The Ṣúfí Shaykhs differ in opinion as to whether poverty or wealth is superior, both being regarded as human attributes; for true wealth (ghiná) belongs to God, who is perfect in all His attributes. Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh al-Rází, Aḥmad b. Abi ´l-Ḥawárí, Ḥárith al-Muḥásibí, Abu ´l-`Abbás b. `Aṭá, Ruwaym, Abu ´l-Ḥasan b. Sim`ún,[[27]] and among the moderns the Grand Shaykh Abú Sa`íd Faḍlallah b. Muḥammad al-Mayhaní, all hold the view that wealth is superior to poverty. They argue that wealth is an attribute of God, whereas poverty cannot be ascribed to Him: therefore an attribute common to God and Man is superior to one that is not applicable to God. I answer: “This community of designation is merely nominal, and has no existence in reality: real community involves mutual resemblance, but the Divine attributes are eternal and the human attributes are created; hence your proof is false.” I, who am `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, declare that wealth is a term that may fitly be applied to God, but one to which Man has no right; while poverty is a term that may properly be applied to Man, but not to God. Metaphorically a man is called “rich”, but he is not really so. Again, to give a clearer proof, human wealth is an effect due to various causes, whereas the wealth of God, who Himself is the Author of all causes, is not due to any cause. Therefore there is no community in regard to this attribute. It is not allowable to associate anything with God either in essence, attribute, or name. The wealth of God consists in His independence of anyone and in His power to do whatsoever He wills: such He has always been and such He shall be for ever. Man’s wealth, on the other hand, is, for example, a means of livelihood, or the presence of joy, or the being saved from sin, or the solace of contemplation; which things are all of phenomenal nature and subject to change.
Furthermore, some of the vulgar prefer the rich man to the poor, on the ground that God has made the former blest in both worlds and has bestowed the benefit of riches on him. Here they mean by “wealth” abundance of worldly goods and enjoyment of pleasures and pursuit of lusts. They argue that God has commanded us to be thankful for wealth and patient in poverty, i.e. patient in adversity and thankful in prosperity; and that prosperity is essentially better than adversity. To this I reply that, when God commanded us to be thankful for prosperity He made thankfulness the means of increasing our prosperity; but when He commanded us to be patient in adversity He made patience the means of drawing nigh unto Himself. He said: “Verily, if ye return thanks, I will give you an increase” (Kor. xiv, 7), and also, “God is with the patient” (Kor. ii, 148).
The Shaykhs who prefer wealth to poverty do not use the term “wealth” in its popular sense. What they intend is not “acquisition of a benefit” but “acquisition of the Benefactor”; to gain union (with God) is a different thing from gaining forgetfulness (of God). Shaykh Abú Sa`íd[[28]]—God have mercy on him!—says: “Poverty is wealth in God” (al-faqr huwa ´l-ghiná billáh), i.e. everlasting revelation of the Truth. I answer to this, that revelation (mukáshafat) implies the possibility of a veil (ḥijáb); therefore, if the person who enjoys revelation is veiled from revelation by the attribute of wealth, he either becomes in need of revelation or he does not; if he does not, the conclusion is absurd, and if he does, need is incompatible with wealth; therefore that term cannot stand. Besides, no one has “wealth in God” unless his attributes are permanent and his object is invariable; wealth cannot coincide with the subsistence of an object or with the affirmation of the attributes of human nature, inasmuch as the essential characteristics of mortality and phenomenal being are need and indigence. One whose attributes still survive is not rich, and one whose attributes are annihilated is not entitled to any name whatever. Therefore “the rich man is he who is enriched by God” (al-ghaní man aghnáhu ´lláh), because the term “rich in God” refers to the agent (fá`il), whereas the term “enriched by God” denotes the person acted upon (maf`úl); the former is self-subsistent, but the latter subsists through the agent; accordingly self-subsistence is an attribute of human nature, while subsistence through God involves the annihilation of attributes. I, then, who am `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, assert that true wealth is incompatible with the survival (baqá) of any attribute, since human attributes have already been shown to be defective and subject to decay; nor, again, does wealth consist in the annihilation of these attributes, because a name cannot be given to an attribute that no longer exists, and he whose attributes are annihilated cannot be called either “poor” or “rich”; therefore the attribute of wealth is not transferable from God to Man, and the attribute of poverty is not transferable from Man to God.
