Twenty-Ninth Assembly (Khwan-Pur-Nemat)

A discussion about the holiness of the saints arose. The Venerable Master said: Every saint has his own territorial limits. This applies in the spiritual domain just as it does to kings in the visible world. Each one exercises power within his own territory and his commands are heeded therein. He is able to do whatever he wants to therein, but can exercise no power in another's territory, just as kings have territorial boundaries beyond which they are not allowed to rule. If he tries to exercise control over a village in the territory of some- body else his commands will not be obeyed. The very same situation applies to the saints in the spiritual domain.

A discussion arose about displaying miracles. Some holy men displayed miracles. The Venerable Master said: It is not permissible to make a display of them. Concealment is obligatory. How can they consider it lawful for themselves to abandon something obligatory? It is mentioned, however, in different places, that it was done in the heat of the moment; or in an ecstatic condition; or as an inducement for disciples. There is no fourth category.

There is a secret between You and me no one else knows:

Even if I lose my head, I'll reveal it to no other.

Apart from this, however, if somebody has related something about a holy man which is beyond the regulations and principles of the faith it should be known that it does not emanate from the holy man. Foolish disciples have written some- thing on their own initiative and foisted it in the holy man.

The Helpless One said: What is the point of the responsibility of concealing miracles? He replied: There is no obligation to believe in them which would necessitate the

performance of miracles in order to establish the correctness of their claim, as is the case with prophets. These have to perform miracles proper to prophets in order to establish the correctness of their claim. Moreover, if saintly people make a show of miraculous power they succumb to fame and bear the burden of any consequent disturbance that arises. It can also happen that they become proud.

The Helpless One asked again: Don't they have the power of protecting themselves from pride? He replied: In spite of this it is possible for them to fall into pride because sinlessness has not been granted to them. The Helpless Once again enquired: Do they perform miracles in order to attract disciples? He replied: This has been related but, if they are trustworthy men and the calamities and dangers said to be inherent in them do not affect them, then it would be all right.

This is recorded in books and this very thing has been mentioned in various places.

At this stage a discussion arose about how a saint could recognize his own sainthood. He said: This is a disputed question. Some say they do not know; some say they do. Those who hold that they do not know argue that such knowledge would result in assurance about their final end and that is not proper, for faith should oscillate between fear and hope, and that balance would be destroyed. Hence, they do not have that knowledge. Those who assert that they do know say that, although that assurance would come along with the recognition of their sainthood, nevertheless it would not lead to any diminution in their faith, as is exemplified in the ten blessed ones to whom the Prophet announced the felicity of being destined for Paradise. By means of this news they felt at peace, for it would be infidelity to doubt anything proclaimed by the Lord of the Law. Nevertheless, there was no diminution in their religious practice.

When the Venerable Master reached these words, he himself. posed this difficulty: The news about the ten came through revelation but, with respect to a saint, what can be said, for revelation terminated with the Prophet? He himself also replied: The answer given is that, although revelation has terminated, Tradition remains, namely inspiration has taken its place. Hence it is through inspiration that they know. This, however, does not enjoy the same certainty, because one can go on to ask how they know that their inspiration is divine and not satanic? The answer given is that they know through mystical illumination and their sanctity. They can discern that this is divine, and this is satanic. Nevertheless, they cannot be absolutely sure because the light of their sanctity and mystical illumination does not carry them entirely beyond doubt and deception so as to become absolutely certain. Whoever comes to know does so by means of signs and indications. Thus, nothing can be proved absolutely, for doubt and deception always remain, since signs and indications can never emerge from doubt and deception and result in certainty.

The Helpless One said: Let us imagine that somebody has seen the Prophet in a dream and that he told him that he was a saint, and that there was no scope for satanic deception in this instance. Since the Prophet is a truthful messenger it is not proper to contradict what he has said. In this situation absolute certainty is fitting. He replied: Although there is no satanic deception and he has really seen the Prophet, absolute certainty is not attained for it could happen that, while listening, he thinks and imagines he is listening to the Prophet but what he heard was not from the Prophet. He thinks it is but Satan has caused him to hear it. This in fact happened to the Prophet himself. The commentaries relate how, in the chapter on 'The Star' it so happened that the Prophet was reciting this chapter one day in the company of his companions. There was also a group of inimical people and those who rejected him present there. Satan had also slipped in and sat down without anybody spotting him. The Prophet reached the verse, 'Have you thought about Al-Lat, Al-'Uzza and Manat the third' (Q 53:20)? His blessed breath was cut off at this point so that he had to go back to the beginning of the verse. At this juncture Satan, in the very same voice and pitch recited, Those idols are so great that one can rely on the power of their intercession. The infidels presumed that the Prophet had recited the words. They all clapped their hands and said: 'Muhammad has confirmed the intercessory power of our idols!'

