Al-Ghazzali on repentance m. S. Stern distributed By apt books, inc

Some people said that this repentance is not valid, while others have said that it is. Validity, in this context, is a vague expression. We would say to one who holds it to be invalid: If you mean by this that his absten­tion from certain sins is of no avail at all, that its incidence amounts to the same as its absence, then great indeed is your error. We know that a maximum of sin causes a maximum of punishment, and that a minimum of sin leads to a minimum of punishment. To one who asserts the validity [of such repentance] we say: If you mean thereby that renun­

ciation of some sins is necessarily accepted and will lead to salvation

or bliss, this, also, is an error. Salvation and bliss come with total absten­

tion from sin. Such is the direct sense. We are not speaking of the subtle

secrets of divine forgiveness. If he, who takes the position that such

repentance is invalid, says: I mean thereby that repentance amounts to

remorse; man feels remorse for theft, for example, as a transgression

and not as theft per se. It is impossible that he regret it without [regret­

ting also] fornication, so long as his grief is due to sin being a transgres­

sion, for, both have a common cause. A man who grieves over the murder

of his child by sword would also grieve over the child's death by knife, because his grief is due to the death of his beloved, whether by sword or knife. Likewise man grieves over missing his Beloved, which occurs through transgression, be it by theft or fornication. How does he grieve over one but not the other? Remorse is a state brought on by the knowledge that transgression, as such, alienates the Beloved.

It is, therefore, inconceivable that it would be so in the cause of some transgressions and not of others. For, if this were possible, it would be conceivable that one repent drinking wine from one jug but not from another. Yet, such is impossible, for the transgression, in both cases, is one, and the jugs are [merely] circumstantial. In the same way, the particular transgressions are [mere] tools of transgression [per se], while transgression, insofar as it is disobedience, is one and the same.

The meaning, therefore, of the invalidity is that God has promised the penitents a rank, and this rank can be achieved only through remorse, but remorse over [only] some of these identical [sins] is not imaginable. It is like the 'case of a property which is predicated upon offer and accept­ance: if the offer and acceptance do not take place, we say that the con­tract is not valid, i.e., that the result, which is the disposition of property, does not occur. This is confirmed by the fact that the result of mere abstention is the elimination of the punishment for the sin given up. The yield of remorse, however, is the atonement of past sin. Remorse over theft atones but not abstention alone. Remorse can only be conceived [as referring to an act's] being a transgression. This applies to all sin. This is an exposition of the opinion of those who deny the soundness [of partial abstention from sin], and an explanation of the denial. It is a clear opinion, which a fair man examines in detail thereby eliminating

obscurity.⁴¹²

We also assert that repentance of some sins may mean repentance either of major sins without regard for the minor ones, or of minor without regard for the major, or of one major sin rather than another.

96

97

The physician might caution the patient strongly about honey. He might also caution him, to a lesser degree, against sugar, in a manner that the patient will feel that the harm of sugar might never materialize. The patient might then give up, by doctor's order, honey but not sugar. Such a situation is not at all impossible. If he consumed them both, because of his craving, he might regret having consumed the honey but not the sugar.

Secondly, it is possible that the man repent some major sins and not others, due to hi3 belief that some sins of that degree are more severe and vicious [40] in God's eyes. One may renounce murder, robbery, tyranny and injustices to men because he knows that the human record is not neglected, while pardon for acts which are between man and God is readily achieved. Just as there is disparity between major and minor sins, so it is also possible to differentiate among the major sins them­selves, and in the evaluation of the perpetrator. For that reason one might renounce [only] some major sins which are not directed against one's fellow-man. For example, one may renounce wine imbibing but not for­nication, since it becomes clear to him that wine is the key to vice, and that [after consuming the wine] he loses his lucidity, he is apt to commit all sins unknowingly. As wine imbibing is graver in his opinion, a fear is aroused in him which forces him to renounce wine in the future and to regret its consumption in the past.

Thirdly, one may renounce a minor sin or some minor sins while per­sisting in a major sin, with full knowledge of its being a major sin. One may renounce slander, glancing at a woman forbidden, or something of the same order, while persisting in drinking wine. The way this is possible is that any believer is afraid of his sins and more or less regret­ful of having committed them. Yet, the delight from that sin can be

stronger than the heartache brought on by this fear, as factors of ignor­ance and neglect lead to the weakening of the fear, or due to factors which strengthen craving. Contrition exists but it is neither constant nor strong enough to actuate resolution. If, however, he is free from a crav­ing stronger than he, so that he is master of the drives encountered, fear overcomes the craving, conquers it, and it imposes renunciation of that transgression.