All the Ṣúfí Shaykhs and most of the vulgar prefer poverty to wealth for the reason that the Koran and the Sunna expressly declare it to be superior, and herein the majority of Moslems are agreed. I find, among the anecdotes which I have read, that on one occasion this question was discussed by Junayd and Ibn `Aṭá. The latter maintained the superiority of the rich. He argued that at the Resurrection they would be called to account for their wealth, and that such an account (ḥisáb) entails the hearing of the Divine Word, without any mediation, in the form of reproach (`itáb): and reproach is addressed by the Beloved to the lover. Junayd answered: “If He will call the rich to account, He will ask the poor for their excuse; and asking an excuse is better than calling to account.” This is a very subtle point. In true love excuse is “otherness” (bégánagí) and reproach is contrary to unity (yagánagí). Lovers regard both these things as a blemish, because excuse is made for some disobedience to the command of the Beloved and reproach is made on the same score; but both are impossible in true love, for then neither does the Beloved require an expiation from the lover nor does the lover neglect to perform the will of the Beloved.
Every man is “poor”, even though he be a prince. Essentially the wealth of Solomon and the poverty of Solomon are one. God said to Job in the extremity of his patience, and likewise to Solomon in the plenitude of his dominion: “Good servant that thou art!”[[29]] When God’s pleasure was accomplished, it made no difference between the poverty and the wealth of Solomon.
The author says: “I have heard that Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí—God have mercy on him!—said: ‘People have spoken much concerning poverty and wealth, and have chosen one or the other for themselves, but I choose whichever state God chooses for me and keeps me in; if He keeps me rich I will not be forgetful, and if He wishes me to be poor I will not be covetous and rebellious.’” Therefore, both wealth and poverty are Divine gifts: wealth is corrupted by forgetfulness, poverty by covetousness. Both conceptions are excellent, but they differ in practice. Poverty is the separation of the heart from all but God, and wealth is the preoccupation of the heart with that which does not admit of being qualified. When the heart is cleared (of all except God), poverty is not better than wealth nor is wealth better than poverty. Wealth is abundance of worldly goods and poverty is lack of them: all goods belong to God: when the seeker bids farewell to property, the antithesis disappears and both terms are transcended.
Section.
All the Ṣúfí Shaykhs have spoken on the subject of poverty. I will now cite as many of their sayings as it is possible to include in this book.
One of the moderns says: Laysa ´l-faqír man khalá min al-zád: innama ´l-faqír man khalá min al-murád, “The poor man is not he whose hand is empty of provisions, but he whose nature is empty of desires.” For example, if God gives him money and he desires to keep it, then he is rich; and if he desires to renounce it, he is rich no less, because poverty consists in ceasing to act on one’s own initiative. Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh al-Rází says: Al-faqr khawf al-faqr, “It is a sign of true poverty that, although one has reached the perfection of saintship and contemplation and self-annihilation, one should always be dreading its decline and departure.” And Ruwaym says: Min na`t al-faqír ḥifṣu sirrihi wa-ṣiyánatu nafsihi wa-adá´u faríḍatihi, “It is characteristic of the poor man that his heart is protected from selfish cares, and that his soul is guarded from contaminations, and that he performs the obligatory duties of religion:” that is to say, his inward meditations do not interfere with his outward acts, nor vice versâ; which is a sign that he has cast off the attributes of mortality. Bishr Ḥáfí says: Afḍal al-maqámát i`tiqád al-ṣabr `ala ´l-faqr ila ´l-qabr, “The best of ‘stations’ is a firm resolution to endure poverty continually.” Now poverty is the annihilation of all “stations”: therefore the resolution to endure poverty is a sign of regarding works and actions as imperfect, and of aspiring to annihilate human attributes. But in its obvious sense this saying pronounces poverty to be superior to wealth, and expresses a determination never to abandon it. Sḥiblí says: Al-faqír man lá yastaghní bi-shay´in dúna ´lláh, “The poor man does not rest content with anything except God,” because he has no other object of desire. The literal meaning is that you will not become rich except by Him, and that when you have gained Him you have become rich. Your being, then, is other than God; and since you cannot gain wealth except by renouncing “other”, your “you-ness” is a veil between you and wealth: when that is removed, you are rich. This saying is very subtle and obscure. In the opinion of advanced spiritualists (ahl-i ḥaqíqat) it means: Al-faqr an lá yustaghná `anhu, “Poverty consists in never being independent of poverty.” This is what the Pír, i.e. Master `Abdalláh Anṣárí[[30]]—may God be well-pleased with him!