The Prophet asked his companions if he had said any such thing. They said, 'Yes, O Apostle of God. The Prophet got very angry, as did all of his companions. This story, however, is very long. If anyone wants to see it in detail, he can look at a commentary. Here one also encounters many intricate discussions.

The Helpless One said: From this event there is a clear need to establish whether something is from Satan or from the blessed tongue of the Apostle of Islam so that certainty can be obtained. He replied: In fact this can be ordained, but how can the person who has the dream know for certain, with regard to himself, even if it so happens that he hears something from the blessed tongue of the Apostle? Upon investigation it may happen there is room for doubt and deception. Some reason for fear remains, and certainty is not attained. It can come only when there is no vestige of doubt or deception.

Again, the Helpless One said: If anyone sees God in a dream, he should know with certainty that he has seen Him, for a person who has such a dream must be a happy person, not a wretched one, for wretchedness would ill befit him. He replied: Even there, one cannot be certain, because the person who thinks he has seen God in a dream does so on account of signs and indications. One way of discriminating is explained by this group by means of the distinction between the manifestation of the soul and that of God. In the former- in other words, when the soul shines forth-a sign and indication of something created and strange is found in it. They should know that this is the manifestation of the soul. On the other hand, in divine manifestation, while there may be new, created signs and indications, and although it may seem that they are created and new, since they find something created and new therein, and they understand that no such thing can be found or seen in the Creator, nevertheless they understand and realize that divine manifestation has occurred. To the extent that he can understand that this is divine manifestation, this will be the result of signs and indications. That is why absolute certainty is not attained.

Afterwards he opened his blessed lips and said: Thus it is

that, because there is still room for fear, absolute certainty is not attained.

Tajuddin, the son of Khwaja Mahmud Iwaz's brother, asked if anybody had seen God Almighty in a dream. He replied: Khwaja Ahmad Hanbal is reported to have seen God a thousand times in dreams. How can you ask if anybody has seen Him?

I consider a night apart from You as good as the tomb: And if I reach the dawn without You, it must be Judgement Day.

And again:

The foolish come to Judgement Day seeking pleasure and gaiety:

The wise don't exchange cash in hand for promises.

Afterwards he said: This is a disputed question. Some say that there is no question of seeing God in a dream, while others contend that there is.

Again, he enquired: Can anyone see God in this world during his waking state? He replied: Nobody is of this opinion. Afterwards he said: The reason why there is no vision of God in this world is that after the vision one attains an eternal state. There can be no transitoriness therein, but the world and all that it contains is transitory. If there were vision in this world there would be no transitoriness, only what is eternal. How could this be correct, however, since both the Quran and Tradition are destined to pass away.

Afterwards he said: I had heard this in Bengal from Amir Fazil Balkhi. The Balkhi's are noted exegetes and traditionists. They are particularly good at exegesis. Once Amir Fazil Balkhi was expounding a commentary from the pulpit. When he reached the verse about the vision of God, this very question- as to whether God can be seen in this world or not-arose. He said He could not be seen, for the reason that the world is the abode of what is transitory while, after the vision of God, there is everlastingness. There can be no passing-away therein. Every- thing in this world will pass away. Thus, there is no vision, even though God can be seen.

There is no thinking or turning away: If the beloved is sad, we are entrapped.

It so happened that I boasted of my union with You: Now there is only me and, behind my hands, a wall.

Again, the Helpless One said: In Bulghur it is said that there is no night prayer. There is sunset and sunrise. What are they obliged to do? He replied: The inhabitants of that city sought a legal decision on the matter, sending their request to Bukhara. All the religious scholars of Bukhara gathered together. They said: 'Five prayers are obligatory each day. How could they only say four? In this fashion they discussed the matter among themselves. At last, they agreed on this: Although five prayers are obligatory, nevertheless the obligation depends on time. This, in fact, is not present. Hence the prayer also is not obligatory.

