Twentieth Assembly (Khwan-Pur-Nemat)

A discussion arose about the torment and the comfort of the grave. Maulana Karimuddin asked what the torment of the grave was based upon. The Venerable Master replied: A singly transmitted tradition. Afterwards he said, Articles of belief do not depend on analogy and a singly transmitted tradition. In order to believe in something, there should be irrefutable proof that there is no doubt or suspicion in it. Analogy, however, and a singly transmitted tradition are a surmise. Nevertheless, when such a tradition is found in several places it is proved to be worthy of credence. In this matter there are many singly transmitted traditions which have attained the status of 'repeated.

After this he added: There is also a text from the Book. If it is not linked to a tradition, it can be proved from that text. This is sufficient.

The Helpless One enquired, Which text is that? He replied It concerns Pharaoh and his people. They were over- whelmed by the Flood then made to enter the fire' of hell (Q 71:25). This is for the sake of delaying. Thrusting into the fire of hell occurs after being drowned. This cannot but be in the grave, not in hell, for that is after the Day of Resurrection.

Again, the Helpless One asked a question: Where is there a reference to other infidels? He replied: The proof with regard to other infidels is based on the text which says that infidelity also applies to others.

Again, he asked: With regard to a Muslim who is a sinner, how does it happen that his infidelity is destroyed? He replied: It can be said of him that his soul is against the command of the Lord and that a warning should be taken according to the usual sense of a word, not some special meaning. Moreover,

this degree of difference should be maintained that the torment of the grave, with respect to infidels, would be a matter of necessity whereas, with sinners (i.e. Muslim sinners) a permitted thing.

At this point a discussion arose about the call of Moses. Maulana Karimuddin said: Was Moses alone commanded to invite Pharaoh to the faith, or did he have a companion? He replied: When Moses received the command, 'Go to Pharaoh and invite him, this thought passed through his heart: 'I am alone, and Pharaoh has claimed divinity. Also, I killed a Copt in that city, and he is at enmity with me. In spite of this the command came, 'Go and invite him. Thus, it was that fear gripped the heart of Moses. Afterwards he petitioned that his brother Aaron might accompany him, as it is written in the Quran: 'And include him in My work' (Q 20:32). Thereupon Aaron was made his companion. Both set out. The command came: 'Be not afraid! I am with you both. I do hear and see' (Q 20:46).

Afterwards he said: It is mentioned here that Moses was afraid of Pharaoh. This is fear of someone other than God. The answer given is that this fear that Moses had of Pharaoh did not have him as its object but meant rather that he did not want the divine decree and commandment regarding himself to be accomplished at his hands. Thus, this fear is also of God, not of Pharaoh. Every instance where fear of some other is mentioned can have this as an explanation.

Sheikh Muizzuddin asked: When he grew fearful could he be said to have remained agreeable? He replied Yes, he spoke well when he said that the fear of God is not opposed to endeavoring to please Him, for a servant is bound to a particular thing at any one time. It is befitting that the existence of one should not oppose that of the other. Afterwards he added: Pharaoh was a man who laid claim to divinity and Egypt, with all its territories, was under his sway. He harbored enmity in his heart towards Moses. This order came to him: 'Go to Pharaoh, for he has burst all bounds' (Q 20:24). He instructed him thus: 'Invite him in this fashion: 'Speak to him in a kindly manner' (Q 20:44). Don't be severe in your speech,' for one should speak politely with kings.

Maulana Karimuddin again said: When he invited Pharaoh and he listened to what was said, did he respond to him sharply and with severity or not? He replied: No, he came to him and preached the message to him. He said: 'Produce arguments and signs for this. After that Moses presented arguments and signs which proved convincing to him. When he became inclined towards the arguments and had accepted the accusation, at that moment he began to threaten him and intimidate him saying: 'You are a sorcerer, and things are not as you say. This is the manner of all foolish people.

Maulana Karimuddin again asked: Apart from the miracle of the staff were there any other miracles? He replied: There were. Once it so happened that it rained frogs. For several days this continued. Thereupon the people gathered together and came to Moses. They said: 'O Moses, beseech your God to remove this torment from us and we shall believe in you.' After that torment was removed, through the intercession of Moses, they returned to their previous state. Once, instead of water, the river ran with blood. Again, they gathered together and requested Moses once again to implore his God to remove that torment from them, promising to believe in Him. Once again, at the behest of Moses, the affliction was removed. Again, they went back to their former state, saying: 'You are a sorcerer. Thus, it was that all the sorcerers of those regions were gathered together.

