THEIR DOCTRINE OF VISION
They are agreed that God will be seen with the eyes in the next world, and that the believers will see Him but not the unbelievers, because this is a grace from God: for God says, “To those who do what is good, goodness and an increase.” They hold that vision is possible through the intellect, and obligatory through the hearing.* As for its being intellectually possible, this is because God exists, and everything which exists may (logically speaking) be seen.
For God has implanted in us vision: and if the vision of God had not been possible, then the petition of Moses, “O Lord, show Thyself to me, that I may look upon Thee”,3 would have been (evidence of) ignorance and unbelief. Moreover, when God made the vision dependent on the condition that the mountain should abide firm—for He says, “And if it abide firm in its place, then shalt thou see Me”
For God has implanted in us vision: and if the vision of God had not been possible, then the petition of Moses, “O Lord, show Thyself to me, that I may look upon Thee”,3 would have been (evidence of) ignorance and unbelief. Moreover, when God made the vision dependent on the condition that the mountain should abide firm—for He says, “And if it abide firm in its place, then shalt thou see Me”
As for the esoteric interpretation of those who deny the vision of God, this is impossible, as for example those who construe “gazing on their Lord ” asmeaning “gazing on the reward of their Lord”: for the reward of God is other than God. So with those who say that “show Thyself to me, that I may look upon Thee” is a petition for a sign: for God had already shown Moses His signs.
It is the same with those who interpret “No vision taketh Him in”6 as meaning that, as no vision taketh Him in in this world, so also in the world to come: God denied that He could be taken in by the vision, for such taking-in would imply modality(kayfiyah) and circumscription; He denied, therefore, that which implies modality and circumscription, but not the vision in which there is neither modality nor circumscription.
It is the same with those who interpret “No vision taketh Him in”6 as meaning that, as no vision taketh Him in in this world, so also in the world to come: God denied that He could be taken in by the vision, for such taking-in would imply modality(kayfiyah) and circumscription; He denied, therefore, that which implies modality and circumscription, but not the vision in which there is neither modality nor circumscription.
THEIR VARIANCE AS TO THE PROPHET’S VISION
They are at variance as to whether the Prophet saw God on the night of the heavenly journey.4 The majority of them, including the most important Sufis, declare that Muhammad did not see Him with his eyes, nor any other created being, in this world. Moreover, it is related that ‘A’ishah said: “Whoever asserts that Muhammad saw his Lord, lies.” This view is taken, among others, by Al-Junayd, Al-Nurl and Abu Sa‘Id al-Kharraz.
Certain of them, however, assert that the Prophet saw God on the night of the heavenly journey, and that he was specially designated from among men for (the grace of) vision, just as Moses was designated for (the grace of) speaking (with God). To this end they cite the story told by Ibn ‘Abbas, Asma’ and Anas: and this view is supported by Abu ‘Abdillah al-Qurashi, Al-Haykal, and certain of the later Sufis. One of them has proposed that Muhammad saw God with his heart, and not with his eyes, citing as evidence the words of God, “The heart belies not what he saw.”
Certain of them, however, assert that the Prophet saw God on the night of the heavenly journey, and that he was specially designated from among men for (the grace of) vision, just as Moses was designated for (the grace of) speaking (with God). To this end they cite the story told by Ibn ‘Abbas, Asma’ and Anas: and this view is supported by Abu ‘Abdillah al-Qurashi, Al-Haykal, and certain of the later Sufis. One of them has proposed that Muhammad saw God with his heart, and not with his eyes, citing as evidence the words of God, “The heart belies not what he saw.”
We have not, however, known of a single shaykh of this order—that is, not one who is recognised as a valid authority—and we have not seen it stated in their books, compositions or treatises, or in the genuine stories that are related of them, neither have we heard it stated by any of those whom we have contacted, that God is seen in this world, or that any of His creation has seen Him: with the exception, that is, of a sect who have not been recognised as being of any importance among the Sufis.
It is true that certain people have asserted that some of the Sufis have claimed vision: but all the shaykhs are agreed on convicting of error such as make this statement, and on refuting their claim, and they have written books to this end; among them being Abu Sa‘Id al-Kharraz: Al-Junayd has also written and discoursed much refuting and convicting of error those who make such a claim. They further assert that those who pretend to have seen God have, in reality, never known God: and these books of theirs bear witness to this fact.
