Original content

English translation

But the scholars of this Path disagree concerning poverty (faqr) and purity (safwa). To one group, poverty is more complete than purity, and to another group, purity is more complete.

Those who give precedence to poverty over purity say: 'Poverty is the annihilation (fana) of all and the severing of secrets, and purity is one of the stations among its stations; when annihilation is attained, all the stations become nothing.' This question returns to [the debate over] poverty and wealth (faqr and ghina), and it has already been treated in these discussions.

And again, those who give precedence to purity say: 'Poverty is an existent thing that accepts a name, and purity is purity (safa) from all existents; and purity is the very essence of annihilation, while poverty is the very essence of wealth. So poverty is among the names of the stations, and purity is among the names of perfection.'

In this matter the discourse has grown lengthy in this age, and everyone, by way of astonishment, produces some expression and brings strange sayings against one another, and there is disagreement about the precedence and postponement of poverty and purity. By consensus, mere expression is neither poverty nor purity. So out of expression they fabricated a doctrine and emptied their nature of the perception of meanings, and cast away the discourse of the Truth. They call the negation of desire (hawa) the negation of essence (ayn), and they consider the affirmation of the selfish object the affirmation of essence. So the existent and the non-existent, the negated and the affirmed, are all theirs, through the subsistence of their own self and desire; and the Path is pure of the nonsense of the pretenders.

In sum, the saints reach a place where no place remains, and the degree and stations become annihilated, and expression is cut off from that meaning; such that neither drinking (shurb) nor tasting (dhawq) remains, nor subjugation (qam') nor overpowering (qahr), nor sobriety (sahw) nor effacement (mahw). Then out of necessity they seek a name to clothe that meaning which does not come under a name and cannot be described by any attribute. Then each of them clothes that meaning with the name that is most magnified in their eyes, and in that root matter precedence and postponement are not permissible, that anyone should say this is prior or that; for precedence and postponement necessitate namings. So to one group the name of poverty appeared prior and was magnified in their hearts, because their attachment was to its self-abandonment and to humility; and to another group the name of purity appeared prior and was magnified in their hearts, because it was near to the removal of turbidities and the annihilation of afflictions. Their aim in these two namings was to give notice and a sign of that meaning from which expression is cut off, and they spoke with one another about it by way of allusion, and made known the unveiling of their own being completely. For this group no disagreement arose, whether they used the expression of poverty or of purity. But the people of expression and the masters of the tongue, who were ignorant of the verification of that meaning, spoke in mere expression: one they made prior and one they postponed, and both of these were only expression. So that first group went on with the verification of meanings, and this group remained in the darkness of expression.

In sum, when someone attains that meaning and has made it the qibla of his heart, whether he is called faqir or Sufi, both names are used of necessity for that meaning which does not come under any name.

This disagreement dates from the time of Abu'l-Hasan Sam'un, may God have mercy on him. For when he was in an unveiling (kashf) that pertained to subsistence (baqa), he gave precedence to poverty over purity; and when he was in a place that pertained to annihilation (fana), he gave precedence to purity over poverty. The masters of meanings at that time said to him: 'Why do you speak thus?' He said: 'Nature has a complete drinking in annihilation and lowliness, and likewise in subsistence and elevation. When I am in a place whose attachment is to annihilation, I say purity is prior to poverty; and when I am in a place whose attachment is to subsistence, I say poverty is prior to purity; for poverty is the name of annihilation and purity is of subsistence, so that in subsistence I may annihilate from myself the vision of subsistence, and in annihilation the vision of annihilation, so that my nature may be annihilated from annihilation and annihilated from subsistence.'

These words are good from the standpoint of expression, but annihilation has annihilation while subsistence does not have annihilation. Every subsisting thing that becomes annihilated is annihilated from itself, and every annihilated thing that becomes subsisting is subsisting from itself. Annihilation is a name in which exaggeration is impossible, such that anyone should say 'annihilation becomes annihilated'; for this exaggeration can be made only by negating the trace of the existence of that meaning in annihilation, and as long as a trace remains it is not yet annihilation; and when annihilation is attained, the annihilation of annihilation is nothing but astonishment in a meaningless expression, and this is the nonsense of the masters of the tongue at the time of worshipping expression. We have words of this kind in the Book of Annihilation and Subsistence, which we composed at the time of the caprice of youth and the sharpness of states; but in this book, by way of caution, we shall present its rulings, God willing, Mighty and Majestic.

This is the difference between spiritual poverty and purity; but as for practical (mu'amalati) purity and poverty in terms of stripping away the world and emptying the hand of it, that is another thing, and its reality returns to poverty and destitution (maskanat).

A group of the shaykhs, may God have mercy on them, have said that the faqir (poor) is more excellent than the miskin (destitute); because God, Mighty and Majestic, said: 'For the poor who are restrained in the way of God (Quran 2:273)'; for the miskin is a possessor of a known means (sahib-i ma'lum) and the faqir is one who abandons the known (tarik-i ma'lum). Poverty is honor (izz) and destitution is abasement (dhull), and the possessor of the known is abased in the Path; for the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'Wretched is the slave of the dirham, and wretched is the slave of the dinar, and wretched is the slave of the garment and of finery.' And the abandoner of the known is honored; for the reliance of the possessor of the known is upon the known, and the reliance of the one without the known is upon God, the Exalted. When the possessor of the known has an occupation, he turns to the known, and when the abandoner of the known has an occupation, he turns to God, the Exalted.

Again, a group have said that the miskin is more excellent; because the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'O God, let me live destitute (miskin) and let me die destitute and raise me in the throng of the destitute.' When the Prophet mentioned destitution he said: 'O Lord, in death and in life keep me among the destitute'; and when he mentioned poverty he said: 'Poverty almost becomes disbelief (kufr).' The faqir is one attached to a cause, and the miskin is one cut off from causes. In the religious law (shari'a), according to one group of jurists the faqir is the possessor of a bare sufficiency (balgha) and the miskin is stripped of all; and according to another group the miskin is the possessor of a bare sufficiency and the faqir is stripped of all. So here the people of the stations call the miskin a Sufi, and this disagreement is connected to the disagreement of the jurists, may God be pleased with them. According to those for whom the faqir is stripped of all and the miskin possesses a bare sufficiency, poverty is more excellent than purity; and according to those for whom the miskin is stripped of all and the faqir possesses a bare sufficiency, purity is more excellent than poverty.

This is the account of their disagreement concerning poverty and purity, in brief, and God knows best what is correct.