The Helpless One enquired if it were true that such a city existed. He replied: Yes, for it is also mentioned in the commentaries.

The Helpless One asked: If someone is engaged in seclusion and practices some trade would it be allowable for him to remain occupied with that trade for the sake of securing his living? The Venerable Master replied: It is not allowable to practice a trade in the mosque, by analogy with buying and selling, which is also not allowed in a mosque. For one in seclusion, however, according to the exigencies of his seclusion, and provided goods are not actually present, it has been allowed. Hence, for one in seclusion, being occupied with buying and trading, according to the needs of his seclusion, is allowable, but only insofar as it is necessary, just as eating and drinking in a mosque is forbidden but is allowed for one in seclusion. Then there is no prohibition. In an analogous way, a person in seclusion should be allowed to practice his trade.

Again, he enquired if seclusion was based on a confirmed prophetic tradition so that a person who broke it would be blameworthy. He replied: There is a sound prophetic tradition for the last ten days of the month of Ramzan. Afterwards

he said: Blame presupposes a duty which is enjoined, but a confirmed prophetic tradition is close to being enjoined. Abandoning a simple prophetic tradition is reprehensible, while abandoning a sound one calls for more than a rebuke but is still not punishable.

In the meantime, Khwaja Zahiruddin said that Maulana Wahiduddin used to spend the last ten days of each Ramzan in seclusion. He used to say: When I went to Sheikh Nizamuddin and became a disciple of his and explained my religious practices to him, I also mentioned that each year I spent the last ten days of Ramzan in seclusion. The Sheikh said: 'Maulana, among my companions there is no one who does so. Again, I explained that it had become an annual practice for me. Thereupon the Sheikh said: 'Then let it be.

At this stage he put his question: Since the tradition in question is a confirmed one, the Sheikh's answer is an important denial of consent. What could this mean? The Venerable Master replied: It could be that the Sheikh saw some danger or calamity in the practice and that is why he did not enjoin it. Besides, there are so many important duties which are obligatory, and which have to be performed. A tradition has its own standing. It is in the category of what is not obligatory and, when it comes to observance, what is more important takes precedence.11

A discussion about the holiness of the saints arose. The Venerable Master said: Every saint has his own territorial limits. This applies in the spiritual domain just as it does to kings in the visible world. Each one exercises power within his own territory and his commands are heeded therein. He is able to do whatever he wants to therein, but can exercise no power in another's territory, just as kings have territorial boundaries beyond which they are not allowed to rule. If he tries to exercise control over a village in the territory of some- body else his commands will not be obeyed. The very same situation applies to the saints in the spiritual domain.

A discussion arose about displaying miracles. Some holy men displayed miracles. The Venerable Master said: It is not permissible to make a display of them. Concealment is obligatory. How can they consider it lawful for themselves to abandon something obligatory? It is mentioned, however, in different places, that it was done in the heat of the moment; or in an ecstatic condition; or as an inducement for disciples. There is no fourth category.

There is a secret between You and me no one else knows:

Even if I lose my head, I'll reveal it to no other.

Apart from this, however, if somebody has related something about a holy man which is beyond the regulations and principles of the faith it should be known that it does not emanate from the holy man. Foolish disciples have written some- thing on their own initiative and foisted it in the holy man.

The Helpless One said: What is the point of the responsibility of concealing miracles? He replied: There is no obligation to believe in them which would necessitate the

performance of miracles in order to establish the correctness of their claim, as is the case with prophets. These have to perform miracles proper to prophets in order to establish the correctness of their claim. Moreover, if saintly people make a show of miraculous power they succumb to fame and bear the burden of any consequent disturbance that arises. It can also happen that they become proud.

The Helpless One asked again: Don't they have the power of protecting themselves from pride? He replied: In spite of this it is possible for them to fall into pride because sinlessness has not been granted to them. The Helpless Once again enquired: Do they perform miracles in order to attract disciples? He replied: This has been related but, if they are trustworthy men and the calamities and dangers said to be inherent in them do not affect them, then it would be all right.

This is recorded in books and this very thing has been mentioned in various places.