It is true that certain people have asserted that some of the Sufis have claimed vision: but all the shaykhs are agreed on convicting of error such as make this statement, and on refuting their claim, and they have written books to this end; among them being Abu Sa‘Id al-Kharraz: Al-Junayd has also written and discoursed much refuting and convicting of error those who make such a claim. They further assert that those who pretend to have seen God have, in reality, never known God: and these books of theirs bear witness to this fact.
THEIR DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION AND THE CREATION OF ACTS
They are agreed that God is the Creator of all the acts of His servants, even as He is the Creator of their essences: that all that they do, be it good or evil, is in accordance with God’s decree, predestination, desire and will; otherwise, they would not have been servants, subject to a Lord, and created. God says: “ Say, God is the Creator of everything”; and again: “Verily, everything have we created by decree...and everything they do is in the books.”
Now since acts are things, it necessarily follows that God is the Creator of them: for if acts had not been created, God would have been the Creator of certain things, but not of all, and then His words, “Creator of everything”, would be a lie—far exalted is God above that! Moreover, it is certain that acts are more numerous than essences: therefore, if God had been the Creator of the essences, and the servants the creators of the acts, created being would have been worthier the ascription of praise for the act of creation, and the creation of the servants would have been greater than the creation of God; consequently, they would have been more perfect in power and more fruitful in creation than God.
But God says: “Or have they made associates with God who can create as He creates, so that the creation seem familiar to them? Say, God is the Creator of everything, and He is the One, the Dominant.” So God denies that there is any creator other than Himself. God also says, “And we measured out the journey between them”,4 thereby stating that He has measured out His servants’ journey. God says further, “When God has created you and what ye make”;1 and again, “From the evil of what He has created”,2 thereby indicating that part of His creation is evil; and again, “And obey not him whose heart we have made heedless of remembrance of us”,3 that is, we created in it heedlessness; and further, “Speak ye openly or secredy, verily, He knows the nature of men’s breasts! Aye! He knows who created!”4 so stating that their speech, and all that they keep secret or expose, are His creation.
Now since acts are things, it necessarily follows that God is the Creator of them: for if acts had not been created, God would have been the Creator of certain things, but not of all, and then His words, “Creator of everything”, would be a lie—far exalted is God above that! Moreover, it is certain that acts are more numerous than essences: therefore, if God had been the Creator of the essences, and the servants the creators of the acts, created being would have been worthier the ascription of praise for the act of creation, and the creation of the servants would have been greater than the creation of God; consequently, they would have been more perfect in power and more fruitful in creation than God.
But God says: “Or have they made associates with God who can create as He creates, so that the creation seem familiar to them? Say, God is the Creator of everything, and He is the One, the Dominant.” So God denies that there is any creator other than Himself. God also says, “And we measured out the journey between them”,4 thereby stating that He has measured out His servants’ journey. God says further, “When God has created you and what ye make”;1 and again, “From the evil of what He has created”,2 thereby indicating that part of His creation is evil; and again, “And obey not him whose heart we have made heedless of remembrance of us”,3 that is, we created in it heedlessness; and further, “Speak ye openly or secredy, verily, He knows the nature of men’s breasts! Aye! He knows who created!”4 so stating that their speech, and all that they keep secret or expose, are His creation.
‘Umar (God be well pleased with him!) said: “O Messenger of God, what thinkest thou of that in which we are engaged? Is it upon a matter which is already completed, or a matter only now begun ? ” The Prophet replied: “Upon a matter already completed.” ‘Umar said: “Then shall we not have trust?” He answered: “Perform (what ye are about), for everyone is prepared for that for which he is created.” The Prophet was also asked: “What thinkest thou of the spells which we employ, and the medicine wherewith we treat ourselves?
Do these reverse the decree of God?” He replied: “These come of the decree of God.” He also said: “Truly, no man believes, until he believes in God and in the decree of God, be it for good or for ill.” Since it is possible, then, for God to create an essence which is evil, it is also possible for Him to create an action which is evil. Now it is generally conceded that the action of a man trembling is a creation of God: it follows therefore that all other motions are the same, except that in the one case God has created both motion and freewill, and in the other motion without freewill. Abu Bakr al-Wasitf interpreted God’s words, “His is whatsoever dwells in the night or in the day”,?
