Original content

English translation

Here remains a disagreement between us and a group who say: 'The manifestation of union is the negation of separation, because the two are opposites; for when the sovereignty of guidance takes hold, the domain of striving and self-exertion falls away.'

But this is pure nullification, because so long as there is the possibility of practice and the capacity for striving and self-exertion, these never fall away from the servant; for union is not separate from separation, as light is not separate from the sun, nor accident from substance, nor attribute from the thing described. Thus striving is not separate from guidance, nor the Law (shari'a) from Reality (haqiqa), nor finding from seeking; but it may be that striving comes first and it may be that it comes after. For the one whose striving comes first, the hardship is greater, because he is in absence; and for the one whose striving comes after, there is no toil or affliction, because he is in the Presence. And whoever makes the negation of the flavor of works into the negation of the very essence of work has fallen into a grave error.

And it is possible for a servant to reach a rank where he regards all his praiseworthy attributes with the eye of defect and sees them as deficient. When he sees his praiseworthy attributes as defective and flawed, then his blameworthy attributes must be even more defective. I have said this because a group of the ignorant have fallen into an error in this matter that is bound up with estrangement, in that they say: 'Nothing of the finding is bound to our striving, and our deeds and obedience are defective, and our strivings are deficient. The undone is more fitting than the done.'

We say to them: You call our doing an act, and we agree; and you make acts the locus of defect and the source of harm. Inevitably the undone too must be reckoned an act. Since both are acts, and the act is the locus of defect, then why do you deem the undone more fitting than the done? This is a manifest loss and an evident swindle. So here appears a fine distinction between unbelief and faith; for the believer and the unbeliever agree that their acts are the locus of defect, yet the believer, by the ruling of the command, deems doing more fitting than not-doing, while the unbeliever, by the ruling of disobedience, deems not-doing more fitting than doing.

So union is that in the vision of the affliction of separation, the ruling of separation does not fall away from him; and separation is that, within the veil of union, one reckons separation to be union. On this meaning the great adornment [al-muzayyin al-kabir] said, may God have mercy on him: 'Union is election (khususiyya) and separation is servitude ('ubudiyya); each of the two is joined to the other, not severed from it.'

The election of God Most High for the servant is union, and the servant's servitude toward Him is separation, and this is not separate from that; because the sign of election is the preservation of servitude. When a claimant in his practices is not upheld by his practices, he is a liar in his claim. So it is permissible that the weight of striving and the toil of affliction, in discharging the right of striving and duty, be lifted from the servant; but it is not permissible that the very essence of striving and duty be lifted in the very essence of union, except by a clear excuse that is general in the ruling of the Law. I will explain this so that it becomes better known to you.

Know that union is of two kinds: one is called the union of soundness (jam' salamat), and the other the union of shattering (jam' taksir).

The union of soundness is when, amid the overwhelming of the state and the strength of ecstasy and the agitation of longing that appears, God Most High is the preserver of the servant, and drives the command upon his outward form, and keeps him upon discharging it, and adorns him with striving; as Sahl ibn Abdallah, Abu Hafs Haddad, Abu al-Abbas al-Sayyari the founder of the school, Bayazid Bastami, Abu Bakr Shibli, Abu al-Hasan al-Husri, and another company, God's approval be upon them all, were continually overwhelmed until the time of prayer came in, then they returned to themselves, and when they had performed the prayer they again became overwhelmed; because so long as you are in the place of separation, you are you, discharging the command, and when He draws you, He is more entitled to His command, keeping you upon it, for two meanings: one so that the sign of your servanthood does not vanish, and the other so that He fulfills the promise: 'I shall never abrogate the Law of Muhammad.'

And the union of shattering is when the servant becomes distraught and bewildered in the ruling, and his ruling is like the ruling of the mad.

So one of these is excused and one is thanked; and the one who is thanked, his state is greatly luminous and stronger than the one who is excused.

In sum, know that union has no special station and no distinct state; for union is the gathering of aspiration (himma) upon its own sought object. For some the unveiling of this is in the stations, and for some in the states, and in both moments the aim of the possessor of union is the subsistence of it through the negation of the acquired object; 'because separation is a parting and union is a joining.' This holds true in all things, as the gathering of Jacob's aspiration upon Joseph, peace be upon them both, so that he had no aspiration left except aspiration for him; and the gathering of Majnun's aspiration upon Layla, so that when he did not see her, the whole world and all existents took, in his sight, the form of Layla; and the like of this. As Bayazid was one day in his cell, and someone came and said: 'Is Abu Yazid in the house?' Abu Yazid said: 'Is there anyone in the house except God?' — meaning, 'Is Bayazid in the house?' and he, may God be pleased with him, said: 'In this house is there anything other than the Real?'

And one of the masters said, may God have mercy on him: A dervish came to Mecca and sat for a year in contemplation of the House, neither eating food, nor drinking, nor sleeping, nor going to make ablution; for from the gathering of his aspiration upon the vision of the House, which the Lord has ascribed to Himself, it had become the nourishment of his body and the drink of his soul.

The root of all this is that God Most High made the essence of His love, which was a single substance, divided and apportioned, and singled out each of the beloveds, according to the measure of his captivation, with that part of the parts of that whole. Then He cast upon it the armor of humanity, the garb of nature, the covering of temperament, and the veil of spirit, so that by its own strength it would transform the parts joined to it into its own quality; until the whole lover became wholly beloved, and all his movements and glances took on the conditions of that. And from this the masters of meanings and the possessors of eloquence named it 'union.' On this meaning Husayn ibn Mansur said, may God have mercy on him:

At Your service, at Your service, O my Master and my Lord, At Your service, at Your service, O my aim and my meaning, O very essence of the essence of my existence, O goal of my aspirations, O my speech, my allusions, and my tidings, O all of my all, O my hearing and my sight, O my whole, my divisions, and my parts.

So the one who was but borrowed in his own attributes, the affirming of existence upon him is a shame for him, and his turning toward the two worlds is a girdle [of unbelief], and all existents are contemptible in his aspiration.

Again, a group of the masters of eloquence, for the subtlety of speech and the wonder of expression, call it 'the union of union' (jam' al-jam'). This expression is fine from the standpoint of expression, but in meaning it is better that you not call union 'union'; because there must be a separation for union to be valid upon it, and when union is united there would have been a separation, so that union does not depart from its state. This expression is a locus of suspicion; because the united one has no sight of above or below outside himself. Did you not see that the two worlds and the two realms were shown to the Prophet, peace be upon him, on the night of the ascension, and he turned to nothing? Because he was in the union of union, and the united one does not witness separation; until God Most High said: 'The sight did not swerve, nor did it transgress' (Qur'an 53:17).

And I, in the state of my beginning, composed a book on this meaning and named it al-Bayan li-Ahl al-'Iyan, and in Nahw al-Qulub, in the chapter on union, I said ample sections. Now, for the sake of brevity, I have contented myself with this measure.

This is a portion of the doctrine of the Sayyaris among the Sufis, completing the account of the sects of the Sufis, those who are accepted and truthful. Now I return to the account of that group who have attached themselves to them from among the heretics (malahida), may God curse them, and have made these expressions of theirs an instrument for manifesting their heresy, and have hidden their own baseness within the glory of these [Sufis], so that their places of error may become manifest and the disciples may guard against their deceit and their claims and protect themselves. And God knows best.