Likewise, if a person is in the circumstances corresponding inwardly to the cases of exemption just mentioned, Friday prayer is not obligatory for him. If he passes away from them through a state that differs from them, Friday prayer becomes obligatory. That is, he is obliged to know what he had not been obliged to know.
Examples are Mary and Āsiyah, who attained the degree of perfection. For them it became incumbent to know both the oneness of the Essence and divine oneness[2], which is the unity of multiplicity.
The sick person corresponds to one who does not affirm causes and does not know their wisdom. He has not attained the station of soundness, since he lacks as much knowledge of God[3] as the rulings of causes afford. Whoever does not receive this knowledge through his state, and would be at risk of impairing his abstraction from causes, is not obliged to join knowledge of the rulings of causes to knowledge of divine oneness apart from them.
(Travel, Beginning, and End)
As for the traveler, his state calls for Friday prayer not to be obligatory for him. He is between the beginning and the end of his course, between “from” and “to.” His state does not allow him to combine “from” and the “to” that requires it. The “from” at issue here is distinct from the one within a “to” leading to another “to,” for “from” has disappeared into that former “to.” Without the second “to” you would not know that the first “to” contains a “from.” Every end has a beginning, and the converse does not hold. Friday prayer is therefore not obligatory for the traveler insofar as he is identified with the first “from.”
The one who holds it obligatory for him instead takes into account the “from” implied by the first “to,” the second “to,”
Notlar
[2]
(The inward application in this paragraph distinguishes the oneness of the Essence from divine oneness as known through the relations of the names. The author uses this distinction to explain the meaning of gathering.)
[3]
(“Since he lacks as much knowledge of God” was read by comparison with the newer edition, and “knowledge of the rulings of causes” was corrected.)
Translator’s note TN1900-1: The discussion treats a journey as a succession of stages. The end of one stage can contain the beginning of the next, even though the initial point alone does not determine an endpoint.