Afterwards he added: In this verse, 'What do you have in your right hand, Moses?' (Q 20:17) it has been mentioned here that God Almighty was well aware of what was in Moses' hand. What then was the point of the question? This answer has been given God questioned Moses in order to remove his fear. In other words, God Almighty wanted Moses to be honored by His own word. At first, he removed fear from him so that this might happen. He said: 'What is in your hand, O Moses?' Again, he asked what the point was in specifying the right hand. Why didn't He simply say, 'What is in your hand? By way of reply he has said that there was a ring in Moses' left hand. Thus, if He had simply asked what was in his hand Moses would have been confused about how he should answer, wondering whether the question pertained to the ring or the

staff. That is why He said: 'What do you have in your right hand? He has also given the answer that the right hand was mentioned on account of its special excellence. Afterwards Moses replied: 'He said: 'This is my staff: I recline on it and use it to beat the leaves to make them fall upon my sheep, and I have other uses for it' (Q 20:18).

Again, the question was posed: What was the point of Moses' saying, 'it is my staff' and not simply 'a staff'? If he had simply said that it was a staff, he would have answered the question. He replied: When Moses joined the staff to himself it became apparent that it was lawful to attach things to one- self, such as 'This is my house; this is my horse;' and 'this is my property. Again, a question arises here: When Moses said, 'my staff' then the answer was complete so why did he go on and add: 'I recline on it and use it to beat the leaves?' What was the point of this? The answer is that Moses was delighted at being honored with a word from God. In this joyful state he protracted his reply. Again, this question was raised concerning 'And I have other uses for it.' Why didn't he give details here? Why did he pass over this in silence? The answer given is that he wanted to be asked by Him once more and be honored by converse with God and so he said, 'And I have other uses for it.'

I am longing to be united with You, Separated and apart from all.

Another answer is that when Moses was in a joyful mood he would answer at length, but when his mood changed to one of fear he said, 'And I have other uses for it.

When I take Your name, my tongue cannot contain You: When I drink Your cup my mouth cannot hold You.

At this stage Sheikh Muizzuddin said: Could it not also be that they consider that the question in each matter is concealed? He replied: In the Tafsir-i Zahid (The Commentary of Zahid) one explanation is that the question in each thing is implied. Afterwards he said: The order came to Moses: 'He said: 'Cast it down, O Moses! So, he cast it down and lo! it was a squirming serpent' (Q 20:19-20), i.e. 'Throw down your staff!'

When he did so it became a fearful serpent, capable of swallowing the earth. Moses was frightened by it. He turned away to flee. A command came: 'He said: 'Take hold of it and fear not. We will restore it to its former state' (Q 20:21).

Here the question is raised as to how Moses could have been afraid of a snake, for this would be fear of something other than God, and such a state does not befit saints, let alone prophets. The answer is that the prophets are preserved from fear of anything other than God and the like, but not from something which is part and parcel of human nature. Now, fear is natural to man, being a necessary component of his humanity. This is not blameworthy.

Afterwards he said, In the Quran, God Almighty has described Moses' staff in several ways. He has described it once in this way: 'And lo! it was a squirming serpent' (Q 20:20). These three descriptions pertain to one thing in a particular situation. How can this be? It would be a contradiction. The reply proffer- ed-which we hold in this matter is that, on all three occasions one single visible form is referred to: once it is described as a serpent; once as a male serpent; and once as a demon.

Disturbances from those love-intoxicated eyes are no surprise:

Wherever a Turk gets drunk, there troubles arise.

Afterwards he went on thus: What was the wisdom in God

Almighty's turning the staff into a serpent in the holy valley and then showing it to Moses? The reply given is that God showed it to Moses so that, when the sorcerers of Pharaoh gathered together then, if he saw the staff turn into a serpent for the first time on that occasion, he would have been afraid. Thus, the staff was previously turned into a serpent so that he might see it and get frightened but, when he saw it again, he would not get frightened.

