Taqashsha`a ghaymu ´l-hajri `an qamari ´l-ḥubbi
Wa-asfara núru ´l-ṣubḥi `an ẕulmati ´l-ghaybi.
“The clouds of separation have been cleared away from the moon of love,
And the light of morning has shone forth from the darkness of the Unseen.”
The distinction made by the Shaykhs between these two terms is mystical, and on the surface merely verbal, for they seem to be approximately the same. To be present with God is to be absent from one’s self—what is the difference?—and one who is not absent from himself is not present with God. Thus, forasmuch as the impatience of Job in his affliction did not proceed from himself, but on the contrary he was then absent from himself, God did not distinguish his impatience from patience, and when he cried, “Evil hath befallen me” (Kor. xxi, 83), God said, “Verily, he was patient.” This is evidently a judgment founded on the essential nature of the case (ḥukm ba-`ayn). It is related that Junayd said: “For a time I was such that the inhabitants of heaven and earth wept over my bewilderment (ḥayrat); then, again, I became such that I wept over their absence (ghaybat); and now my state is such that I have no knowledge either of them or of myself.” This is an excellent indication of “presence”.
I have briefly explained the meaning of “presence” and “absence” in order that you may be acquainted with the doctrine of the Khafífís, and may also know in what sense these terms are used by the Ṣúfís.
10. Sayyárís.
They are the followers of Abu ´l-`Abbás Sayyárí, the Imám of Merv. He was learned in all the sciences and associated with Abú Bakr Wásiṭí. At the present day he has numerous followers in Nasá and Merv. His school of Ṣúfiism is the only one that has kept its original doctrine unchanged, and the cause of this fact is that Nasá and Merv have never been without some person who acknowledged his authority and took care that his followers should maintain the doctrine of their founder. The Sayyárís of Nasá carried on a discussion with those of Merv by means of letters, and I have seen part of this correspondence at Merv; it is very fine. Their expositions are based on “union” (jam`) and “separation” (tafriqa). These words are common to all scientists and are employed by specialists in every branch of learning as a means of rendering their explanations intelligible, but they bear different meanings in each case. Thus, in arithmetic jam` denotes the addition and tafriqa the subtraction of numbers; in grammar jam` is the agreement of words in derivation, while tafriqa is the difference in meaning; in law jam` is analogy (qiyás) and tafriqa the characteristics of an authoritative text (ṣifát-i nuṣṣ), or jam` is the text and tafriqa the analogy; in divinity jam` denotes the essential and tafriqa the formal attributes of God.[[130]] But the Ṣúfís do not use these terms in any of the significations which I have mentioned. Now, therefore, I will explain the meaning attached to them by the Ṣúfís and the various opinions of the Shaykhs on this subject.
Discourse on Union (jam`) and Separation (tafriqa).
God united all mankind in His call, as He says, “And God calls to the abode of peace”; then He separated them in respect of Divine guidance, and said, “and guides whom He willeth into the right way” (Kor. x, 26). He called them all, and banished some in accordance with the manifestation of His will; He united them all and gave a command, and then separated them, rejecting some and leaving them without succour, but accepting others and granting to them Divine aid; then once more he united a certain number and separated them, giving to some immunity from sin and to others a propensity towards evil. Accordingly the real mystery of union is the knowledge and will of God, while separation is the manifestation of that which He commands and forbids: e.g., He commanded Abraham to behead Ishmael, but willed that he should not do so; and He commanded Iblís to worship Adam, but willed the contrary; and He commanded Adam not to eat the corn, but willed that he should eat it; and so forth. Union is that which He unites by His attributes, and separation is that which He separates by His acts. All this involves cessation of human volition and affirmation of the Divine will so as to exclude all personal initiative. As regards what has been said on the subject of union and separation, all the Sunnís, except the Mu`tazilites, are in agreement with the Ṣúfí Shaykhs, but at this point they begin to diverge, some applying the terms in question to the Divine Unity (tawḥíd), some to the Divine attributes, and some to the Divine acts. Those who refer to the Divine Unity say that there are two degrees of union, one in the attributes of God and the other in the attributes of Man. The former is the mystery of Unification (tawḥíd), in which human actions have no part whatever; the latter denotes acknowledgment of the Divine Unity with sincere conviction and unfailing resolution. This is the opinion of Abú `Alí Rúdbárí. Those, again, who refer these terms to the Divine attributes say that union is an attribute of God, and separation an act of God in which Man does not co-operate, because God has no rival in Godhead. Therefore union can be referred only to His substance and attributes, for union is equality in the fundamental matter (al-taswiyat fi ´l-aṣl), and no two things are equal in respect of eternity except His substance and His attributes, which, when they are separated by expository analysis (`ibárat ú tafṣíl), are not united. This means that God has eternal attributes, which are peculiar to Him and subsist through Him; and that He and His attributes are not two, for His Unity does not admit difference and number. On this ground, union is impossible except in the sense indicated above.