Perhaps the voracity of the sinner for wine intensifies and he is not able to endure it. He also has somewhat of a desire for slander and defa­mation of people or for glancing at females. His fear of God has reached the point of taming this weaker drive, although not the stronger one. The element of fear then forces the emergence of determination toward abstention. This sinner, however, says to himself: If Satan vanquishes me through the overpowering desire for some sins, it is not proper that I throw off all restraint or let down the reins totally; rather, I shall fight him in some sins, and perhaps I shall prevail over him, and my victory over him in resisting some sin will be an atonement for some of my sins. Were we not to imagine this we would not be able to conceive of the sinner as praying or fasting. One would have to say to him: 'If your prayer is to other than God, it is of no avail, and if it is to God, renounce your depravity. God's command, in all this, is one. It is inconceivable that your prayer intends to achieve closeness to God so long as you do not draw near through abandonment of depravity.'

It would be absurd that he should say to God: `I am under two com­mandments and, upon disobedience, I face two penalties. I am able to vanquish Satan over one but am failing to do so about the other. I shall vanquish him as far as I can, and I pray that this may atone for some of my failure due to my excessive craving.' But how is such unthink­able when it is the condition of every Muslim? For any Muslim com­bines obedience to God and disobedience for no other reason than this. If one understood this, he would understand that the victory of fear over craving for some sins, is quite possible.

When fear pertains to past action it causes remorse. Remorse, then, induces resolution. The Prophet has said: Remorse is repentance. This does not stipulate contrition of all sin. He said: `One who renounces

a sin is as one who has never sinned.' He did not say: `One who renounces

all sins.' These concepts clarify the wrongness of the assertion that par­

tial repentance is impossible due to the essential similarity of the appe­

tites and the equal exposure to divine wrath.

Yes, it is possible that one renounces drinking wine (kha,nr) and does

98

99

You might ask:

Can an impotent renounce fornication to which he yielded before the incidence of impotence?

I would say:

No. For renunciation means remorse [41 ] which induces the determi­nation to abstain from that action which he is able to commit. But a deed man cannot execute is gone of itself, not as a result of abstention there­-from. I say, however: if, after impotence, illumination and realization occur to him, he is convinced of the harm of fornication to which he yielded, and heartache, remorse and suffering are so aroused in him, that should a desire for coition remain in him, searing remorse would tame and master that desire, I would hope that such would atone for his sin, wipe out his evil deed. For it is beyond doubt that had be repented before the onset of impotence and died following repentance, he would be among the penitents. Even if a situation does not arise in which his craving is stimulated, and in which it can be satisfied, yet, he is penitent in that his contrition has attained such a level as would deflect him from fornication were his desire to surface. It is, therefore, not unthinkable that the strength of contrition should, in the case of an impotent man, reach such a level, albeit while it is not known to himself. Everyone who does not crave for something considers himself capable of renounc­ing it, through minimal fear, while God is aware of his conscience and the measure of his contrition. Perhaps God will accept it from him; nay, it seems He will.

The truth in all this goes back to the fact that the stain of transgression is effaced from upon the heart by two things: 1) the searing contrition and 2) the intensity of the effort to abstain from sin in the future. With the termination of craving, effort ceases. Yet, it is not inconceivable that contrition would wax to such an extent that it obliterates the craving without the inner struggle. If not for this we might say that repentance is not accepted unless the penitent live for a time struggling with that same craving many times after repenting. Yet the literal sense of the Law does not point at- all to such a condition,

You might say:

If we postulated two penitents, one having lost all urge to sin, and the other retaining it while fighting against it and blocking it, which, then, would be the better?

Know, then, that this is subject to difference of opinion among the learned doctors. Ahmad b. Abi al-Hawi ri and the companions of Abu Sulayman ^ad-D5 rani⁴¹⁴ opined: The fighter is better since, in addition to repentance, he has the merit of striving (jihad). The doctors of Basra, however, taught: The other one is the better, for, if he becomes lax in his repentance, he will still be nearer to being faultless than the strug­gler who is liable to relax in his struggle. Each school's tenet contains some truth but fails to encompass the full truth.

