Original content

English translation

The masters of this affair (may God have mercy on them) have differed concerning poverty (faqr) and self-sufficiency (ghina), as to which is the more excellent among the attributes of created beings; for God Most High is truly Self-Sufficient (Ghani) in reality, and perfection lies in the totality of His attributes, glorified be His majesty.

Yahya ibn Mu'adh al-Razi, Ahmad ibn Abi al-Hawari, Harith al-Muhasibi, Abu'l-Abbas Ata, Ruwaym, Abu'l-Hasan ibn Sam'un, and among the later ones the Master of Masters Abu Sa'id Fadl Allah ibn Muhammad al-Mayhani (may God's mercy be upon them all) hold that 'wealth (ghina) is more excellent than poverty (faqr),' and they argue: 'Ghina is an attribute of God Most High, and faqr is not permissible for Him. So in love, an attribute shared between the servant and God Most High is more complete than an attribute that is not permissible for Him, exalted and sanctified be He.'

We say: this sharing is in the name, not in the meaning; for sharing in meaning requires similarity. Since His attributes are eternal (qadim) and those of creatures are originated (muhdath), this argument is void.

And I, who am Ali ibn Uthman al-Jullabi (may God grant me success in what is good), say: Ghina is a name befitting the Truth, and creatures do not deserve this name; and faqr is a name befitting creatures, and that name is not permissible for the Truth. And when someone is figuratively called wealthy (ghani), it is not as the truly Self-Sufficient is. And the clearest proof is that our wealth is through the existence of means, and we are the caused (musabbab) in the state of receiving means, while He is the Causer of causes (musabbib al-asbab) and His self-sufficiency has no cause. So sharing in this attribute is void; and since sharing in the essence is not permissible, no one can share with Him in attribute; and since it is not permissible in attribute, it is not permissible in name either. What remains here is naming (tasmiya), and naming is a marker between creatures, having a limit.

So the ghina of God Most High is that He has need of no one and nothing, and He does whatever He wills. There is none to repel His will and none to prevent His power; He is able to transform essences and to create opposites, and He has always been and will ever be with this attribute. And the wealth of creatures is the attainment of a livelihood, or the existence of some joy, or escape from some affliction, or repose in some contemplation, and all of this is originated and changeable, a source of seeking and regret, and a place of incapacity and abasement. So this name is metaphorical for the servant and real for the Truth Most High; as He said: 'O mankind, you are the poor (fuqara) in need of God' (Fatir 15), and also: 'And God is the Self-Sufficient (al-Ghani), and you are the poor' (Muhammad 38).

And also a group of the common people say: 'We give precedence to the rich man over the dervish, because God Most High has created him fortunate in both worlds and has bestowed upon him the favor of wealth.' By ghina this group here means abundance of the world, attaining desire, and indulging appetite, and they argue: 'For wealth He commanded thankfulness (shukr), and in poverty patience (sabr). So patience is in affliction and thankfulness is in blessing, and in truth blessing is more excellent than affliction.'

We say: for blessing He commanded thankfulness and made thankfulness the cause of increase of blessing, and for poverty He commanded patience and made patience the cause of increase of nearness (qurbat); as He said: 'If you are thankful, I will surely increase you' (Ibrahim 7), and also: 'Indeed God is with the patient' (al-Baqara 153). Whoever gives thanks in a blessing whose root is heedlessness (ghaflat), We increase his heedlessness upon heedlessness; and whoever is patient in a poverty whose root is trial, We increase his nearness upon nearness.

But the ghina to which the masters give precedence over poverty is not what the common people call ghina; for this ghina is the attainment of blessings, while that is the attainment of the Bestower of blessing (Mun'im). So the attainment of union is one thing, and the attainment of heedlessness is another.