Afterwards he said: On one occasion the sorcerers were all gathered together in Pharaoh's kingdom so that they might all be in the one spot. When they had brought seventy camel- loads of serpents, Pharaoh's sorcerers said to Moses, 'Will you throw down your staff first, or shall we?' Moses said, 'Do what you please. So, they unloaded the seventy camel-loads of

serpents first. At this fear gripped Moses' heart. Here it is also mentioned that this is fear of something other than God. The same answer is given it is a natural fear. It is not harmful. Afterwards a command came to Moses: 'Now throw down your staff!' When he cast the staff from his hand it became a fearful serpent and, at one fell swoop swallowed up all the serpents of Pharaoh's sorcerers. After observing this Pharaoh's sorcerers understood that this was not sorcery. They knew this because sorcery pertains to what is illusory: something appears to be what is not. The staff of Moses is just as it was. This is not sorcery. Thus, they became convinced of their own emptiness and the reality of Moses. They said: 'We believe in the Lord of Moses and Aaron' (Q22:70).

When she twists her billow of disheveled curls, He is torn betwixt infidel desires and the beauty of faith.

Afterwards Pharaoh began to frighten them. 'You believe in him before I give you leave' (Q20:71). They answered him, 'Therefore decide what you are going to decide' (Q20:72). 'Command what you do, and you cannot do but, concerning earthly life, you have no power to lengthen it. No harm: surely to our Lord we go back' (Q26:50). There is actually no loss when we have turned again towards our Lord.

Afterwards he said: When anyone bitten by a snake is brought along then this verse should be recited, and water breathed on three times and given to be drunk. It is necessary for a drop to enter the patient's gullet so that he might get better. The verse in question is this, 'He said, Cast it down, O Moses! So, he cast it down, and lo! it was a squirming serpent' (Q20:19-20). He said: This verse pertains to Moses 'My Lord, surely, I stand in need of whatever good Thou mayest send down to me (Q28:24). By means of this petition he begged Almighty God for barley bread. It so happened that, when Moses arrived in Midian, he grew hungry and, every time he felt hungry, he would be given bread and water so that he grew habituated to this. Thus, on reaching Midian and growing hungry he said: 'O my Lord, I am in need of what You send to me,' i.e. bread and water. His prayer was heard with the result that he became the guest of the prophet Shu'aib. Thus, it is that sages say that it became known that it is lawful to make one's

needs known to one's Lord. They do not find fault with this for, if it were not permissible but deserving of condemnation then Moses would not have said: 'My Lord, surely I stand in need of whatever good Thou mayest send down to me' (Q28: 24). So then, since he made his request, it is clear that it is permissible and that there is no blame attached to making known one's needs to one's Lord. Thus, it is also understood that, if someone is well versed in interior matters it is incumbent upon him to make this known so that there may be an agreement between the internal and external. Don't you see that Moses was firmly convinced interiorly that God Almighty knew all about his hunger. Nevertheless, he expressed his need verbally, yet there was no diminution. If there is not an interior sufficiency it is necessary to act exteriorly aided by interior Favour.

Sheikh Muizzuddin said: Here it should be asked why it is that so many dervishes did not make any request. He replied: This is mentioned in that very place and the answer given is that, if there are groups that have not asked for things then it could be inferred that, since they had interior matters disclosed to them and they beheld what was revealed they did not have the power to speak out. There is a weakness within them which, if it were made manifest, would result in some interior harm and they would not be able to experience internal Favour. Thus, externalizing is correct for a person if there is no fault or imperfection for him in his internal condition. If they can preserve it and keep it in view, and if they are reckoned as men of stability then, for them, it is proper to make use of what is external, while preserving what is internal. It is also mentioned that, when Moses arrived in Midian, there was a tree there. He was attracted by its shade. Here it is mentioned that, according to the sayings of some, everything that brings solace to the soul is forbidden. Thus, if it is unlawful to bring comfort to one's carnal soul, the fact that Moses, a prophet of God, sought the shade of a tree and made himself comfortable there makes us realize that it is not forbidden to bring comfort to one's soul by means of earthly delights.

Here it is asked why your ascetics don't think of their own comfort. My reply is that they are firmly convinced that this is not forbidden, but their reason for not seeking ease and comfort

is that it would mar their efforts at self-control and asceticism. This is why they restrain themselves, not that they consider them forbidden.