At this stage a discussion arose about how a saint could recognize his own sainthood. He said: This is a disputed question. Some say they do not know; some say they do. Those who hold that they do not know argue that such knowledge would result in assurance about their final end and that is not proper, for faith should oscillate between fear and hope, and that balance would be destroyed. Hence, they do not have that knowledge. Those who assert that they do know say that, although that assurance would come along with the recognition of their sainthood, nevertheless it would not lead to any diminution in their faith, as is exemplified in the ten blessed ones to whom the Prophet announced the felicity of being destined for Paradise. By means of this news they felt at peace, for it would be infidelity to doubt anything proclaimed by the Lord of the Law. Nevertheless, there was no diminution in their religious practice.

When the Venerable Master reached these words, he himself. posed this difficulty: The news about the ten came through revelation but, with respect to a saint, what can be said, for revelation terminated with the Prophet? He himself also replied: The answer given is that, although revelation has terminated, Tradition remains, namely inspiration has taken its place. Hence it is through inspiration that they know. This, however, does not enjoy the same certainty, because one can go on to ask how they know that their inspiration is divine and not satanic? The answer given is that they know through mystical illumination and their sanctity. They can discern that this is divine, and this is satanic. Nevertheless, they cannot be absolutely sure because the light of their sanctity and mystical illumination does not carry them entirely beyond doubt and deception so as to become absolutely certain. Whoever comes to know does so by means of signs and indications. Thus, nothing can be proved absolutely, for doubt and deception always remain, since signs and indications can never emerge from doubt and deception and result in certainty.

The Helpless One said: Let us imagine that somebody has seen the Prophet in a dream and that he told him that he was a saint, and that there was no scope for satanic deception in this instance. Since the Prophet is a truthful messenger it is not proper to contradict what he has said. In this situation absolute certainty is fitting. He replied: Although there is no satanic deception and he has really seen the Prophet, absolute certainty is not attained for it could happen that, while listening, he thinks and imagines he is listening to the Prophet but what he heard was not from the Prophet. He thinks it is but Satan has caused him to hear it. This in fact happened to the Prophet himself. The commentaries relate how, in the chapter on 'The Star' it so happened that the Prophet was reciting this chapter one day in the company of his companions. There was also a group of inimical people and those who rejected him present there. Satan had also slipped in and sat down without anybody spotting him. The Prophet reached the verse, 'Have you thought about Al-Lat, Al-'Uzza and Manat the third' (Q 53:20)? His blessed breath was cut off at this point so that he had to go back to the beginning of the verse. At this juncture Satan, in the very same voice and pitch recited, Those idols are so great that one can rely on the power of their intercession. The infidels presumed that the Prophet had recited the words. They all clapped their hands and said: 'Muhammad has confirmed the intercessory power of our idols!'

The Prophet asked his companions if he had said any such thing. They said, 'Yes, O Apostle of God. The Prophet got very angry, as did all of his companions. This story, however, is very long. If anyone wants to see it in detail, he can look at a commentary. Here one also encounters many intricate discussions.

The Helpless One said: From this event there is a clear need to establish whether something is from Satan or from the blessed tongue of the Apostle of Islam so that certainty can be obtained. He replied: In fact this can be ordained, but how can the person who has the dream know for certain, with regard to himself, even if it so happens that he hears something from the blessed tongue of the Apostle? Upon investigation it may happen there is room for doubt and deception. Some reason for fear remains, and certainty is not attained. It can come only when there is no vestige of doubt or deception.

Again, the Helpless One said: If anyone sees God in a dream, he should know with certainty that he has seen Him, for a person who has such a dream must be a happy person, not a wretched one, for wretchedness would ill befit him. He replied: Even there, one cannot be certain, because the person who thinks he has seen God in a dream does so on account of signs and indications. One way of discriminating is explained by this group by means of the distinction between the manifestation of the soul and that of God. In the former- in other words, when the soul shines forth-a sign and indication of something created and strange is found in it. They should know that this is the manifestation of the soul. On the other hand, in divine manifestation, while there may be new, created signs and indications, and although it may seem that they are created and new, since they find something created and new therein, and they understand that no such thing can be found or seen in the Creator, nevertheless they understand and realize that divine manifestation has occurred. To the extent that he can understand that this is divine manifestation, this will be the result of signs and indications. That is why absolute certainty is not attained.

Afterwards he opened his blessed lips and said: Thus it is

that, because there is still room for fear, absolute certainty is not attained.