Do these reverse the decree of God?” He replied: “These come of the decree of God.” He also said: “Truly, no man believes, until he believes in God and in the decree of God, be it for good or for ill.” Since it is possible, then, for God to create an essence which is evil, it is also possible for Him to create an action which is evil. Now it is generally conceded that the action of a man trembling is a creation of God: it follows therefore that all other motions are the same, except that in the one case God has created both motion and freewill, and in the other motion without freewill. Abu Bakr al-Wasitf interpreted God’s words, “His is whatsoever dwells in the night or in the day”,?
THEIR DOCTRINE OF CAPACITY
They are agreed that every breath they draw, every glance they make, and every motion they perform, is by virtue of a faculty which God originates in them, and a capacity which He creates for them at the same time as their actions, neither before them nor after them, and that no action can be performed without these: for otherwise they would have the attribute of God, doing whatever they wished, and decreeing whatever they desired, and God would no longer be the Strong, the Powerful—in His words, “And God does what He wishes”—any more than any poor, weak, contemptible slave.
If this capacity had consisted in the possession of healthy limbs, every person so endowed would be of equal attainment: but experience shows that a man may possess healthy limbs, but his actions may not be similarly sound. It follows, then, that capacity does not derive from faculty and express itself in healthy limbs.
faculty is a thing which varies in degree at various times, as any man may observe with regard to himself. Moreover, since faculty is an accident, and accident cannot persist of itself, or through anything persisting in it—for if a thing does not exist of itself, and if nothing else exists through it, it cannot persist through the persistence of any other thing, because the persistence of something else does not connote persistence for it—it follows that that thing cannot have any persistence in itself:1 and this being so, the inevitable conclusion is that the faculty of each single action is different from the faculty of any other action.
Had the case been otherwise, men would have had no need or necessity of recourse to God at the time of their actions, and God’s words, “And to Thee we pray for help”, would be meaningless. Further, if the faculty had existed before the act, and not persisted up to the time of the act, the act would have been performed with a nullified faculty, that is, without any faculty whatsoever: which implies abolishing the relationship of Lord and servant altogether.
For if this had been the case, it would have been possible for an act to occur without faculties, that is, it would have been possible for acts to exist of themselves, without any agent. But God says, in the story of Moses and the upright servant, “Verily, thou canst never have patience with me”;4 and when He says, “That is the interpretation of what thou couldst not have patience with”, He means, “what thou hast not the faculty to do”.
Had the case been otherwise, men would have had no need or necessity of recourse to God at the time of their actions, and God’s words, “And to Thee we pray for help”, would be meaningless. Further, if the faculty had existed before the act, and not persisted up to the time of the act, the act would have been performed with a nullified faculty, that is, without any faculty whatsoever: which implies abolishing the relationship of Lord and servant altogether.
For if this had been the case, it would have been possible for an act to occur without faculties, that is, it would have been possible for acts to exist of themselves, without any agent. But God says, in the story of Moses and the upright servant, “Verily, thou canst never have patience with me”;4 and when He says, “That is the interpretation of what thou couldst not have patience with”, He means, “what thou hast not the faculty to do”.
THEIR DOCTRINE OF COMPULSION
Some of them have declared the idea of compulsion to be absurd, saying that compulsion can only occur in the case of two persons being unyielding, that is to say, when one person gives an order to another, and the other refuses (to obey), and then the former compels the latter to (do) so. The meaning of compulsion is, that the agent should be constrained to do a certain thing, although he dislikes it and prefers something else, so that he then chooses to perform that which he dislikes, and leaves alone that which he likes: but for this constraint and compulsion, he would certainly have done the thing which he has left alone, and left alone the thing which he has done. Now we find nothing of this sort in the matter of men’s acquiring1 faith or unbelief, obedience or disobedience.
The believer chooses belief, likes it, approves of it, desires it, and prefers it to its opposite; while he dislikes unbelief, hates it, disapproves of it, does not desire it, and prefers its opposite to it. God has created for him the choice, approval and desire for faith, and the hatred, dislike and disapproval for disbelief: for God says, “God has made faith beloved by you, and has made it seemly in your hearts, and has made misbelief and iniquity and rebellion hateful to you.”