The truth of the matter is that one whose urge has been discontinued can be in two [possible] states: firstly, that the discontinuance of the long­ing is due merely to a relaxation in the craving itself. Then the struggler is better than the one in this state inasmuch as his abstention through struggle is indicative of self-control and the conquest of his drives by his faith, which is a trenchant proof of the strength of conviction and belief. By strength of belief I mean the will-power emerging at the direc­tion of certainty, and taming the craving which emerges at the direction of the demons. The struggle decidedly points to these two powers. The statement [of the Basrans] that this one is more secure, since if he is lax he will still not return to sin, is correct, but the use of the term `better', in this context, is a mistake. This is like saying that the impotent is better than the virile for he is secure of the peril of lust, or, that the youth is better than the adult for he is more secure [from sin], or, that the weak­ling is better than the king, who is victorious over his enemies, for the weakling has no enemies while the king, though having been victorious many times, might, sometime, be defeated. These are the words of a man, sound of heart but lacking in understanding of worldly affairs, unaware that glory lies in facing perils and grandeur is conditioned upon

100

101

The second state is to thwart the longing by virtue of the strength of conviction and the sincerity of the preceding struggle as it reaches the point of taming the fury of the craving until it is controlled by the dis­cipline of the Law, so that it is activated only by a directive the faith and, because of the dominance of the faith over it, it lies dormant. This is a higher grade than that of the struggler who endures the fury of desire and of curbing it. The statement that such a person has not the merit of striving (jihad) fails to grasp the goal of striving, as if [42] striving were an end unto itself. But the end is the elimination of the greed of the enemy lest it should drag you into his cravings. If he fails in his effort to involve you, he will not impede you in following the path of religion. Once you have subdued him and attained the goal, you are victorious, while so long as you continue to strive you are yet in the pursuit of vic­tory. Compare one who has vanquished the enemy and enslaved him, as against one who is engaged in fighting on the battle line and does not know how he will fare. Or, take a man who has taught a dog to hunt, has trained the horse, both staying with him⁴¹⁵ after the dog has lost its voracity and the horse its recalcitrance, and compare him with one who is yet engaged in the difficult animal training. Some people have gone astray on this point, and considered that the struggle is, itself, the ultimate goal. They did not grasp that the struggle is conducted in order to get rid of the impediments on the Way. Others, again, considered that the total curbing and elimination of the desires is an end unto itself, so that one tried that,⁴¹⁶ and failed therein. he then said: `This is absurd.' He then rejected the Law, and followed the road of licentious­ness abandoning himself to the pursuit of [his] passions. All of that is ignorance and error, as we have established that in the Book on the Dis­cipline of the Soul in the volume on the Destructive Matters 4¹⁷

Were you to ask:

What do you say of two penitents, one who forgot sin, did not engage in sinful thoughts, and the other who held sin in full view of his eyes, constantly reflecting on it, and then burning in contrition. Which of the two is better?

Know, then, that this is also subject to controversy. One says: `True repentance is that you set your sin before your eyes.' The other says: 'True repentance is to forget your sin.' We consider each school correct but in relation to two [different] situations.

The speech of the mystics is always deficient. Indeed, the usage of each of them is to relate only his own [mystic] experience, another's does not concern him. The answers they give differ, therefore, accord­ing to the variation in [mystic] experiences. This is a shortcoming as regards mood, will and depth, inasmuch as the person in question is limited in view to his own experience, the other's state being of no con­cern to him. For his path is to God Himself and to mystic experiences. Man's path to God may be knowledge. But the paths to God are many, even though they differ as to proximity to or remoteness from God. Though they share divine guidance in common, only God knows who

is the best guided of them.

I maintain:

To muse of the sin, remember it, -and be distressed by it is an accom­plishment in the case of the novice. If he were to forget it, his vexation would not increase nor would his will and urge to follow the Way be strengthened, for then he would be left without the grief and the fear which impedes his reverting to similar sins. For the heedless, this is an accomplishment but for the [mystic] traveler - a deficiency. It is an occupation which prevents from following the Way. The mystic must not swerve from the path, and if he makes progress, and the illumina­tion of gnosis and the shimmering of the mystery is revealed to him, it will engross him, and no scope will remain for attention to previous experiences. This is an accomplishment. But if the traveler to a certain city is hampered on the road by an obstructing river, his trouble, in ford­ing it, is prolonged because he had previously destroyed his bridge. Should he sit on the banks of the river after fording it, and weep, lament­ing his destruction of the bridge, this would constitute an additional hindrance engaging him after coping with the first. Truly, if the time was not right for departure, either because it was night and the going was, therefore, impractical, or because there are rivers on the road, and he is fearful of crossing them, let his weeping and sadness, over the des­truction of the bridge, go on through the night, so that in the prolonging of grief, his determination not to return to such a situation, will be con­firmed. If such admonition has produced in him inner strength not to revert, then it is more appropriate for him to follow the path rather than engage in recounting the destruction of the bridge and weeping over it.

