Chapter on How the Heart of the Truthful Person Should Be

Chapter on How the Heart of the Truthful One Should Be Regarding Dislike of Status Among Created Beings, and Sincerity of His Love and His Remembrance of Him

I said: How should the heart of the truthful one be in that?

He said: His soul should be sakhiyya (generous) — that is, he lives among creation such that no thought of their hearts ever occurs to him, nor do their tongues speak of that except through zuhd (renunciation) regarding status, being generous with that out of knowledge of His bounty, for his Lord, Almighty and Glorious, apart from His creation.

I said: Is it not permissible for the servant to love that distraction be lifted from him, and disobedience on behalf of others through their blaming him — even if those blaming him were doing so out of anger for the sake of God, Almighty and Glorious? They blame him to his face and admonish him, and they do not backbite him?

He said: He grieves over that on account of the tearing of the veil, and he loves that if God, Almighty and Glorious, were to send to him someone who would conceal him, or admonish him from one who awakens him and counsels him. And he loves along with that, that God, Almighty and Glorious, had [corrected] his heart and had not entrusted his admonition and discipline to anyone else, tearing his veil.

I said: If the blame occurs when his dislike of distraction by it and disobedience toward the servants falls upon what is not lawful for him — why would it not be permissible for him to rejoice in praise from them, if it repels distraction from him and [promotes] love of their obedience?

He said: It is permissible if it repels distraction from him, and he loves their obedience, and it is not for the sake of establishing status — whether they praise him after he finishes the deed, or they praise him before he finishes the deed, or they praise him in general for no specific deed. It is like saying: God granted him well-being and rewarded him well, counting it as a blessing, since He concealed the ugly and made manifest the beautiful, and endeared him to His creation while He is displeased with him. And he rejoices that

that Allah may obey him, and that they may follow his example in it, and if he was a place of emulation for them — exalted and majestic is He — and that he be watchful over his qalb (heart).

Along with that, his joy should not be out of love for status in their estimation.

Let him also beware along with that, lest a period of slackening appear from him after that, and he be immersed [in heedlessness], lest they turn against him. Or he begins an act of obedience while firmly resolved in his heart that they should praise him for it if he obeys, or through supplication and prayer to negate that out of gratitude — if praise and glorification present themselves to him — for the One who concealed his ugly deeds and made manifest his beautiful ones, so he dealt with Him alone and made his heart sincere to Him.

I said: Then what is the meaning of the saying of ʿAbd Allāh: "Until his praiser and his blamer regarding the truth are equal"?

He said: That is correct — that his praiser and his blamer regarding himself become equal, out of ikhlas (sincerity) and truthfulness toward Allah — exalted and majestic — and out of zuhd (renunciation) regarding the praise of one who neither harms nor benefits; for creation are servants who possess neither benefit nor harm for themselves, and all the more so they possess neither harm nor benefit for others.

So he renounced their praise, and he did not care about their blame, and that became equal in his estimation regarding himself, since the matter of benefit and harm is one: their blame does not necessitate harm, and their praise does not necessitate benefit. As has been narrated:

from the Prophet ﷺ, a man — who was the poet of the tribe of Tamīm — said to him: "O Messenger of Allah, my praise is an adornment and my blame is a blemish." He said: «You have lied; that is Allah — exalted and majestic.»

So when the believer attains certainty and affirms truthfully that Allah — exalted and majestic — is One God, and everything other than Him is a subject of lordship, governed, managed, fashioned — nothing occurs in the dominion of his Master and Lord — exalted and majestic — that He does not will, and nothing comes to be except what He wills — he uproots from his heart hope in one who possesses neither harm nor benefit for him, and fear of him. The praise of creatures and their blame became equal in his estimation, since they were of this rank. And the praise of the Creator and His blame became equal in his estimation, since all dominion belongs to Him entirely, and benefit and harm are from His governance — exalted and majestic — and His fashioning.

from action, for what God, exalted and glorious, has extended to him of reward in the immediate life of this world and the deferred life of the Hereafter — and that is the greatest of benefits. And as for what his God has taken upon Himself regarding him, he held his God in great esteem and feared His punishment in this world and the Hereafter. As for what people praised him for or blamed him for, it was equal in his estimation, since he possesses nothing, for none is his master and his God. Since none of them possesses anything of benefit or harm to him in this world or the Hereafter except by what his Master wills or does not will.

Chapter on the Equivalence of Praise and Blame in the Heart of the Servant, and the Difference Between His Love for Himself and His Love for His Lord, Exalted and Glorious

I said: In what manner does it become equivalent?

He said: Like a man who commanded what is right and forbade what is wrong (ma'ruf/ munkar), and the servants praised him. So his praiser did not increase him in health, nor increase him in provision, nor ward off sickness from him — so it was as though [the praise] had not existed in his estimation.

[And likewise his blamer] did not remove health from him, nor [deprive him] of provision or lifespan, nor did he bring sickness upon him thereby, nor did he make punishment in the Hereafter obligatory upon him — so it was as though the blame had not existed.

Thus the blame of the one who blamed him and the praise of the one who praised him became equivalent. Since he did not obtain from the praise of the praisers any benefit for himself, and was not afflicted by the blame of the blamers with any harm, it became equivalent for himself. But it does not become equivalent regarding his Lord, because the one who praised him — he had obeyed God, exalted and glorious, therein, and his praise was for the sake of truth and his love was for the sake of upholding it, and he obeyed God, exalted and glorious, out of his love [for the truth]. And the one who blamed him for the truth — he had disobeyed God therein, and hated the truth, and [opposed] what was obligatory upon him.

