أنه خالق الأشياء في نفسه، ويكون معنی خالق الأشياء أن صفاته يتجدد في عين ذاته. ولا تلتفت هذه الطائفة إلى قول من يقول إنه يلزم أن يكون ذاته محلا للحوادث، لأن ذلك أي ما كان يكون صعبا لو كان المحدث فيه غيره أما إذا كان عين صفاته فلا ضرر في ذلك. وقوله في الشعر: تخلق ما لا ينتهي كونه فيك"، فقد تقدم شرحه وقوله: فأنت الضيق الواسع، معناه: أنت الضيق لانحصار معرفة ذاتك للعارف بها في مثل ما انحصرت فيه معرفة النقطة من البحر في نفسها وكانت کاشفة الحقيقة البحر فكذلك إذا عرفك العارف في حقيقة ذات موجود واحد معرفة ذاتية فقد عرف بها ذاتك التي لا تنحصر قوله: بالوهم يخلق كل إنسان في قوة خياله ما لا وجود له إلا فيها، وهذا هو الأمر العام، يعني أن الذهن يقبل موجودات ذهنية، فبعضها خيالية وبعضها عقلية وبعضها وهمية قبل أن يتناولها العقل أو غيره، ثم أن بعض ما يقبله الذهن قد يكون محالا کاجتماع الضدين الشيء واحد في زمان واحد، وقد يكون متناقضا کاجتماع النقيضين أو ارتفاعهما. واعلم أنه قد حصل في العالم خبط عظيم في مداركهم وكان منشاؤه من کون الذهن يقبل المحال والمتناقض ولا سيما عند من يجعل اللزوم ذهنيا من المنطقيين قوله: والعارف يخلق بالهمة ما يكون له وجود في الخارج. وأقول إن الكلام في هذا الفصل ينبغي أن يكون مشافهة ولفظ الشيخ، رضي الله عنه، فيما أشار إليه هنا واضح. ولست أقول إن هذا الفصل پستغني عن البيان لكني لا أبينه إلا مشافهة أدبا مع الشيخ، رضي الله عنه قوله في الشعر: فوقتا يكون العبد ربا بلا شك. يعني أن حالة التجلي لا يسع العبد أن يقول عن نفسه إلا أنه رب وهذا في التجلي الناقص وإلا فمن يستحق أن يسمى عبدا حقيقة لا يجوز أن يسمى ربا حقيقة ولا العكس. قوله: في البيت الثاني معناه: أنه يكون حقيقة حقية فيوصف بما يوصف به الحق، وفي هذا أيضا کلام لأنه إذا كان العبد عبدا كيف يكون الحق" مع كونه عبدا وهذا سائغ في مقام المعرفة وليس بسائغ في مقام التحقيق. أما أنه سائغ في مقام المعرفة فلأن العارف يظن أنه الحق فيصف نفسه بما يصف به الحق نفسه وهو غلط منه ، فإن العارف ما فني كل رسمه ولا شك أن المكاتب عبد ما بقي عليه درهم قوله: وإن كان العبد ربا كان الرب المتوهم في عيشة ضنك وأما العبد مع فرض کونه رباه لا يكون في عيشة ضنك. و قوله في البيت الثالث: ومن كونه ربا يرى الخلق كله يطالبه. قلت: يعني أنه يظن أن فاقة العالم كلهم إليه واحتياجهم إليه، وهو غلط منه أيضا لكن الشيخ أخبر بما يقع لمن هذه حاله. وقوله في البيت الرابع والخامس: ويعجز. هو مما يدل على صدق ما قلناه إنه غالط ولو كان نظره صحيحا لما عجز إلا إن كان الحق تعالى يعجزه. قوله: فكن عبد رب ، دليل لما قلناه، فإنه، رضي الله عنه، أمره أن لا يغتر بالتجلي الذي به ظن أنه الحق، فإنه إن فعل ذلك وخالف، صار رب عبده وهو لا يصح له ويقوم به الحجاب الذي هو حطب العذاب . واعلم أن الاضطراب حصل في هذا الخطاب من جهة تسمية الشخص الواحد بأنه عبد يصير ربا وذلك عندنا باطل وأما أنه ليس في الوجود إلا الواحد تعالى. فذلك هو الواقع في نفس الأمر، فإن اعتبرت الصفات لم يكن المعطي من جهة ما هو معط، هو المانع ولا العكس . وكذلك كل الأسماء المتقابلة وهذا ممتنع في أسماء الله تعالی. فكيف إذا فرضنا تقابلا هو بين العبودية والربوبية، فمحال أن يجتمع لشخص واحد هذان الوصفان، فإن هذا الجمع متعذر بين الأسماء الإلهية كما ذكرنا فكيف بين الأسماء الإلهية والأسماء الكونية. والشيخ، رضي الله عنه، هنا تكلم بألسنة أهل الأحوال وهي لا تثبت في مقام التحقيق. وعند الاجتماع بالأخ کریم الدین متعه الله بمعرفته نشرح له ذلك إن شاء الله تعالى
The meaning of the expression is the passage from the form of what he saw to another matter. The cows were years of drought and fertility. Had he been truthful in the vision [in the literal sense], he would have slaughtered his son; rather, the vision was truthful in that this was indeed his son, and what was with God was only the great sacrifice in the form of his son, so He ransomed him on account of what occurred in Abraham's mind (peace be upon him) — what was, in reality, with God, a ransom. So the senses pictured the slaughter, and the imagination pictured Abraham's son. Had he seen the ram in imagination, he would have interpreted it as his son or as something else. Then He said, 'This indeed is the manifest trial' — i.e., the manifest test, meaning the test in knowledge: does he know what the station of the vision requires by way of interpretation, or not? For he knows that the station of imagination demands interpretation. So he was heedless and did not give the station its due, and he took the vision literally for this reason — just as Taqī ibn Makhlad, the Imam, author of the Musnad, did. He heard in the report established with him that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Whoever sees me in sleep has indeed seen me in waking life, for Satan cannot take on my form.' So Taqī ibn Makhlad saw him, and the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) gave him milk to drink in this vision. Taqī ibn Makhlad took the vision literally, so he induced vomiting and vomited milk. Had he interpreted his vision, that milk would have been knowledge. So God deprived him of much knowledge in the measure of what he had drunk. Do you not see that the Messenger of God (God bless him and grant him peace) was brought in a dream a cup of milk, 'and I drank it until satiety came out from my fingernails, then I gave the rest to ʿUmar'? It was said: 'What did you interpret it as, O Messenger of God?' He said: 'Knowledge.' And he did not leave it as milk in the form in which he saw it, because of his knowledge of the station of the vision and what it requires by way of interpretation. And it is known