102

This is known only to one who understands the path, the goal, the barrier

and the way to pursue. We have already alluded to this in the Book of

Knowledge's and in the volume on the Destructive Matters of Life 419

We must, however, say that the prerequisite for the constancy of

repentance is that man meditate much on the delights of Paradise to aug­

ment his longing. If, however, he is a youth, he should not ponder and

muse of all that parallels worldly things, such as the heavenly maidens and palaces, for, indeed, such reflections may perhaps stimulate his long­ing, with the result that he will pursue worldly delights rather than the life to come. Nay, he should reflect, solely, on the delight of gazing exclusively at God's countenance, which has no worldly parallel. [43] Thus, even recollection of sin may arouse desire. The novice, then, might be provoked, and, therefore, forgetfulness, in such a case, is preferable.

You should not be dissuaded from believing this inquiry by what you are told of David's weeping and lamentation.⁴²⁰ Drawing an analogy between yourself and the prophets is an utter distortion, because they may have descended, by word and deed, to the levels befitting their peoples to whom they were sent to give guidance, and they must, there­fore, act in a disguise the sight of which may benefit their people, even if it detracts somewhat from the peak of their station. Some masters, whenever they assigned their disciples any type of spiritual exercise, would join them therein, not because they were in need of it after having accomplished their struggle and soul-training, but in order to facilitate the matter for the disciple. This is why the Prophet said: 'I do not forget but I forget to prescribe,'° or, in another version, `but I neglect to prescribe.' Do not wonder at this. Peoples are under the protective wing of the prophets' compassion, as youth stand under the loving wings of their fathers, and as the cattle are under the care of the herdsmen. Have you not seen how a father, when he wishes to talk to his young child, comes down to the child's level of articulation? Thus the Prophet, God bless him, said to Hasan <sup>421</sup> 'Kakh' Kakh!',b when the child took a date, from those assigned to charity, and put it in his mouth. The Prophet did not lack the fluency to say: `Drop that date for it is forbidden.' Yet when he realized that the child would not understand his locution, he aban­doned eloquence and sank to the child's usage. He who teaches an ewe or a bird must make sounds for it, using as a device of instruction chattering or whistling like an animal or bird. Beware lest you neglect such intricacies, the stumbling block of the gnostics, to say nothing of the heedless. We will seek of God, in His tenderness and generosity, good success.

How People differ in the Perseverance of Repentance

Know ye that those who turn unto God in repentance are of four categories.

The first category: the sinner repents and keeps his penitence intact for all his remaining days. He corrects that in which he was remiss, and it does not occur to him to revert to his sins, except for those lapses of habit from which man cannot disengage himself as long as he is not on the level of prophecy. This is integrity of repentance. He who has it goes ahead with good, substituting good deeds for evil. Such repent­ance is called 'sincere repentance.'⁴²² The name of this calm soul, which returns to its Lord well-pleased, well-pleasing⁴²³ is the `serene self. These are the people referred to in the Prophet's statement: `The soli­tary who are totally devoted to the invocation of God, the invocation frees them of their burden so that they appear at Judgement light [of the burden of sins].'C Indeed, in this lies an indication that they were oppressed by burdens which the invocation of God removed from them. The people of this class are at [various] levels with respect to their lean­ing towards appetites: from the penitent, whose desires subsided under the domination of gnosis, upon whom their pressure abated, and who follows the Way undisturbed by fighting them; to the one who inces­santly is struggling with the soul but is able to contend with it and deter it.

The differentiation also pertains to the levels of struggle as regards quantity, duration and type. Men differ also as regards the length of lifespan. One is grabbed, dying soon after his repentance, and is glad­dened by that for his escape and death before debility. Another is granted time, continues a long strife and endurance, his integrity continuous and his good deeds multiplying. The state of this one is higher and better since every evil is wiped out by a good deed. A scholar said: `The sin, which the offender committed, is atoned even when it overcomes man ten times as true desire, yet he renounces it, breaking his lust in fear of God.' However, it would be far-fetched to stipulate this, though the great impact of such a rule if imposed is undeniable. However, the weak disciple should not follow this path lest the appetites be aroused, the cir­cumstances brought on for the sin to overcome man, but when he aspires to desist, he may not be able to escape the reins of desire [44] at will. Consequently he will proceed with the sin and he will break his repent­ance. Rather, the path of repentance is to flee from the outset elements favouring sin, thus barring to man the paths of sin. At the same time, he will seek to conquer his lust as far as possible. Thereby his repent­ance will be safe from the outset.