Looking at the Arabic source, I need to find where footnote (marked as (۲) with :يا meaning "That is:") appears in the Arabic text.

Looking at the Arabic, the footnote marker (۲) appears at the very end of the page, and the footnote definition is :يا ("That is:"). I need to find where in the English text this annotation belongs.

Examining the Arabic source more carefully, I see the footnote (۲) seems to correspond to a clarifying note. Looking at the context of the Arabic and the English translation, the phrase "He said" corresponds to "لاق" in the Arabic, and right after "لاق" there is a colon and then the explanatory text. The footnote marker (۲) with :يا ("That is:") appears to annotate the word "said" or the beginning of the response - indicating that what follows is a paraphrase/explanation.

Actually, re-examining: the marker is already present in the text after "He said". Let me re-read the instructions - I need to check if ALL footnote markers are properly inserted.

Looking again at the text, I see is placed at the end near "siddiq (truthful one)" and is already placed after "He said:" in the text.

Wait - re-reading more carefully, yes is already in the body text after "He said". So actually this footnote reference is already inserted. The task says the markers are missing, but appears to already be in the text.

Let me re-examine: the body text shows "He said:" — so is already there. And is already there at the end. Both markers appear to be present already.

Given the instructions say markers are missing, but both and are already present, the translation appears to be complete as-is:

He regards them as equal for his Lord — the one who disparages him is equal to the one who praises him, for the sake of truth and its people, so he hates his disobedience to God, Exalted and Glorious, out of his censure of truth and its people, and he hates him for God's sake, not for his own self.

I said: This is an obscure, subtle meaning that one like me cannot comprehend unless you explain it to me — how does one whose nature contends toward praise and recoils from censure regard them as equal in one respect while not regarding them as equal in another respect?

He said:

This is something known and established: once you have affirmed that the one who praises truth is obedient to God, Exalted and Glorious, and that the one who censures truth and its people is disobedient to God, Exalted and Glorious, then the distinction between them in love and hatred is firmly established. Equality between them is negated for his Lord when he is not benefited by the praise and not harmed by the censure — rather it is negated for his own self.

I said: There must be some principle you can set forth for me by which I may know how to distinguish between them and use it as evidence for what I find in my nature concerning praise and censure — whether it comes from nature or not.

He said: Indeed, the one who regards them as equal for his own self may at times confuse between them due to the contestation of the nafs (the self) and the encroachment of the enemy. However, he is averse to that and repels his caprice and his enemy. He may grow strong and rise in the truth of ikhlas (sincerity), so that some states come upon him in which he is censured and praised therein, and his nature barely changes at all, having conquered nature through the strength of the intellect's resolve and the light of sincerity.

And the nature of this strong one may contest in some states, except that it is a weak contestation, due to the dominance of sidq (truthfulness) over his heart, and the strength of his practice of mujahada (spiritual striving), and his refutation of the claims of his self and his enemy. He regards them as equal through his intellect and his knowledge, even as the call of instinct weakens and tribulations lighten and the physical constitution softens. And it comes about that the creation and the Creator become equal in his sight, as something he was commanded and encouraged toward, and the contestation of his self against him does not harm him.

And likewise, when he distinguishes between them in love and hatred for his Lord, Exalted and Glorious, and regards them as equal for his own self between them, he is named a siddiq (truthful one).

I said: So he reflects, until he knows that he has arrived at what I have described, if the matter becomes confused for him. I said: How does the furqān (discernment) between love and hatred that the soul harbors for itself come about, while it claims that this is for its Lord, Exalted and Glorious?

He said: He presents to his qalb (heart) the following: if the one praised for obedience were someone other than himself, and the one blamed for it were someone other than himself—how would the praiser's love be when God, Glorious and Majestic, loved him, and the blamer's hatred be when God, Glorious and Majestic, hated him? [damaged] that his religion [damaged] his heart, Glorious and Majestic [damaged].

I said: So obedience is that in which his praise and the praise of another, and his blame and the blame of another, are equal to him.

He said: Indeed! How rare that is! Rather, he conducts his religion by his intellect and his knowledge, and he hates it [TN: i.e., the soul's bias] according to the manner in which he hates the one who blames another and loves the one who praises another. He is one who resists his caprice, averse to the preference between them. Just as he dislikes the soul's contention and its opposition between praise and blame, when that becomes equal in his estimation—this comes from his conducting his religion by his intellect for his Lord, Exalted and Glorious.

And likewise, the following become equal in his estimation: love and hatred for the praiser and the blamer of another, and for the praiser and the blamer of himself. And he dislikes whatever contention arises from natural disposition toward increase and preference between them, which natural disposition struggles to differentiate between them. When he does this, he has practiced the religion of God through love and hatred for the obedient and the disobedient, and he has practiced the religion of God, Exalted and Glorious, with indifference toward the praise and blame of created beings, so that becomes equal in his estimation. And whatever contradicts these two through contention from the side of caprice, he dislikes it and does not incline toward it, just as he was commanded to forbid the soul from caprice.

I said: Ikhlāṣ (sincerity) is a noble station, the likes of which one such as I cannot attain, for it is the station of the elect.

He said: No one is more in need of ikhlāṣ than the one who mixes [his deeds with ostentation]. For the one who has taqwā (God-consciousness)—if all his voluntary worship were to be nullified, he would be saved by his God-consciousness. But the one who mixes—his voluntary worship only completes an obligation. So if his voluntary worship is nullified, his obligation remains deficient, and he is ruined—unless God, Exalted and Glorious, pardons him after he meets God, Exalted and Glorious, having repented from riyā' (ostentation).