that the form of the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace) which the senses witnessed is buried in Medina, while the form of his spirit and subtle reality has not been witnessed by anyone — not from another, nor from himself. Every spirit is in this condition. So the Prophet's spirit becomes embodied for one in the dream in the form of his body as he died upon it, without any diminishment. So it is Muhammad (God bless him and grant him peace), seen from the aspect of his spirit, in a bodily form resembling the one buried — it being impossible for Satan to take the form of his bodily shape (God bless him and grant him peace), as a protection from God for the one who sees him. For this reason, whoever sees him in this form takes from him everything he commands, forbids, or informs him of, just as one would take rulings from him during his earthly life, according to the wording that indicates it — whether explicit, apparent, general, or whatever it may be. But if he disobeys him in something, that something is what admits of interpretation. If it comes forth in sense-perception just as it was in imagination, then that is a vision requiring no interpretation. Upon this measure Abraham (peace be upon him) and Taqī ibn Makhlad relied. Since the vision has these two aspects, and God taught us — through what He did with Abraham and what He said to him — the proper comportment (adab) that the station of prophethood bestows, He taught us that when we see the Real, exalted is He, in a form that rational proof rejects, we should interpret that form in accordance with what is legally sound, either with respect to the state of the seer, or the place in which he saw it, or both together. But if rational proof does not reject it, we leave it as we saw it — just as we see the Real in the Hereafter, without distinction. For the One, the All-Merciful, has in every station, among the forms, what is hidden and what is manifest. If you say 'This is the Real' — you may well be truthful; and if you say something else, you are interpreting. What is His ruling in one station as opposed to another? Rather His ruling is one; yet He travels openly to creation through the Real. When He discloses Himself to the eyes, minds that persist in seeking proof of Him reject it, while it is accepted in the manifestation-place of minds and in that which is called imagination, and true sight accepts it [too]. Abū Yazīd says concerning this station: 'If the Throne and all it contains, a hundred thousand thousand times, were in one corner of the corners of the gnostic's heart, he would not feel it.' This is Abū Yazīd's capacity in the world of bodies. But I say: if that whose existence is infinite were supposed to have a limit to its existence, together with the very entity that brought it into existence, in one corner of the corners of the gnostic's heart, he would not perceive that in his knowledge. For it has been established that the heart encompasses the Real, and yet it is not characterized by satiation — for were it filled, it would be satiated. Abū Yazīd said this. And we drew attention to this station in our saying: 'O Creator of things within Himself, You are, for what You create, all-comprehending. You create what has no end to its being within You, so You are the narrow-wide. If what God has created did not shine within my heart, its radiant light [would not appear]. From the vastness of the Real nothing is too narrow for creation — how then is the matter, O listener?' By estimative imagination (wahm), every human being creates in the power of his imagination what has no existence except therein — and this is the general matter. The gnostic creates by spiritual resolve (himma) what has existence outside the locus of that resolve, but the resolve continues to preserve it, and its preservation does not burden it — that is, the preservation of what it has created. So whenever heedlessness befalls the gnostic regarding the preservation of what he has created, that created thing ceases to exist — unless the gnostic has mastered all the Presences and is never heedless at all, but rather must witness some Presence. So when the gnostic creates by his resolve what he creates, having this comprehensiveness, that creation appears in its form in every Presence, and the forms come to preserve one another. So if the gnostic is heedless of some Presence or Presences, while witnessing some [other] Presence, preserving what form of his creation is within it, all the forms are preserved through his preservation of that single form in the Presence of which he was not heedless — for heedlessness never encompasses everything, neither in general nor in particular. I have here clarified a secret which the people of God have always jealously guarded against disclosing, because of what it entails of refuting their claim that they are the Real — for the Real is never heedless, while the servant must inevitably be heedless of one thing or another. So from the standpoint of preserving what he has created, he may say 'I am the Real,' but his preservation of it is not like the Real's preservation — we have explained the