104

105

This is also a high rank albeit inferior to the first class. It is the most frequent state of repentants, as evil is so kneaded into human substance, that rarely is man free from it. Yet, the goal of man's effort is that the good in him should prevail over the evil, so that the balance of good deeds will be heavier and favour his record. But it is extremely rare that the balance of evil deeds would be altogether void. Men of this class hold the good promise from God as He said: THOSE WHO AVOID THE HEINOUS SINS AND INDECENCIES, SAVE LESSER OFFENSES - SURELY THY LORD IS WIDE IN HIS FORGIVE­NESS4²⁵ As each lesser offense results in a minor sin, without man being reconciled to it, it is proper that it be among those lesser offenses which are forgiven. God said: AND WHO, WHEN THEY COMMIT AN INDECENCY OR WRONG THEMSELVES, REMEMBER GOD AND PRAY FORGIVENESS FOR THEIR SINS ... THEIR RECOM­PENSE IS FORGIVENESS .. 4²⁶ Because of their regret and self censure, God commends them in spite of their wronging themselves.

To men of this grade refers the Prophet's saying, one related on his authority by 'Ali: `The best of you are all those who are subject to temp­tation and are contrite.'° Another tradition puts it thus: `The believer is like a spike of grain, at times he recovers, and at times he is swayed.'b Also: 'It is unavoidable that the believer sin, from time to time.' All these passages prove decisively that this measure [of minor infractions] does not invalidate repentance, and does not put the per­petrator in the category of the persistent sinners. To deprive a man of this kind of hope to reach the level of the penitent, is to act like the phy­sician who induces a healthy person to despair of remaining healthy if he partakes of fruit and hot dishes from time to time, though not persis­tently and continuously; or like the fagih who induces in the student of fiqh - a despair of ever attaining the degree of a fagih, all because, at rare and not prolonged intervals, he may be lax in repetition and let

up taking notes. This points out the fault of the physician and the fagih. On the contrary, a [real] religious scholar is he who does not induce people to despair of attaining the grades of felicity because of temporary failures and the yielding to fleeting seizures of evil. The Prophet said: `All human beings are sinners, and the best of the sinners are the peni­tent.'° He also said: `Brittle and patchy is the believer; the best is he who dies on his patch. That means: brittle because of his sins, patchy in repentance and contrition.'⁴²⁷ God has said: THESE SHALL BE GIVEN THEIR WAGE TWICE OVER FOR THAT THEY PATIENTLY ENDURED, AND AVERT EVIL WITH GOOD ⁴²⁸ But He has not described them as totally devoid of evil.

The third category is that of one who repents and, for awhile, persists in uprightness. Then, the appetites involve him in some sins, and una­ble to curb the desire he commits them with intent and premeditation. Yet, along with that, he persists in acts of obedience and avoids some sins despite drive and opportunity [to commit them]. But as this desire or two may overcome him, he wishes only that God enable him to curb it and that He protect him from its evil. Such is his aspiration as he satis­fies the desire, but in the end he is contrite and says: Would that I had not done it; I will repent it and strive [45] to subdue it. But, he is tempted and puts off repentance, time after time, day after day. This soul is called, `the tempted soul.'⁴²⁹ About such people God said: AND OTHERS HAVE CONFESSED THEIR SINS; THEY HAVE MIXED A RIGHT­EOUS DEED WITH ANOTHER EVIL 430

On account of his assiduity in obedience and his aversion to the sins he perpetrates, his case is hopeful. Perhaps God will turn unto him. Yet, his end is perilous because of his procrastination and postponement. Perhaps, then, he will be snatched before the repentance, and his case will come under [God's] pleasure. If God, in His generosity, corrects him, cures his defect and grants him repentance, he will join the preceding categories. If, however, his misfortune overcomes and his desire over­takes him, then it may be feared that, in the end, he will deserve, for eternity, what divine speech predestined for him (i.e., hellfire). Whenever it is, for example, impossible for the student to avoid the distractions from learning, this difficulty indicates that he is predestined to be an ignoramus, and hope, in his case, becomes weak. When, on the other hand, diligence facilitates learning, it indicates that he was predestined to be one of the learned. Similarly the relation of the joys and attain­ments of the hereafter to good and bad deeds, according to divine preor­dination, is like the relation of sickness and health to the consumption

106

107

The fourth category is that of the penitent who proceeds, for a time, in uprightness but then reverts to the temptation of sin or sins without admonishing his soul to repent and without regret for his action. Rather, he becomes absorbed heedlessly in following his appetites. Such a per­son is among those who persist in sin. Such a soul is the soul which incites to evil and flees from good ⁴³² Therefore the evil end may be feared, and his affair is in God's pleasure. If he is destined for an evil end, he suffers endless misery; if he is destined for the reward most fair,⁴³³ so that he dies a monotheist, then deliverance from hellfire can be expected for him, at least after some time. Possibly he will be included in the broad pardon because of a hidden inscrutable cause; just as it is not impossible for a man to enter a ruin to find a treasure, and quite accidentally, find it; or to sit at home and be made learned by God without study, as it happened to the prophets. Seeking forgiveness through acts of obedience is like searching for knowledge through effort and repeti­tion, or like seeking wealth through trade and travel. Seeking forgive­ness, however, through sheer hope, despite corrupt acts, is like seeking treasures in ruins or knowledge from angelic instruction. If only the one

who worked hard could learn! If only the one who traded would gain wealth! If only one who fasted and prayed would be forgiven!