A discussion arose about the torment and the comfort of the grave. Maulana Karimuddin asked what the torment of the grave was based upon. The Venerable Master replied: A singly transmitted tradition. Afterwards he said, Articles of belief do not depend on analogy and a singly transmitted tradition. In order to believe in something, there should be irrefutable proof that there is no doubt or suspicion in it. Analogy, however, and a singly transmitted tradition are a surmise. Nevertheless, when such a tradition is found in several places it is proved to be worthy of credence. In this matter there are many singly transmitted traditions which have attained the status of 'repeated.

After this he added: There is also a text from the Book. If it is not linked to a tradition, it can be proved from that text. This is sufficient.

The Helpless One enquired, Which text is that? He replied It concerns Pharaoh and his people. They were over- whelmed by the Flood then made to enter the fire' of hell (Q 71:25). This is for the sake of delaying. Thrusting into the fire of hell occurs after being drowned. This cannot but be in the grave, not in hell, for that is after the Day of Resurrection.

Again, the Helpless One asked a question: Where is there a reference to other infidels? He replied: The proof with regard to other infidels is based on the text which says that infidelity also applies to others.

Again, he asked: With regard to a Muslim who is a sinner, how does it happen that his infidelity is destroyed? He replied: It can be said of him that his soul is against the command of the Lord and that a warning should be taken according to the usual sense of a word, not some special meaning. Moreover,

this degree of difference should be maintained that the torment of the grave, with respect to infidels, would be a matter of necessity whereas, with sinners (i.e. Muslim sinners) a permitted thing.

At this point a discussion arose about the call of Moses. Maulana Karimuddin said: Was Moses alone commanded to invite Pharaoh to the faith, or did he have a companion? He replied: When Moses received the command, 'Go to Pharaoh and invite him, this thought passed through his heart: 'I am alone, and Pharaoh has claimed divinity. Also, I killed a Copt in that city, and he is at enmity with me. In spite of this the command came, 'Go and invite him. Thus, it was that fear gripped the heart of Moses. Afterwards he petitioned that his brother Aaron might accompany him, as it is written in the Quran: 'And include him in My work' (Q 20:32). Thereupon Aaron was made his companion. Both set out. The command came: 'Be not afraid! I am with you both. I do hear and see' (Q 20:46).

Afterwards he said: It is mentioned here that Moses was afraid of Pharaoh. This is fear of someone other than God. The answer given is that this fear that Moses had of Pharaoh did not have him as its object but meant rather that he did not want the divine decree and commandment regarding himself to be accomplished at his hands. Thus, this fear is also of God, not of Pharaoh. Every instance where fear of some other is mentioned can have this as an explanation.

Sheikh Muizzuddin asked: When he grew fearful could he be said to have remained agreeable? He replied Yes, he spoke well when he said that the fear of God is not opposed to endeavoring to please Him, for a servant is bound to a particular thing at any one time. It is befitting that the existence of one should not oppose that of the other. Afterwards he added: Pharaoh was a man who laid claim to divinity and Egypt, with all its territories, was under his sway. He harbored enmity in his heart towards Moses. This order came to him: 'Go to Pharaoh, for he has burst all bounds' (Q 20:24). He instructed him thus: 'Invite him in this fashion: 'Speak to him in a kindly manner' (Q 20:44). Don't be severe in your speech,' for one should speak politely with kings.

Maulana Karimuddin again said: When he invited Pharaoh and he listened to what was said, did he respond to him sharply and with severity or not? He replied: No, he came to him and preached the message to him. He said: 'Produce arguments and signs for this. After that Moses presented arguments and signs which proved convincing to him. When he became inclined towards the arguments and had accepted the accusation, at that moment he began to threaten him and intimidate him saying: 'You are a sorcerer, and things are not as you say. This is the manner of all foolish people.

Maulana Karimuddin again asked: Apart from the miracle of the staff were there any other miracles? He replied: There were. Once it so happened that it rained frogs. For several days this continued. Thereupon the people gathered together and came to Moses. They said: 'O Moses, beseech your God to remove this torment from us and we shall believe in you.' After that torment was removed, through the intercession of Moses, they returned to their previous state. Once, instead of water, the river ran with blood. Again, they gathered together and requested Moses once again to implore his God to remove that torment from them, promising to believe in Him. Once again, at the behest of Moses, the affliction was removed. Again, they went back to their former state, saying: 'You are a sorcerer. Thus, it was that all the sorcerers of those regions were gathered together.