Shaykh Abu Sa'id (may God's mercy be upon him) says: 'Poverty is self-sufficiency through God (al-faqr huwa al-ghina bi'llah).' And what is meant by this is eternal unveiling through the contemplation of the Truth. We say: the one to whom things are unveiled (mukashif) is liable to being veiled. So if this possessor of contemplation is made veiled from contemplation, does he become needy of it or not? If he says 'he does not become needy,' that is absurd; and if he says 'he does become needy,' we say: when need comes, the name of ghina falls away. And moreover, ghina belongs to God, who is established in attribute and firm in will, and by the maintaining of will and the affirming of the attributes of humanity ghina is not established; for the very essence of this is not receptive of ghina, since the existence of humanity is the very essence of need, and the sign of origination is the very essence of neediness. So the one who abides in attribute (baqi al-sifa) is self-sufficient, and the one annihilated in attribute (fani al-sifa) is fit for no name. So 'the self-sufficient is the one whom God has made self-sufficient' (al-ghani man aghnahu Allah); because ghani bi'llah is active (fa'il) and aghnahu Allah is passive (maf'ul), and the active subsists by itself, while the passive subsists by the active. So subsisting by oneself is an attribute of humanity, and subsisting by the Truth is the effacement of attribute.

And I, who am Ali ibn Uthman al-Jullabi (may God grant me success), say thus: since it has been established that true ghina cannot rest upon the subsistence of attribute, for the subsistence of attribute is the locus of defect, by the aforementioned proofs, and the cause of affliction, and the annihilation of attribute is itself not ghina, because whatever does not subsist by itself is given no name, then annihilation (fana) is an attribute of ghina, and when the attribute is annihilated, the locus of the name falls away, so upon such a person neither the name of poverty nor the name of wealth applies.

And again, the totality of the masters and most of the common people give precedence to poverty over wealth, because the Book and the Sunna speak of its excellence, and most of the community are agreed upon it.

And I found in the accounts that one day Junayd and Ibn Ata (may God have mercy on them) were discussing this question. Ibn Ata argued that: 'The rich are more excellent, because they will be called to account (hisab) on the Day of Resurrection, and reckoning is the making-heard of speech without intermediary in the place of reproach, and reproach is from friend to friend.' Junayd said: 'If the rich are called to account, from the dervishes an excuse will be sought, and the seeking of excuse is more excellent than the reproach of reckoning.'

And here there is a wondrous subtlety. We say: in the verification of love, the excuse (udhr) is estrangement, and reproach (itab) is disagreement, and the lovers are in a station where both of these appear as a defect in their states; because the excuse is on account of some shortcoming committed toward the friend's right. When the friend demands his right from him, he seeks to excuse himself; and reproach is on account of some shortcoming committed in the friend's command; then the friend reproaches him for that shortcoming, and both of these are likewise impossible for the true lovers.

And in sum, the poor are through patience and the rich through thankfulness; and in the verification of love, neither does the friend demand anything of the friend, nor does the friend waste the friend's command. So: 'He does injustice who names the son of Adam a prince (amir), when his Lord has named him poor (faqir).' The one whose name from the Truth is poor, even if he is a prince, is poor. He is destroyed who imagines that he is not a captive, even if his place is a throne and a couch; because the rich are possessors of alms (sadaqa), and the poor are possessors of sincerity (sidq), and sincerity is never like alms. So in reality the poverty of Solomon is like the wealth of Solomon; because of Job, in the severity of his patience, He said: 'What an excellent servant' (Sad 44), and of Solomon, in the steadfastness of his kingdom, He said: 'What an excellent servant' (Sad 30). When the good pleasure of the Merciful was attained, He made the poverty of Solomon like the wealth of Solomon.

And I heard from the master Abu'l-Qasim al-Qushayri (may God be pleased with him) who said: 'People have each spoken concerning poverty and wealth and have chosen something for themselves; but I choose that which the Truth chooses for me and keeps me in it. If He keeps me rich, may I not be heedless and transgressing; and if He keeps me a dervish, may I not be greedy and turning away.'

So wealth is a blessing, and turning-away (i'rad) within it is an affliction; and poverty is a blessing, and greed (hirs) within it is an affliction. The meanings are all good, but the practice within them differs: poverty is the heart's freedom from all that is other than God, and wealth is the heart's preoccupation with other-than-God. When freedom comes, poverty is no more preferable than wealth, nor wealth more preferable than poverty. Wealth is abundance of goods and poverty is scarcity of them, and all goods belong to God; when the seeker renounces ownership, the partnership is removed from between, and he becomes free of both names.