All men are deprived [of ultimate happiness] except those who know. Those who know are all debarred except those who act. Those who act are all precluded except for the righteous, and the righteous are in great peril. Just as one destroyed his house, squandered his wealth, and left himself and his dependents hungry, is considered, by the sensible, as an ignorant and deluded man when he asserts that he anticipates God's generosity in providing for him a treasure to be found under his destroyed home (even though it is riot beyond God's power and generosity), so, one who expects pardon [46] from God's generosity, while he is negli­gent in obedience, persisting in sin, and not treading the path of for­giveness, is considered, by sensible people, as demented. One can only be astonished at the reasoning of this idiot and his propagating his fool­ishness in a nice form when he says: `God is generous, His paradise is not too narrow for one like me, nor does my sin injure Him.' Then you see him traveling overseas and hurtling perils<sup>434</sup> in search of dinars. Should he be told: `Indeed God is generous, the dinars of His treasury do not fall short of your need, and your indolence in abandoning com­merce will not harm you; sit, then, in your home and perhaps He will provide for you in an unanticipated manner,' he would consider the speaker stupid and would mock him. He would say: `What is this non­sense? The heavens do not rain gold and silver. That must be earned. Thus God ordained it, and set His process in motion. God's usage (sunna) is immutable.' Fool that he is, he does not grasp that the Master of the hereafter and the Master of this life is one and the same, and that His usage in both worlds does not vary. This was announced when God said: AND THAT A MAN SHALL HAVE TO HIS ACCOUNT ONLY AS HE HAS LABOURED4³⁵ How, then, can the man believe that God is generous in the hereafter but not so in this life? How can he say that laxity in acquiring wealth is not a requisite of divine generosity while laxity in works for [attaining] abiding possession and eternal felicity is such a requisite, and, further, that God, by virtue of generosity, will give him in the hereafter without [human] effort, but usually will hold back, despite man's effort, in this world? He forgets God's word: AND IN HEAVEN IS YOUR PROVISION, AND THAT YOU ARE PROMISED ⁴³⁶ God save us from blindness and going astray. This is nothing save standing on one's head and immersion in the darkness of ignorance. To such a man may apply the divine word: AH, IF THOU COULDST SEE THE GUILTY HANGING THEIR HEADS BEFORE

108

109

Know, that repentance, contrition and action toward atonement through good deeds to.counter the sin, as we have mentioned, are encumbent upon him. If the soul, because of the triumph of desire, does not assist toward the resolution to abstain, then he has failed in one of the two imperatives. he should not, however, abandon the second which is to ward off the evil deed with a good one so as to obliterate the former, that he may be of those who blend a righteous deed with an evil one. The good deeds which atone evil, are through the heart, the tongue or the limbs. Let the good deed stand in the stead of the evil with its ramifi­cations.

In his heart let him atone by entreating God for pardon and forgive­ness, and by humbling himself with the self-abasement, of the fugitive slave. His humiliation should be manifest to others in reducing his rank among them. The sinful fugitive has nothing to be proud of among other people. Likewise, he should harbour in his heart benevolence toward Muslims, and the resolve to perform the acts of obedience.

His tongue should confess the offense and ask for forgiveness by say­ing: 'My Lord, I have stained my soul and have done evil, forgive my sins.' Thus he should multiply the kinds of apology that we have cited in the Book on Invocations and Supplications 439

The limbs should be engaged in acts of obedience, charity and vari­ous acts of worship. Some sayings of the Companions indicated that pardon of sin may be expected if the sin is followed by eight acts. Four are acts of the heart: repentance or resolution to repent, wish to desist from sin, fear of sin's punishment, and desire of forgiveness. Four are acts of the limbs: that following sin you should pray two rak'as,⁴⁴⁰ then seek God's forgiveness after them⁴⁴¹ saying seventy times: 'Praised by Almighty God,' praising Him even a hundred times; then you give alms, then fast [47] for a day. A saying of the Companions: 'You shall per­

form the ritual ablution, enter the mosque and pray two rak'as.'° A tra­

dition: 'You shall pray four rak'as.'b Another tradition: `When you have

done an evil, follow it with an atoning good deed. A secret [act] should

be followed by [another] secret act and a public act by [another] public

act.' It is, therefore, said that charity given in secret atones the sins

of the night, and charity given openly atones the sins of the day.