Tajuddin, the son of Khwaja Mahmud Iwaz's brother, asked if anybody had seen God Almighty in a dream. He replied: Khwaja Ahmad Hanbal is reported to have seen God a thousand times in dreams. How can you ask if anybody has seen Him?

I consider a night apart from You as good as the tomb: And if I reach the dawn without You, it must be Judgement Day.

And again:

The foolish come to Judgement Day seeking pleasure and gaiety:

The wise don't exchange cash in hand for promises.

Afterwards he said: This is a disputed question. Some say that there is no question of seeing God in a dream, while others contend that there is.

Again, he enquired: Can anyone see God in this world during his waking state? He replied: Nobody is of this opinion. Afterwards he said: The reason why there is no vision of God in this world is that after the vision one attains an eternal state. There can be no transitoriness therein, but the world and all that it contains is transitory. If there were vision in this world there would be no transitoriness, only what is eternal. How could this be correct, however, since both the Quran and Tradition are destined to pass away.

Afterwards he said: I had heard this in Bengal from Amir Fazil Balkhi. The Balkhi's are noted exegetes and traditionists. They are particularly good at exegesis. Once Amir Fazil Balkhi was expounding a commentary from the pulpit. When he reached the verse about the vision of God, this very question- as to whether God can be seen in this world or not-arose. He said He could not be seen, for the reason that the world is the abode of what is transitory while, after the vision of God, there is everlastingness. There can be no passing-away therein. Every- thing in this world will pass away. Thus, there is no vision, even though God can be seen.

There is no thinking or turning away: If the beloved is sad, we are entrapped.

It so happened that I boasted of my union with You: Now there is only me and, behind my hands, a wall.

Again, the Helpless One said: In Bulghur it is said that there is no night prayer. There is sunset and sunrise. What are they obliged to do? He replied: The inhabitants of that city sought a legal decision on the matter, sending their request to Bukhara. All the religious scholars of Bukhara gathered together. They said: 'Five prayers are obligatory each day. How could they only say four? In this fashion they discussed the matter among themselves. At last, they agreed on this: Although five prayers are obligatory, nevertheless the obligation depends on time. This, in fact, is not present. Hence the prayer also is not obligatory.

The Helpless One enquired if it were true that such a city existed. He replied: Yes, for it is also mentioned in the commentaries.

The Helpless One asked: If someone is engaged in seclusion and practices some trade would it be allowable for him to remain occupied with that trade for the sake of securing his living? The Venerable Master replied: It is not allowable to practice a trade in the mosque, by analogy with buying and selling, which is also not allowed in a mosque. For one in seclusion, however, according to the exigencies of his seclusion, and provided goods are not actually present, it has been allowed. Hence, for one in seclusion, being occupied with buying and trading, according to the needs of his seclusion, is allowable, but only insofar as it is necessary, just as eating and drinking in a mosque is forbidden but is allowed for one in seclusion. Then there is no prohibition. In an analogous way, a person in seclusion should be allowed to practice his trade.

Again, he enquired if seclusion was based on a confirmed prophetic tradition so that a person who broke it would be blameworthy. He replied: There is a sound prophetic tradition for the last ten days of the month of Ramzan. Afterwards

he said: Blame presupposes a duty which is enjoined, but a confirmed prophetic tradition is close to being enjoined. Abandoning a simple prophetic tradition is reprehensible, while abandoning a sound one calls for more than a rebuke but is still not punishable.

In the meantime, Khwaja Zahiruddin said that Maulana Wahiduddin used to spend the last ten days of each Ramzan in seclusion. He used to say: When I went to Sheikh Nizamuddin and became a disciple of his and explained my religious practices to him, I also mentioned that each year I spent the last ten days of Ramzan in seclusion. The Sheikh said: 'Maulana, among my companions there is no one who does so. Again, I explained that it had become an annual practice for me. Thereupon the Sheikh said: 'Then let it be.

At this stage he put his question: Since the tradition in question is a confirmed one, the Sheikh's answer is an important denial of consent. What could this mean? The Venerable Master replied: It could be that the Sheikh saw some danger or calamity in the practice and that is why he did not enjoin it. Besides, there are so many important duties which are obligatory, and which have to be performed. A tradition has its own standing. It is in the category of what is not obligatory and, when it comes to observance, what is more important takes precedence.11