difference. And from the standpoint of his being heedless of some form and its Presence, the servant is distinguished from the Real. He must be distinguished, even while the preservation of all the forms persists through his preservation of one form of them in the Presence of which he was not heedless. This is preservation by inclusion (bi'l-tadammun), whereas the Real's preservation of what He creates is not like that, but rather His preservation extends to every form specifically. This is a matter which I declare no one has set down in a book, neither I nor anyone else, except in this book — it is the orphan and unique pearl of the age. Beware of being heedless of it! For that Presence in which your presence persists along with the form is like the Book concerning which God said: 'We have not neglected anything in the Book' — for it comprehends both what occurs and what does not occur. And none knows what we have said except one who is himself a Qur'an — for one who fears God, 'He grants him a criterion (furqān).' This is like what we mentioned in this matter regarding what distinguishes the servant from the Lord. This furqān is the highest furqān. Sometimes the servant is undoubtedly a lord, and sometimes the servant is a servant without falsehood. If he is a servant, he is vast through the Real; if he is a lord, he is in a straitened life. From his being a servant, he sees himself as he truly is, and hopes expand from him without doubt; and from his being a lord, he sees all of creation demanding of him, from the Presence of sovereignty and dominion, while he is incapable of what they demand of him in his own essence — for this reason you see some who know this weep. So be a servant of a Lord, do not be a lord of a servant, lest you be consumed in the fire and the smelting through [false] attachment.' I say: 'The bleating (thuwāj) of the ram' is its form/sound, and 'the stirring (naws) of man' is his movement. His saying 'and God magnified it' alludes to His saying: 'And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice' (al-Ṣāffāt 37:107). He said: the uncertainty occurs in this magnitude — whether it refers to Isaac or to the slaughtered animal — for the camel, i.e., the she-camel, is customarily greater in worth, yet its magnification was not mentioned as the ram's magnification was mentioned. And 'the sacrificed one' is God's vicegerent (khalīfa), inasmuch as Adam and his children each deserve vicegerency by virtue of humanity; and none other than the human species can be vicegerent on earth. Then he mentioned in the verses that among corporeal existents, the noblest in rank is the mineral, nobler than it the plant, nobler than it the animal, and nobler than the animal, man. So how can the lesser-ranked, namely the animal, be a substitute for man in his ransom from slaughter? I say: that is simple — it is the ransoming of the nobler by the lesser, and it is not required that the ransom be of equal worth. Then he mentioned that Adam and his children are bound by reason or by assent (taṣdīq), and the Shaykh quoted from Sahl al-Tustarī concerning this a report, and said: pay no attention to the opponent — those about whom it was said: 'Deaf, dumb, blind, so they will not return' (al-Baqara 2:18), as reported on the tongue of the infallible one, Muhammad (God bless him and grant him peace). Know — may God strengthen you and us — and what follows, meaning, may God be pleased with him, that what Abraham (peace be upon him) saw, namely that he was slaughtering him, was in reality the ram, but Abraham (peace be upon him) saw it in the form of his son. What he mentioned is evident from his wording, may God be pleased with him. As for the vision which Abū Bakr, may God be pleased with him, interpreted — a man related a vision to the Prophet (God bless him and grant him peace), namely that he saw a canopy dripping clarified butter and honey. Abū Bakr, may God be pleased with him, said: 'O Messenger of God, let me interpret it for him,' and he (peace be upon him) gave him leave. Abū Bakr said: 'The canopy is the Book of God, and the clarified butter and honey are the rulings and the wisdom derived from it,' or something to that effect. He said: 'O Messenger of God, did I get it right?' He (peace be upon him) said: 'You got part of it right and part wrong.' The Prophet (peace be upon him) swore him to tell him in what he was right and in what he was wrong. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, cited this as evidence for the vision's need of interpretation. He said: and the Real, exalted is He, named it a ransom, because among visions there are those seen literally in the form in which one saw them with his own eye — so the Real, exalted is He, applied that ruling out of consideration for Abraham's supposition (peace be upon him); otherwise, he had [truly] seen the slaughter, and it appeared according to the apparent sense of what he saw, without interpretation. His saying 'in the manifest trial' means: it is the manifest test (al-ikhtiyār al-ẕāhir); and its meaning may also be that it is the manifesting test, for 'al-mubīn' means 'the one that makes manifest.' As for Baqī ibn Makhlad, if he indeed vomited milk, then in my view he saw nothing but an unveiling (kashf) in the form of a vision — for some people experience a vision while awake, and this has been widely reported; whoever has experienced the occurrences of spiritual retreat (khalwa) has witnessed much of this. Then Baqī ibn Makhlad confined the matter, regarding the vision of the Prophet (peace be upon him), to its being either his very body (peace be upon him) itself, or Satan having taken on his form — but the matter is not so confined, for that form might not be the Prophet's bodily form (peace be upon him) buried in Yathrib, but rather a form which God, exalted is He, brought into being in the imagination of the seer, impressing upon his mind that it was his form (peace be upon him); nor would that form be the form of Iblīs, especially if that form commanded what accords with his Law (peace be upon him), for it is impossible for Satan to command in accordance with the Sacred Law, since he is the locus of manifestation of the Name 'the Misleader,' and loci of manifestation of the Name 'the Misleader' cannot take the form of loci of manifestation of the Name 'the Guide.' His saying: 'and the form of his spirit and subtle reality was not witnessed by anyone' means that spirits are not perceptible by the senses as long as they remain [pure] spirits; if anyone sees them, he sees them only embodied. The 'ka' (as) in his saying 'just as the Real is seen in the Hereafter' relates to his saying 'we left it as it was.' The 'ṣuwar' (forms) mentioned in the first verse of the poetic passage is a collective noun (ism jamʿ) for 'ṣūra,' like 'tamra' and 'tamr' — a well-known plural pattern in Arabic. He means that one sees, in every world, what suits the condition of that world. Hence he said in the second verse: 'If you say: This is the Real, you may well be truthful' — meaning you may well be speaking truly; but if you say 'something else,' then this falls under the category of dream interpretation, which is what he means by 'you are interpreting.' Then he said: 'What is His ruling in one station as opposed to another?' — rather, His ruling is one in all the stations, and that one ruling is that He manifests Himself in the forms of His creatures, and among His creatures is imagination, in which He manifests Himself according to what it requires; likewise sense-perception in the Hereafter and elsewhere, and likewise the rest of the spiritual and intelligible worlds. All these manifestations occur to creation through the Real. So when He manifests Himself in the sensory world, minds deny Him; but if He manifests Himself to minds according to what they require, they acknowledge and affirm Him — and likewise in imagination. His saying, may God be pleased with him, concerning Abū Yazīd — God sanctify his spirit — that he said: 'If the Throne and all it contains, a hundred thousand thousand times, were in one corner of the corners of the gnostic's heart, he would not feel it.' Then he said: 'This is Abū Yazīd's capacity in the world of bodies. But I say: if that which is infinite, supposing a limit to its existence together with the very entity bringing it into being, were in one corner of the corners of the gnostic's heart, he would not perceive it — for it has been established that the heart encompasses the Real, yet is not characterized by satiation, for were it filled, it would be satiated.' So I say, by way of illustration, that whoever knows one point of the water of the sea has indeed known the water of the sea, even supposing the sea's water to be infinite — for he has known, from his very knowledge of a single point, that which is infinite. There is no doubt that the existence of the Real, exalted is He, has infinite existents, and existence is known to the gnostic, so he knows what is infinite. It suffices, in knowing the forms of what is infinite, to know that they are infinite; and it suffices, in knowing the quiddity of that, to know the reality of the sea from a single point. Thus the gnostic has attained the meaning of what is infinite, both in essence — like the point — and in attribute — like the forms of existents, whose enumeration is achieved only by knowing that they cannot be enumerated. This is the unveiling of what was concealed in this matter. His saying in the verse: 'O Creator of things within Himself' means that the substance of existents is His very existence, and His existence is the very essence of His Essence, since He is identical with His existence — His existence is not something additional to His quiddity. From this it follows that He is the Creator of things within Himself, and the meaning of 'Creator of things' is that His attributes are renewed within the very essence of His Essence. This group pays no attention to the objection that this would entail His Essence being a locus for contingent occurrences, for that would only be difficult if what occurs therein were other than Him; but since it is the very essence of His attributes, there is no harm in it. His saying in the verse: 'You create what has no end to its being within You' has already been