It is related in a sound tradition that a man said to the Apostle of God:

'I have taken up with a woman and I have done, with her, all save inter­

course. Pronounce upon me the judgement of God.' The Prophet said:

'Did you not pray with us the early morning prayer?' 'Yes,' replied the

man. The Prophet then said: 'Indeed, good deeds cancel the evil ones. Id This indicates that contact with women, save fornication, is a minor sin, inasmuch as prayer figures as an atonement, in accordance with the Prophet's statement: 'The five prayers are an atonement for all that happens between them except for the mortal sins.' In all conditions, then, man should every day take himself to account, sum up his evil acts, and strive to cancel them out with good deeds.

You might say:

How can the search for pardon be beneficial without untying the knot of persistence? In the tradition it is related: 'One who seeks pardon from sin, while persisting in it, is as one who mocks the verses of the Koran.'e⁴⁴² One used to say: "I seek God's pardon for my saying, 'I seek God's pardon."' It has been said: Seeking pardon with the tongue is the repentance of liars. Riibi'a al-'Adawiya⁴⁴³ said: 'Our search for pardon needs much apology.'

Know, then, that innumerable traditions have been handed down on the merit of seeking pardon - we have mentioned them in the Book of Invocations and Supplications444 - to the point that God connected the quest for pardon with the life of the Apostle. God said: BUT GOD WOULD NEVER CHASTISE THEM, WITH THEE AMONG THEM; GOD WOULD NEVER CHASTISE THEM AS THEY BEGGED FOR­GIVENESS4⁴⁵ One of the Companions used to say: 'We have two assurances of clemency. One of them, the Prophet's being among us, is gone, and only the quest for pardon remains. Were that to disappear, we would perish.'f We say, then, that the seeking of pardon which is the repentance of liars, is that which pertains merely to the tongue, with the heart having no share, like the utterance of a man who, by habit and with utmost neglect, says: 'I seek God's forgiveness', or when he hears the description of hellfire, says: 'We seek refuge in God from it', without his heart being affected. This refers to the mere movement of the tongue,

110

Repentance and the search for pardon have various stages. Even their beginnings are not devoid of gain though the initial gain falls short of the final gain. Sahl,¹⁶ therefore said: `Never can man do without his Lord. The best man can do is return to Him in every matter. If a man transgresses he should say: "0 Lord! Forgive me." When man is through with his sin, he should say: "0 Lord! Grant me immunity from sin." If man acts in penitence, let him say: "Lord! Accept it from me." ' Sahl was also asked about the search for pardon which atones sins. He said: `The beginning of the quest for pardon is compliance (istijdba), then conversion (inaba), and then [full] repentance. Compliance consists of acts of the limbs, conversion - of acts of the heart, and repentance is man's approach to his Master promising to renounce his evil nature. Then he seeks God's pardon for his actual failings, his ignorance of divine grace and his ingratitude. At that point he will be forgiven and he will attain refuge with God, [followed, in order, by] a shift to solitude, stability, elucidation, contemplation, gnosis, confidential discourse, purity, friendship, and then, secret discourse which is intimacy ^~a7 This does not establish itself in a man's heart until knowledge is his nourish­ment, invocation (dhikr) his sustenance, contentment his provision and trust in God (tawwakul) his companion. Then God will gaze upon him, raise him unto the throne. His station, then, will be that of the throne bearers.'

Sahl was also asked about the Prophet's statement: `The penitent is God's beloved.' He said: 'He is beloved when he possesses all that is mentioned in the verse [which begins] :⁴⁴⁸ THOSE WHO REPENT,

THOSE WHO SERVE ....'"³⁹ Further, he said: `The beloved is he

who does not engage in that which his beloved abhors.'

The point is that repentance has two effects. The first is the atone­ment of evil so that man becomes as one who has never sinned. The second is the attainment of various grades so that he becomes a friend. Atonement, also, is of [various] stages. It may be a total obliteration of the sin, or a reduction thereof. The difference depends on the differ­ent grades of repentance. The quest for pardon through the heart, and

