Yazma cildi 29 · Sayfa 31

الجماعة.

وأما كون ذٰلك الزائد عينا واحدة لها أحكام مختلفة كثيرة، أو لكل حكم معنى زائد أوجبه، ما عندنا دليل على أحديته، ولا على تكثره.

هٰذا هو الإنصاف عندي في هذه المسألة. وكل من تكلف في غير هٰذا دليلا فهو مدخول. والزائد لا بد منه، غير أنّا نقول ما هو هو ولا هو غيره؛ لما قد علمت، يا سيدنا من مذهب أهل هٰذا الشأن في الغيرين.

فقلت له: يا أبا عبد الله، أقول لك ما قال رسول الله ص لأبي بكر في تعبيره الرؤيا: «أصبت بعضا وأخطأت بعضا».

فقال لي: لا أتهمك والله فيما تعلمه ولا أقدر أرجع عن الحكم بالزائد إلا إن فتح الله لي بما فتح الله به عليك، مع اختلاف أهل النظر فيما ذهبت إليه.

هٰذا قوله فتعجبت من إنصافه، ومن تصميمه مع شهادته على نفسه إنه ما يتهمني، وهو يخالفني فأشبه من أضله الله على علم. ولكن لا يقدح ذٰلك عندي في إيمانه، وإنما يقدح في عقله.

(الاسم والمسمى والمفهوم)

ثم نرجع ونقول^[14] إن عين القلب ليس إلا ما هو الحق عليه في أحوال العالم، ظاهرا وباطنا، وأولا وآخرا. وإن تعددت الأسماء فالمسمى واحد، والمفهوم ليس بواحد.

فيحار الداعي إذا دعا، ما يدري ما يدعو هل يدعو المسمى أو يدعو المفهوم؟

فإن الأسماء الإلهية

the group.

“As for whether this additional thing is a single entity with many differing rulings, or each ruling has an additional meaning that makes it necessary, we have no proof of its oneness or multiplicity.

“This is fairness in this question, in my view. Whoever strains to produce a proof beyond this is unsound. Something additional is indispensable, but we say that it is neither He nor other than He, because of what you know, our master, of the doctrine of the people of this discipline concerning two things that are other than one another.”

I said to him, “Abu ʿAbd Allah, I say to you what the Messenger of God, God’s blessings and peace be upon him, said to Abu Bakr concerning his interpretation of the dream: ‘You were right in some and wrong in some.’”

He said to me, “By God, I do not distrust you concerning what you know. Yet I cannot abandon the judgment that there is something additional unless God opens to me what He has opened to you, despite the disagreement of rational investigators concerning your position.”

These were his words. I marveled at his fairness and his persistence, while he testified of himself that he did not distrust me, yet opposed me. He resembled someone whom God had led astray with knowledge. In my view, however, this does not impair his faith; it impairs only his intellect.

(The Name, the Named, and the Concept)

We then return and say^[14] that the eye of the heart is nothing other than what the Real is in the world’s states, outwardly and inwardly, first and last. Although the Names are many, the Named is one, while the concept is not one.

The caller is bewildered when he calls, not knowing what he calls upon: is he calling upon the Named or upon the concept?

For the divine Names