explained. His saying: 'So You are the narrow-wide' means: You are narrow because the gnostic's knowledge of Your Essence is confined to the same degree to which the knowledge of the point from the sea is confined within itself, while yet disclosing the reality of the sea; likewise, when the gnostic knows You through the reality of the essence of a single existent, with essential knowledge, he thereby knows Your Essence, which cannot be confined. His saying: 'By estimative imagination (wahm), every human being creates in the power of his imagination what has no existence except therein, and this is the general matter' means that the mind admits of mental existents — some imaginal, some rational, some estimative — before reason or anything else takes hold of them. Then, some of what the mind admits may be impossible, like the combination of two opposites in one thing at one time, and may be contradictory, like the combination of two contradictories or their simultaneous negation. Know that great confusion has occurred in people's perceptions in the world, originating from the fact that the mind admits the impossible and the contradictory, especially among those logicians who regard logical necessity (luzūm) as merely mental. His saying: 'the gnostic creates by spiritual resolve what has existence externally' — I say that the discussion in this section ought properly to be oral, and the Shaykh's wording, may God be pleased with him, in what he alludes to here is clear. I am not saying that this section is free of need for clarification, but I will only clarify it orally, out of proper deference (adab) toward the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him. His saying in the verse: 'Sometimes the servant is undoubtedly a lord' means that in the state of self-disclosure (tajallī), the servant cannot help but say of himself that he is a lord — and this pertains to imperfect self-disclosure; otherwise, whoever truly deserves to be called a servant in reality cannot be truly called a lord, nor vice versa. His saying in the second verse means: that he becomes truly real (ḥaqqī in reality), so he is described by what the Real is described by — and in this too there is a problem, for if the servant is [truly] a servant, how can he be 'the Real' while still being a servant? This is permissible at the station of gnosis (maʿrifa) but not permissible at the station of verified realization (taḥqīq). As for its being permissible at the station of gnosis, it is because the gnostic supposes himself to be the Real, and so describes himself with what the Real describes Himself — and this is an error on his part, for the gnostic has not effaced every trace of himself; and there is no doubt that the debtor remains a debtor as long as even a single dirham remains owed. His saying: 'and if the servant is a lord, he is in a straitened life' — [means:] the supposed lord is in a straitened life, whereas the servant, even on the supposition of his being a lord, would not be in a straitened life. And his saying in the third verse: 'and from his being a lord, he sees all of creation demanding of him' — I say this means he supposes that the neediness of the entire world is directed to him and their need is for him, and this too is an error on his part — but the Shaykh is only reporting what befalls one in this state. His saying in the fourth and fifth verses: 'and he is incapable' is evidence of the truth of what we have said, namely that he is mistaken; for had his view been correct, he would not be incapable, unless it be that the Real, exalted is He, renders him incapable. His saying: 'So be a servant of a Lord' is proof of what we have said, for he, may God be pleased with him, commands him not to be deceived by the self-disclosure through which he supposed himself to be the Real — for if he does so and goes against this, he becomes 'a lord of a servant,' which is not valid for him, and the veil, which is the fuel of punishment, overtakes him. Know that confusion has arisen in this discourse from the naming of one and the same person as a servant who becomes a lord — and that, in our view, is false. As for there being, in existence, nothing but the One, exalted is He — that is what actually obtains in reality; but if attributes are taken into consideration, the Giver, from the aspect of being a giver, is not the same as the Withholder, nor vice versa — and likewise with all mutually opposing names, and this is impossible among the names of God, exalted is He. How much more so, then, when we posit an opposition between servanthood and lordship — it is impossible for these two attributes to combine in one single person, for such a combination is precluded even among the divine names, as we have mentioned, let alone between the divine names and the cosmic names. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, here speaks in the tongues of the people of [mystical] states, which are not established at the station of verified realization. Upon meeting with our noble brother in religion — may God grant him enjoyment of knowledge of Him — we shall explain this to him, God willing, exalted is He.]