11I

correction by good deeds, even if man is not yet free from persistence

I say, moreover, that seeking pardon [only] with the tongue is also a good deed inasmuch as such movement of the tongue, even heedlessly, is better than wagging of the tongue, at the same time, in slander against a fellow Muslim or chatter. Nay, it is better than to remain silent [without uttering the quest for pardon]. Its merit is manifest in comparison to silence while, on the other hand, it is a shortcoming by comparison to the action of the heart. That is why one disciple said to his master, Abu 'Uthman al-Maghribi:⁴⁵² `My tongue, at times, flows with the invoca­tion of God and the recitation of the Koran, yet my heart is heedless.' The master said: `Thank God, since He engaged one of your limbs in the good cause, accustomed it to invocation, and did not use it in evil nor accustom it to wasteful chatter.' What he mentioned is true. If the limbs become conditioned to good, to the point that this becomes part of their nature, this will repel many a sin. If one who accustomed his tongue to seeking pardon hears another person lie, his tongue reverts spontaneously to its conditioning and utters: `I ask God's forgiveness!' If one has been conditioned to chatter, his tongue proceeds to say: `How stupid you are!, or, how ugly is your lie!' If he who has been condi­tioned to utter `I take refuge with God' happens to be present at the very

beginning of an evildoer's evil, he says, by reflex: 'We seek refuge in

God.' But if the tongue is conditioned to chatter, he says: `God curse

him!' Man then sins in one of [these] two types of speech, and is safe

with the other. His safety is a consequence of the good habituation of his tongue. Such is one of the meanings of the divine word: GOD LEAVES NOT TO WASTE THE WAGE OF THE GOOD-DOERS;⁴⁵³ and of the passage: AND IF IT BE A GOOD DEED HE WILL DOUBLE IT, AND GIVE FROM HIMSELF [46] A MIGHTY WAGE ⁴⁵⁴ Con­template how it is doubled when he makes the heedless search for for­giveness a habit of the tongue until, with that habit, he repels the evil of disobedience involved in slander, malediction and officiousness. This is the doubling, in this world, of minor acts of obedience; the doubling in the hereafter is GREATER, DID THEY BUT KNOW ass

Beware lest you discern, in acts of obedience, only hardships, with the result that your longing for worship wanes. Indeed, this is an intrigue spread out, in his accursedness, by Satan for the deluded. He made them believe that they are insightful and understanding about hidden things and mysteries. [They say:] 'So what is the good of our invocation with the tongue while the heart is heedless?' By this ruse people are divided into three kinds: one who wrongs himself; one who adopts a middle course; and one who proceeds in doing good.

As for the last, he says: `You are right, 0 cursed one, but it is a right saying with which you seek a wrong intent. Certainly, then, I should doubly chastise you. I shall defy you in two respects, by adding the move­ment of the heart to that of the tongue.' He is like one who treats Satan's wound by sprinkling salt on it.

As for the deluded wrongdoer, he feels, in himself, the conceit of sagac­ity for this minor point. Then, he is incapable of sincerity in the heart, abandoning at the same time the habituation of the tongue in invoking God. He, then, assists Satan, is hung by the rope of his own delusion, so that there is complete collaboration and harmony between the two. This is as it is said: `The water skin fits its [skin] cover, it fits it and adjusts to it.'

As for the one who follows a middle course, he is unable to defy Satan by associating the heart in [his] practice but understands the deficiency of the movement of the tongue as compared with that of the heart. Yet, in comparison to silence and chatter, he follows the right course persis­tently, and asks God to involve the heart, with the tongue, in habitua­tion of the good.

The one who proceeds [with spontaneous good] is like the weaver

/ whose weaving was faulted, so he abandoned it, and became a scribe. The failing wrongdoer is like the one who abandoned weaving totally and became a street cleaner. The one treading the middle course is like a man who fails to become a scribe but says: 'I do not deny that weav­ing is objectionable4⁵⁶ Yet, the weaver can be faulted [only] when com­pared to the scribe and not when compared to the street cleaner. If I am incapable of being a scribe,_- I will not abandon the weaving.'

That is why Rabi'a al-'Adawya said: `Our quest for pardon needs much apology.' Do not think that she faults the movement of the tongue as invocation of God. Rather, she faults the heedlessness of the heart. Man must apologize for the negligence of the heart, not for the action of his tongue. If he also refrained from seeking pardon verbally, he needs two entreaties to pardon, not one. That is how you should understand the fault of what is faulted and the praise of what is praised. Else you will remain ignorant of the meaning of the saying of the righteous: `The good deeds of the pious are the misdeeds of the Near-Stationed.'⁴⁵⁷

These matters are established relatively, and should not be taken abso­lutely. Nay, the smallest measures of obedience or rebellion should not be held in disdain. That is why Ja'far as-Sadig⁴⁵s said: `God has con­cealed three in three. [He concealed] His pleasure with an act of obe­dience, so that you should not disdain any such act, as perhaps precisely that one pleases Him. He concealed His anger with an act of transgres­sion; so do not belittle any such act, as perhaps precisely this one arouses His wrath. He concealed who is His saint among His worshipers. Do not, then, disdain any one of them, for perhaps it is he who is God's saint.' He added, `and he hid His response to prayer; do not, then, stop praying; perhaps the divine response will follow it.'