Afterwards he added: In this verse, 'What do you have in your right hand, Moses?' (Q 20:17) it has been mentioned here that God Almighty was well aware of what was in Moses' hand. What then was the point of the question? This answer has been given God questioned Moses in order to remove his fear. In other words, God Almighty wanted Moses to be honored by His own word. At first, he removed fear from him so that this might happen. He said: 'What is in your hand, O Moses?' Again, he asked what the point was in specifying the right hand. Why didn't He simply say, 'What is in your hand? By way of reply he has said that there was a ring in Moses' left hand. Thus, if He had simply asked what was in his hand Moses would have been confused about how he should answer, wondering whether the question pertained to the ring or the

staff. That is why He said: 'What do you have in your right hand? He has also given the answer that the right hand was mentioned on account of its special excellence. Afterwards Moses replied: 'He said: 'This is my staff: I recline on it and use it to beat the leaves to make them fall upon my sheep, and I have other uses for it' (Q 20:18).

Again, the question was posed: What was the point of Moses' saying, 'it is my staff' and not simply 'a staff'? If he had simply said that it was a staff, he would have answered the question. He replied: When Moses joined the staff to himself it became apparent that it was lawful to attach things to one- self, such as 'This is my house; this is my horse;' and 'this is my property. Again, a question arises here: When Moses said, 'my staff' then the answer was complete so why did he go on and add: 'I recline on it and use it to beat the leaves?' What was the point of this? The answer is that Moses was delighted at being honored with a word from God. In this joyful state he protracted his reply. Again, this question was raised concerning 'And I have other uses for it.' Why didn't he give details here? Why did he pass over this in silence? The answer given is that he wanted to be asked by Him once more and be honored by converse with God and so he said, 'And I have other uses for it.'

I am longing to be united with You, Separated and apart from all.

Another answer is that when Moses was in a joyful mood he would answer at length, but when his mood changed to one of fear he said, 'And I have other uses for it.

When I take Your name, my tongue cannot contain You: When I drink Your cup my mouth cannot hold You.

At this stage Sheikh Muizzuddin said: Could it not also be that they consider that the question in each matter is concealed? He replied: In the Tafsir-i Zahid (The Commentary of Zahid) one explanation is that the question in each thing is implied. Afterwards he said: The order came to Moses: 'He said: 'Cast it down, O Moses! So, he cast it down and lo! it was a squirming serpent' (Q 20:19-20), i.e. 'Throw down your staff!'

When he did so it became a fearful serpent, capable of swallowing the earth. Moses was frightened by it. He turned away to flee. A command came: 'He said: 'Take hold of it and fear not. We will restore it to its former state' (Q 20:21).

Here the question is raised as to how Moses could have been afraid of a snake, for this would be fear of something other than God, and such a state does not befit saints, let alone prophets. The answer is that the prophets are preserved from fear of anything other than God and the like, but not from something which is part and parcel of human nature. Now, fear is natural to man, being a necessary component of his humanity. This is not blameworthy.

Afterwards he said, In the Quran, God Almighty has described Moses' staff in several ways. He has described it once in this way: 'And lo! it was a squirming serpent' (Q 20:20). These three descriptions pertain to one thing in a particular situation. How can this be? It would be a contradiction. The reply proffer- ed-which we hold in this matter is that, on all three occasions one single visible form is referred to: once it is described as a serpent; once as a male serpent; and once as a demon.

Disturbances from those love-intoxicated eyes are no surprise:

Wherever a Turk gets drunk, there troubles arise.

Afterwards he went on thus: What was the wisdom in God

Almighty's turning the staff into a serpent in the holy valley and then showing it to Moses? The reply given is that God showed it to Moses so that, when the sorcerers of Pharaoh gathered together then, if he saw the staff turn into a serpent for the first time on that occasion, he would have been afraid. Thus, the staff was previously turned into a serpent so that he might see it and get frightened but, when he saw it again, he would not get frightened.

