“The purport of a picture is, that it may remain after me,
As I do not see my existence lasting.”
Thus, by the aid of the generous King, was brought to a conclusion the printing of this work, entitled Dabistán al Mazáheb, “the school of sects,” in the month of October of the year 1809, since the Messiah’s being carried to heaven,[270] the prophet, upon whom be the blessing (of heaven), which corresponds to the sacred month of Zí ’l Kâdah, “the penultimate month of the Muhammedans,” of the year 1224 of the Hejira of Muhammed, upon whom be the most excellent blessings and veneration, as well as upon his family and companions. Glory to God for his benefits! at the final conclusion.
[252] Darashiko was the eldest son and heir presumptive of Shah-Jehan, of Delhi, during whose life he defended him against the rebellion of his younger brother, Aureng-zeb, who, leagued with two other brothers, attempted to dethrone his father. Dara, having been defeated in a battle on the river Jambul, retired towards Lahore, whilst the victorious Aureng-zeb proceeded to Agra, and by stratagem rendered himself master of his father’s person, and imprisoned his brother Murad bakhsh, whom he had, till then, treated as emperor, in the castle of Agra, where the captive prince died. Proclaimed emperor under the title of Aalemgir, the new sovereign now turned his arms against Dara, who was in possession of the Panj-ab, Multan, and Kabul, and defended the line of the Setlej. Here beaten, Dara retired beyond the Indus, and took refuge in the mountains of Bikker. Aalumgir was called to Allahabad, to encounter his brother Suja, who had moved from Bengal to assert his right to the throne. Aalemgir had scarce repulsed him, when he was obliged to haste towards Guzerat: there was Dara, who had recrossed the Indus and taken an advantageous position in that maritime province. He might have been victorious in a battle, but he succumbed to the artfulness of Aalemgir. Deserted by his army, abandoned by his allies, he was delivered up by traitors to his cruel brother, subjected to an ignominious exposition in the streets of Delhi, and executed. Suja, Alemgir’s last brother was obliged to fly to Arrakan, where he died, seven years before his father, Shah Jehan, who died his son’s prisoner, in 1665. I have related the principal events of one single year, 1658 of our era. This is a date in the life of the author of the Dabistán, then in his fortieth year or thereabout. He was before this time in the Panjab, and might have personally known Darashuko, who was renowned for his great learning and most religious turn of mind. Besides what is said above in our text, we know (see Mémoires sur les particularités de la Religion musulmane, par M. Garcin de Tassy, p. 107), that Dara frequented Baba Lal, a Hindu Durvish, who inhabited Dhianpur in the province of Lahore, and conversed with him upon religious matters. The Munshi Shanderban Shah Jehani wrote a Persian work, which contains the pious conversations of these personages.
[253] These are evidently sentiments conducive to progressive civilization and perfection of mankind, and prove that, in Asia, even under the domination of the Muhammedan religion, men felt that they are not doomed to be stationary; thus the absurd dogma of fatality was, by a fortunate inconsistency, counterbalanced by the dictates of sound reason. Unfortunately, our author, generally so liberal-minded, appears upon that point not to range himself upon the most rational side.
[255] Koran, chap. VIII. v. 17. We have mentioned (p. 100, [note 2]) Muhammed’s victory gained at Bedr over a superior force of the Koreish. The prophet, by the direction of the angel Gabriel, took a handful of gravel, and threw it towards the enemy, saying: “May their faces be confounded:” whereupon they immediately turned their backs and fled. Hence the above passage is also rendered: “Neither didst thou, O Muhammed! cast the gravel into their eyes, when thou didst seem to cast it, but God cast it.”
[256] The assumption of being God was not uncommon among the Súfis. One of the most distinguished was Hassain Manśur Hallaj, a disciple of Joneid. After having taught the most exalted mysticism, in several countries, Hallaj was condemned to death in Baghdad, according to Ben Shohnah on account of a point of his doctrine concerning the pilgrimage to Mecca, for which he thought some other good works might be justly substituted, according to Sheheristáni and others, on account of having proclaimed himself to be God. During the infliction of one thousand stripes, followed by a gradual dismemberment of his whole body, he never ceased, by words and acts, to give demonstrations of the most extatic joy. The manner of his death is variously related.—(See Herbelot, and Taskirat al aulia, by Farid-eddin in Tholuck’s Blüthen sammlung aus morgenländischer Mystik, S. 311-327). Abu Yezid Bastami (before mentioned, p. 229, [note]) also used to salute himself as God. “Agriculturists,” says Ghazali, “left their fields and assumed such a character; nature is delighted with speeches which permit works to be neglected, under the illusion of purifying the heart by the attainment of certain degrees and qualities.” This opinion produced great evils, “so that,” adds the said author in his indignation, “to put to death the lowest of those who set forth such futile pretensions, is more consistent with God’s religion than to preserve the life of ten persons.” —(See Pocock, first edit., pp. 268-269.)
[257] As long as the Sufi is conscious of the least distinction between God and himself, he is not thoroughly penetrated by the unity of God. Here follows the translation of a passage taken from the Masnavi of the celebrated Jelal eddin Rumi, which passage, we may agree with Silvestre de Sacy, admirably expresses this mystic doctrine in the form of an apologue: “A man knocked at the door of his friend. The latter asked: ‘Who art thou, my dear?’—‘It is I.’—‘In this case, be off; I cannot at present receive thee; there is no place at my board for one who is still raw; such a man cannot be sufficiently dressed (that is matured) and cured of hypocrisy, but by the fire of separation and refusal.’ The unfortunate man departed. He employed a whole year in travelling, consuming himself in the flames of desire and affliction, caused by the absence of his friend. Matured and perfected by his long trial, he again approached the door of his friend and knocked modestly, fearful that an uncivil word might again fall from his own lips.—‘Who is there?’ was asked from the interior of the house.’—‘Dear friend, it is thyself who art at the door.’—‘Because it is myself, enter to-day; this house can contain no other than I.’”—(See Notices et Extraits des MSS., vol. XII. pp. 430-431, note 4).
[258] The words between asterisks are not joined in the text to the verses; they seem nevertheless to belong to them, although not in the metre of the other lines.