The unbeliever, on the other hand, chooses unbelief, approves of it, likes it, desires it, and prefers it to its opposite; while he dislikes belief, hates it, disapproves of it, does not desire it, and prefers its opposite to it. God has created all this: for He says, “So do we make seemly to every nation their work”; and again, “But whomsoever He wishes to lead astray, He makes his breast tight and straight.”
Neither of them was prevented from (following) the opposite of what he chose, or forced into that which he acquired: therefore they are all bound by God’s proof and subject to His pronouncement. The resort of unbelievers is hell for what they have earned, and “We have not wronged them, but it was themselves they wronged”. God does what He wills, “He shall not be questioned concerning what He does, but they shall be questioned.”
The believer chooses belief, likes it, approves of it, desires it, and prefers it to its opposite; while he dislikes unbelief, hates it, disapproves of it, does not desire it, and prefers its opposite to it. God has created for him the choice, approval and desire for faith, and the hatred, dislike and disapproval for disbelief: for God says, “God has made faith beloved by you, and has made it seemly in your hearts, and has made misbelief and iniquity and rebellion hateful to you.”
The unbeliever, on the other hand, chooses unbelief, approves of it, likes it, desires it, and prefers it to its opposite; while he dislikes belief, hates it, disapproves of it, does not desire it, and prefers its opposite to it. God has created all this: for He says, “So do we make seemly to every nation their work”; and again, “But whomsoever He wishes to lead astray, He makes his breast tight and straight.”
Neither of them was prevented from (following) the opposite of what he chose, or forced into that which he acquired: therefore they are all bound by God’s proof and subject to His pronouncement. The resort of unbelievers is hell for what they have earned, and “We have not wronged them, but it was themselves they wronged”. God does what He wills, “He shall not be questioned concerning what He does, but they shall be questioned.”
THEIR DOCTRINE OF ADVANTAGEOUSNESS
They are agreed that God does with His servants whatever He wishes, and decrees for them however He desires, whether that be to their advantage or not: for the creation is His creation, and the command is His command—“He shall not be questioned concerning what He does, but they shall be questioned. ”But for this, there would have been no difference between servant and Lord. God says, “Let not those who misbelieve reckon that our letting them range is good for themselves. We only let them have their range that they may increase in sin”;6 and again, “God only wishes to torment them therewith in the life of this world, and that their souls may pass away while still they misbelieve”;and again,
“These are they whose hearts God wished not to purify.” The doctrine of “the greatest advantage” implies that (God’s) power is limited, and that His treasuries are not inexhaustible, and that God Himself is in such respect incapable: for if He has dealt with men to the “limit of their advantage”, there remains nothing beyond that “limit”, so that if God even wished to augment their “advantage”, He would be unable to do so, and would not find any means to grant them any further “advantage” beyond what He had already given them—God is far removed above this!
“These are they whose hearts God wished not to purify.” The doctrine of “the greatest advantage” implies that (God’s) power is limited, and that His treasuries are not inexhaustible, and that God Himself is in such respect incapable: for if He has dealt with men to the “limit of their advantage”, there remains nothing beyond that “limit”, so that if God even wished to augment their “advantage”, He would be unable to do so, and would not find any means to grant them any further “advantage” beyond what He had already given them—God is far removed above this!
They are agreed that all God’s dealings with His servants—kindness, health, security, faith, guidance, favour—are only a condescension on His part: if He had not acted thus, it would still have been quite feasible. This is in no way incumbent upon God: for if God had been obliged to follow any such course of action, He would not have been deserving of praise and gratitude.
They are agreed that reward and punishment are not a question of merit, but of God’s will, generosity and justice: men do not deserve eternal punishment on account of sins from which they have afterwards desisted, neither do they deserve an eternal and unlimited reward because of a limited number of (good) deeds.
They are agreed that if God should punish all who dwell in heaven and earth, He would not be unjust to them, and that if He should bring every unbeliever into Paradise, it would not be an impossible thing: for creation is His creation, and command is His command.
But He has stated that He will bless believers eternally, and punish unbelievers eternally, and He is true in what He says, and what He states is the truth. Therefore He is obliged to deal with men thus, and it is not possible for Him to do otherwise: for God does not lie therein—God is far removed above this!
But He has stated that He will bless believers eternally, and punish unbelievers eternally, and He is true in what He says, and what He states is the truth. Therefore He is obliged to deal with men thus, and it is not possible for Him to do otherwise: for God does not lie therein—God is far removed above this!