Afterwards he said: On one occasion the sorcerers were all gathered together in Pharaoh's kingdom so that they might all be in the one spot. When they had brought seventy camel- loads of serpents, Pharaoh's sorcerers said to Moses, 'Will you throw down your staff first, or shall we?' Moses said, 'Do what you please. So, they unloaded the seventy camel-loads of

serpents first. At this fear gripped Moses' heart. Here it is also mentioned that this is fear of something other than God. The same answer is given it is a natural fear. It is not harmful. Afterwards a command came to Moses: 'Now throw down your staff!' When he cast the staff from his hand it became a fearful serpent and, at one fell swoop swallowed up all the serpents of Pharaoh's sorcerers. After observing this Pharaoh's sorcerers understood that this was not sorcery. They knew this because sorcery pertains to what is illusory: something appears to be what is not. The staff of Moses is just as it was. This is not sorcery. Thus, they became convinced of their own emptiness and the reality of Moses. They said: 'We believe in the Lord of Moses and Aaron' (Q22:70).

When she twists her billow of disheveled curls, He is torn betwixt infidel desires and the beauty of faith.

Afterwards Pharaoh began to frighten them. 'You believe in him before I give you leave' (Q20:71). They answered him, 'Therefore decide what you are going to decide' (Q20:72). 'Command what you do, and you cannot do but, concerning earthly life, you have no power to lengthen it. No harm: surely to our Lord we go back' (Q26:50). There is actually no loss when we have turned again towards our Lord.

Afterwards he said: When anyone bitten by a snake is brought along then this verse should be recited, and water breathed on three times and given to be drunk. It is necessary for a drop to enter the patient's gullet so that he might get better. The verse in question is this, 'He said, Cast it down, O Moses! So, he cast it down, and lo! it was a squirming serpent' (Q20:19-20). He said: This verse pertains to Moses 'My Lord, surely, I stand in need of whatever good Thou mayest send down to me (Q28:24). By means of this petition he begged Almighty God for barley bread. It so happened that, when Moses arrived in Midian, he grew hungry and, every time he felt hungry, he would be given bread and water so that he grew habituated to this. Thus, on reaching Midian and growing hungry he said: 'O my Lord, I am in need of what You send to me,' i.e. bread and water. His prayer was heard with the result that he became the guest of the prophet Shu'aib. Thus, it is that sages say that it became known that it is lawful to make one's

needs known to one's Lord. They do not find fault with this for, if it were not permissible but deserving of condemnation then Moses would not have said: 'My Lord, surely I stand in need of whatever good Thou mayest send down to me' (Q28: 24). So then, since he made his request, it is clear that it is permissible and that there is no blame attached to making known one's needs to one's Lord. Thus, it is also understood that, if someone is well versed in interior matters it is incumbent upon him to make this known so that there may be an agreement between the internal and external. Don't you see that Moses was firmly convinced interiorly that God Almighty knew all about his hunger. Nevertheless, he expressed his need verbally, yet there was no diminution. If there is not an interior sufficiency it is necessary to act exteriorly aided by interior Favour.

Sheikh Muizzuddin said: Here it should be asked why it is that so many dervishes did not make any request. He replied: This is mentioned in that very place and the answer given is that, if there are groups that have not asked for things then it could be inferred that, since they had interior matters disclosed to them and they beheld what was revealed they did not have the power to speak out. There is a weakness within them which, if it were made manifest, would result in some interior harm and they would not be able to experience internal Favour. Thus, externalizing is correct for a person if there is no fault or imperfection for him in his internal condition. If they can preserve it and keep it in view, and if they are reckoned as men of stability then, for them, it is proper to make use of what is external, while preserving what is internal. It is also mentioned that, when Moses arrived in Midian, there was a tree there. He was attracted by its shade. Here it is mentioned that, according to the sayings of some, everything that brings solace to the soul is forbidden. Thus, if it is unlawful to bring comfort to one's carnal soul, the fact that Moses, a prophet of God, sought the shade of a tree and made himself comfortable there makes us realize that it is not forbidden to bring comfort to one's soul by means of earthly delights.

Here it is asked why your ascetics don't think of their own comfort. My reply is that they are firmly convinced that this is not forbidden, but their reason for not seeking ease and comfort

is that it would mar their efforts at self-control and asceticism. This is why they restrain themselves, not that they consider them forbidden.