Abu ʿImran wept and said to me, “My beloved, what Abu al-ʿAbbas directed you toward is the Real, and to Him is the return. Each of us directed you toward what his state requires. I hope, God willing, that He will bring me to the station Abu al-ʿAbbas indicated. Listen to him, for he has a greater claim upon both me and you.”
How fine is the fairness of these people! I returned to Abu al-ʿAbbas and told him what Abu ʿImran had said. He said to me, “He spoke well. He directed you to the path, and I directed you to the Companion. Act upon what he told you and what I told you, combining the Companion and the path.”
Whoever does not accompany the Real in his journey has no clear evidence of safety within it. Whoever practises scrupulousness without a sign from God within things, where there is no specific ruling in that matter through observing particular conduct at that time that requires prohibition or doubt, is deceived in this scrupulousness and cut off from God. His state is thinking ill of God’s servants, his inward self is dark, and his character bad. He and ‘no thing’ fall under one ruling; indeed, ‘no thing’ is better than he is.
One should therefore take care, when wishing to be scrupulous as God requires, to verify and possess insight concerning what one scrupulously avoids. This is little known to someone with no sign. If someone sees a person contravening a prescribed right, leaves him for a moment, then sees him in the next moment[48] and judges him according to his first state, he has not given divinity its due or courtesy with God its due, and becomes
Notes
[48]
(The repeated “in,” fi, was deleted by comparison with the newer edition.)
Translator’s note TN4016-1: The path and Companion are tariq and rafiq, a paired sound and meaning contrast. The comparison with nothingness emphasizes the censure of scrupulousness based on suspicion. The final example denies that an earlier observed contravention warrants simply carrying the same judgement into a later moment; it continues on the next page.