THEIR DOCTRINE OF CHILDREN
They believe that the children of believers are with their parents in Paradise: but concerning the children of unbelievers they are at variance. Some teach that God punishes no man with hell, save he be fully convicted of rebellion and unbelief, so that he has fallen under the judgment. The majority refer their affairs to God, holding that it is open to God either to punish or to bless them. They are agreed that it is right to moisten the shoes.4 They hold that it is possible that God may give to eat what is unlawful.
THEIR DOCTRINE OF THE DUTIES IMPOSED BY GOD ON ADULTS.
They are agreed that all the ordinances imposed by God on (His) servants in His Book, and all the duties laid down by the Prophet (in the Traditions), are a necessary obligation and a binding imposition for adults of mature intelligence: and that they may not be abandoned or forsaken in any way by any man, whether he be a veracious believer (siddiq), or a saint, or a gnostic, even though he may have attained the furthest rank, the highest degree, the noblest station,
They are agreed that acts are not a cause of happiness or unhappiness, but that happiness and unhappiness are predestined and prescribed by the will of God: so runs the Tradition, on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, that the Prophet said, ‘‘This is a book from the Lord of the Worlds, and in it are the names of the people of Paradise, together with the names of their parents and tribes”; then the sum total is made up to the last name, and thereafter there will be no increase or decrease in their numbers ever. In the? same manner the Prophet spoke of the people of hell, saying:. “The happy man is he who was happy in his mother’s Womb, and the unhappy man he who was unhappy in his mother’s womb.” They are further agreed that acts do not determine reward or punishment in consideration of merit, but that reward and punishment accord with God’s bounty and justice, and God’s determination.
THEIR DOCTRINE OF THE GNOSIS OF GOD
They are agreed that the only guide to God is God Himself, holding that the function of the intellect is the function of an intelligent person who is in need of a guide: for the intellect is a thing originated in time, and as such only serves as a guide to things like itself.* A certain man said to Al-Nun: “What is the guide to God?” He replied: “God.” The other asked: “Then what of the intellect?” Al-Nuri said: “The intellect is weak, and that which is weak only guides to what is weak like itself.” Ibn ‘Ata said: “The intellect is an instrument of servanthood, not a means of
THEIR DOCTRINE OF SPIRIT
Al-Junayd said: “The spirit (rub) is a thing the knowledge of which God has reserved to Himself, not suffering any of His creatures to understand it. Therefore, it cannot be expressed in any other way than as being existent (mawjhd). God says: ‘Say: The spirit is of the bidding of my Lord’.” Abu ‘AbdilMh al-Nibajl said: “The spirit is a body which is too subtle to be perceived, and too great to be touched: it cannot be expressed in any other way than as being existent.” Ibn ‘Ata said: “God created the spirits before the bodies: for He says, ‘And we created you’, that is, the spirits, ‘then we formed you’,* that is, the bodies.” Another Sufi said: “The spirit is a subtle (essence) materialising in a dense (body), just as sight, which is a subtle essence, materialises in a dense (body).”
The majority are agreed that the spirit is an object^ through which the body lives. One Sufi said: “It is a light, fragrant breath (rub) through which life subsists, while the soul (ttafs) is a hot wind (rib) through which the motions and desires exist.” Al-QahtabI said: “It never entered under the humiliation of ‘Be’”—this in answer to the question, What is the spirit? In his view, then, its only function is to produce life: and being alive, as well as producing life, is the attribute of Him Who causes life, just as shaping and creating are an attribute of th& Creator. This view he bases on the words of God: “Say: The spirit is of the command of my Lord.” They interpret “command”
THEIR DOCTRINE OF THE MIRACLES OF SAINTS
They are agreed in affirming the miracles of the saints, even though they may enter the category of marvels,* such as walking on water, talking with beasts, travelling from one place to another,3 or producing an object in another place or at another time: all these examples are duly recorded in the stories and traditions, and they are also spoken of in the scriptures. For example, there is the story of “he who had the knowledge of the Book”, who said: “I will bring it to thee before thy glance can turn”; and the story of Mary, when Zachariah said to her “O Mary! how hast thou this? She said, ‘It is from God’.” There is also the story of the two men who were with the Prophet, and then went forth, and their whips shone with light. Such things may happen equally both in the time of the Prophet, and at other periods: for as miracles were vouchsafed in the time of the Prophet in order to testify to the truth (of his claim), so they have happened at other periods for a similar reason. After the death of the Prophet, this happened to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, when he called Sariyah, saying, “O Sariyah ibn Hisn, the mountain, the mountain!” ‘Umar was then at Medina in the pulpit, and Sariyah was facing the enemy,a month’s journey away.