—meant when he said that our sorrow is everlasting, that our aspiration never reaches its goal, and that our sum (kulliyyat) never becomes non-existent in this world or the next, because for the fruition of anything homogeneity is necessary, but God has no congener, and for turning away from Him forgetfulness is necessary, but the dervish is not forgetful. What an endless task, what a difficult road! The dead (fání) never become living (báqí), so as to be united with Him; the living never become dead, so as to approach His presence. All that His lovers do and suffer is entirely a probation (miḥnat); but in order to console themselves they have invented a fine-sounding phraseology (`ibáratí muzakhraf) and have produced “stations” and “stages” and a “path”. Their symbolic expressions, however, begin and end in themselves, and their “stations” do not rise beyond their own genus, whereas God is exempt from every human attribute and relationship. Abu ´l-Ḥasan Núrí says: Na`t al-faqír al-sukún `inda ´l-`adam wa ´l-badhl `inda ´l-wujúd; and he says also: Al-iḍṭiráb `inda ´l-wujúd, “When he gets nothing he is silent, and when he gets something he regards another person as better entitled to it than himself, and therefore gives it away.” The practice enunciated in this saying is of great importance. There are two meanings: (1) His quiescence when he gets nothing is satisfaction (riḍá), and his liberality when he gets something is love (maḥabbat), because “satisfied” means “accepting a robe of honour” (qábil-i khil`at), and the robe of honour is a token of proximity (qurbat) whereas the lover (muḥibb) rejects the robe of honour inasmuch as it is a token of severance (furqat); and (2) his quiescence when he gets nothing is expectation of getting something, and when he has got it, that “something” is other than God: he cannot be satisfied with anything other than God; therefore he rejects it. Both these meanings are implicit in the saying of the Grand Shaykh, Abu ´l-Qásim Junayd: Al-faqr khuluww al-qalb `an al-ashkál, “When his heart is empty of phenomena he is poor.” Since the existence of phenomena is “other” (than God), rejection is the only course possible. Shiblí says: Al-faqr baḥr al-balá wa-balá´uhu kulluhu `izzun, “Poverty is a sea of trouble, and all troubles for His sake are glorious.” Glory is a portion of “other”. The afflicted are plunged in trouble and know nothing of glory, until they forget their trouble and regard the Author thereof. Then their trouble is changed into glory, and their glory into a spiritual state (waqt), and their spiritual state into love, and their love into contemplation, so that finally the brain of the aspirant becomes wholly a centre of vision through the predominance of his imagination: he sees without eye, and hears without ear. Again, it is glorious for a man to bear the burden of trouble laid upon him by his Beloved, for in truth misfortune is glory, and prosperity is humiliation. Glory is that which makes one present with God, and humiliation is that which makes one absent from God: the affliction of poverty is a sign of “presence”, while the delight of riches is a sign of “absence”. Therefore one should cling to trouble of any description that involves contemplation and intimacy. Junayd says: Yá ma`shar al-fuqará innakum tu`rafúna billáh wa-tukra-múna lilláh fa-´nẕurú kayfa takúnúna ma`a a ´lláh idhá khalawtum bihi, “O ye that are poor, ye are known through God, and are honoured for the sake of God: take heed how ye behave when ye are alone with Him,” i.e. if people call you “poor” and recognize your claim, see that you perform the obligations of the path of poverty; and if they give you another name, inconsistent with what you profess, do not accept it, but fulfil your professions. The basest of men is he who is thought to be devoted to God, but really is not; and the noblest is he who is not thought to be devoted to God, but really is. The former resembles an ignorant physician, who pretends to cure people, but only makes them worse, and when he falls ill himself needs another physician to prescribe for him; and the latter is like one who is not known to be a physician, and does not concern himself with other folk, but employs his skill in order to maintain his own health. One of the moderns has said: Al-faqr `adamun bilá wujúdin, “Poverty is not-being without existence.” To interpret this saying is impossible, because what is non-existent does not admit of being explained. On the surface it would seem that, according to this dictum, poverty is nothing, but such is not the case; the explanations and consensus of the Saints of God are not founded on a principle that is essentially non-existent. The meaning here is not “the not-being of the essence”, but “the not-being of that which contaminates the essence”; and all human attributes are a source of contamination: when that is removed, the result is annihilation of the attributes (faná-yi ṣifat), which deprives the sufferer of the instrument whereby he attains, or fails to attain, his object; but his not-going to the essence (`adam-i rawish ba-`ayn) seems to him annihilation of the essence and casts him into perdition.
I have met with some scholastic philosophers who, failing to understand the drift of this saying, laughed at it and declared it to be nonsense; and also with certain pretenders (to Ṣúfiism) who made nonsense of it and were firmly convinced of its truth, although they had no grasp of the fundamental principle. Both parties are in the wrong: one ignorantly denies the truth, and the other makes ignorance a state (of perfection). Now the expressions “not-being” (`adam) and “annihilation” (faná), as they are used by Ṣúfís, denote the disappearance of a blameworthy instrument (álat-i madhmúm) and disapproved attribute in the course of seeking a praiseworthy attribute; they do not signify the search for non-reality (`adam-i ma`ní) by means of an instrument which exists.