This story is well authenticated. Those who deny this view do so because they think it implies a slur on the function of the prophet: for a prophet is only distinguished from any other man by the fact that he produces a marvel which proves his veracity, and which other men are incapable of producing; therefore, if it appeared equally well from another person, there would not remain any difference between the prophet and the non-prophet, nor any proof of the prophet’s veracity; moreover, it would imply that God is unable to distinguish a prophet from one who is not a prophet.
The reason for accepting the claim of a prophet is, that he calls men to follow what God Himself has laid down as a duty, namely, the confession of His Unity, together with the denial that He has partners, and the performance of whatever the intellect does not pronounce to be impossible, but rather obligatory or permissible. The fact is, that there are two types involved here, namely, the prophet and the prophetaster.3The prophet is truthful, the prophetaster is false: yet in outward appearance and composition they are alike.
This story is well authenticated. Those who deny this view do so because they think it implies a slur on the function of the prophet: for a prophet is only distinguished from any other man by the fact that he produces a marvel which proves his veracity, and which other men are incapable of producing; therefore, if it appeared equally well from another person, there would not remain any difference between the prophet and the non-prophet, nor any proof of the prophet’s veracity; moreover, it would imply that God is unable to distinguish a prophet from one who is not a prophet.
Abu Bakr al-Warraq, however, said: “A prophet is not a prophet by virtue of some marvel, but because God sent him and made revelation to him. If God has sent a man, and made revelation to him, then he is a prophet, whether he possesses any marvellous powers or not, and it is a duty to accept the claim of a messenger, even if one does not see any marvel proceeding from him: for the real purpose of marvels is, to provide irrefutable proof for those who deny, and to reinforce the threat of punishment in the case of those who are obstinate.”
The reason for accepting the claim of a prophet is, that he calls men to follow what God Himself has laid down as a duty, namely, the confession of His Unity, together with the denial that He has partners, and the performance of whatever the intellect does not pronounce to be impossible, but rather obligatory or permissible. The fact is, that there are two types involved here, namely, the prophet and the prophetaster.3The prophet is truthful, the prophetaster is false: yet in outward appearance and composition they are alike.
THEIR DOCTRINE OF FAITH
According to the majority of the Sufis, faith consists of speech, act and intention. The Prophet, according to a tradition of Ja‘far ibn Muhammad on the authority of his ancestors, said: “Faith is a confession with the tongue, a verification with the heart, and an act with the members.” They say that the root of faith is a confession with the tongue together with the verification of the heart, and its branch is the practising of the (divine) commandments. They also say that faith resides in the outward and the inward: the inward is one thing, namely, the heart, while the outward is many things.
They are agreed that faith is necessary as much outwardly as inwardly, without being the portion of one part only of the outward: for since the inward’s portion of faith is the portion of the whole, so the outward’s portion of faith must be the portion of the whole, that is, practising the divine commandments; for this is general to all the outward, even as verification is general to all the inward. They say that faith may be greater or less.
Al-Junayd, Sahl and others of the earlier Sufis taught that verification also may be greater or less. Its being less is really a departure from faith, because it is the verification of what God has related and promised, and the least doubt concerning this is unbelief: its being greater may be reckoned in terms of strength and certainty. The confession of the tongue does not vary, but the practice of the members may be greater or less. One Sufi said: “The term ‘believer’ is a name of God, for God says, ‘the Peace-giver, the Faithful, the Protector’.”3 Through faith God makes the believer
Al-Junayd, Sahl and others of the earlier Sufis taught that verification also may be greater or less. Its being less is really a departure from faith, because it is the verification of what God has related and promised, and the least doubt concerning this is unbelief: its being greater may be reckoned in terms of strength and certainty. The confession of the tongue does not vary, but the practice of the members may be greater or less. One Sufi said: “The term ‘believer’ is a name of God, for God says, ‘the Peace-giver, the Faithful, the Protector’.”3 Through faith God makes the believer