12. The reason why the Hujjat can be manifested in the "Truth" only

(12. The Reason why the Hujjat can be manifested in the "Truth" only).

Now, when the miracle and sign of the Hujjat, which are "the word of Truth,"are explained, one must know why he becomes manifested in the haqiqat (the eternal Truth) only and why, as every body says, his actions point out to the fact that he absolutely does not observe the prescriptions of the shari'at. The reason is that in the beginning of every millennial period, when all the institutions governing that period are formed [Fol. 13v.], there are, besides the Hujjat, only three persons (taking part in the establishing of the doctrine), not more. They are the prophet, the Imam and the orthodox ruler. The prophet has to appear in the two aspects, kawn, of the religion, because he does not possess the position of the Hujjat. The Imam must be manifested in the three worlds (kawn) and the ruler of the orthodox only in the shari'at.

Therefore if the Hujjat should obey the orthodox laws, doubts as to his preaching (da'wat) of the Truth would arise amongst his followers. And if he should like to be manifested in the orthodox world (as well as amongst the
believers of the Truth) he would be a sinner, perhaps worse than a sinner. This is why in the beginning of the period of Muhammad in which we are living, the Hujjat was Salman, who by no means followed the prescriptions of the shari'at, but intentionally and in the presence of every body was doing unlawful things.

This is why all the adversaries blamed him. But the Hadrat-i Amir ( Ali) observed the commandments of the shari'at and after the death of the Prophet took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, although he did not allow Salman to do this. When Umar, having grasped the collar of Ali, was dragging him to swear allegiance, some one of the adversaries came forth and, turning to Salman, said: "How comes it that the person about whom thou tellest all these (stories) and to whom thou ascribest such extraordinary qualities, is now dragged in such humility to take an oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr?" Salman in reply said: "If he liked [Fol. 14] he could make this that, and that this," pointing at the same time to the earth and the sky. But the Amir, having looked upon him angrily, said: "One must not say everything he knows." But when ( Umar)grasped the collar of Salman and dragged him with all the Persians[1] to take the oath, the Amir came, freed him from the hands of Umar, and did not permit this.

The secret why he himself swore was that in the time of Mustafa his religion (shari'at) had not yer reached everywhere and ( Ali) wished that it should spread so that the "completer"[2] should not remain in the same condition as the adversaries, this he thought to be the most important. The plain religion (shari'at) could not be complete, however, unless he were himself to follow that "completer" (because otherwise) the adversaries would not follow him (the "completer"). But as was already explained, the adversaries have to exist, because, if, being wrong, they should not exist, nobody would know about their real position. Therefore the "people of order" would remain without their goal (madar) and merit and would cease to seek for the (true) knowledge. If therefore it is clear that the adversaries have to exist as well, then without shari'at which prevents them from their depravity and cruelty, they would not leave a single man alive [Fol. 14v.], the world would be devastated and there would be no advantage for the "people of degrees."

--------------------------------------
[1] It is worth while noting this legendary development. Indirectly it corroborates the theory of the Persians, not Badakshani, origin of the work, because, for the author, the Persians were all shi'ites. Note also that the author uses the term Farsiyan. This, of course, may be merely an extension of the surname of Salman, but it is not entirely impossible that for the author the Persians were chiefly the people of Fars because he himself belonged to that province.

[2] The expression tamam-kunanda is quite enigmatic. This obviously has nothing to do with the ancient Ismaili term Mutimm, in the sense of the Imam, i.e., the persons who brings to completion the mission of the Prophet. Here, most probably, it means the Khatimu'l-anbiya', i.e., the Prophet himself.

--------------------------------------
So Sayyid (Nasir-i Khusraw) says:-

Amongst them there is a handful of the wretched and villains,
Whom a clever man calls the "devilish people."
They are Satan in their deeds although in the shape of men,
Being a hundred degrees lower than a horse, cow or ass.
Their hearts are not awake because they have not soul,
They have nothing to do except to criticise the chosen.
Yes, they exist, this handful of the perverse,
They are the cause of the humility of the world.[1]
This is why the adversaries are (usually) compared to an obstinate mule and the
shari'at to a chain and rope. As an obstinate animal is led along the road with
the help of the rope and chain, so the adversaries can be led by the (proper)
way with the help of the shari'at.

--------------------------------------
[1] This is from the Rawshana'i-nama by Nasir-i Khusraw, cf. H. Ethe's edition in the ZDMG, Vol. 34 (1880), pp. 453-454. The passage refers to the uncivilised and morally low people in general.
--------------------------------------

So it is clear that the shari'at is conductive also to the (common) benefit and therefore undoubtedly the Imam must manifest himself in it as well. In a portionof a book[1] it is said that Malik (i.e. Devil) and Ridwan, the symbols of Hell and Paradise, are self-existent. No, this is wront. They both exist by him (the Imam), i.e., by his manifestation in the esssence of each. [2] As Ridwan is paradise and in his hands are the ways of mercy, so Malik is Hell and he has in his hands the ways of punishment. As, for this reason, the people make Ridwan [Fol. 15] (in their belief) to take upon himself the protection of the good, which is (simply the idea of the) kindness of men, so Malik only for the reason of his wickedness, which (in fact) is the wickedness of men, is believed to protect the wicked. As Paradise is better for the good, so Hell is worse for the bad. It is therefore clear that even the falsehood cannot have an illusory existence by itself. There are always two principles, [3] Paradise and Hell. The first is destined for those who deserve it, and the second for the wicked. For the first the teaching of the chosen is commanded, and for the second the teaching of the common people. But he (the Imam) acts in accordance with the principles of both in order that they may exist, although he did not command one of them to follow the teaching of the other, because their followers may fall in doubt and abandon their religion, leaving therefore the exoteric and the esoteric persuasions without their purity. So it is proved undoubtedly that the Hujjat necessarily must abandon following the teaching of the shari'at.

[1] It is a strange expression: dar qit'a'i fasli, literally "in a fragment of a pamphlet." Perhaps here qit'a is used in the technical sense of a special variety of poem?

[2] This does not mean, of course, that the Imam should manifest himself in Hell, or realm of evil. The author obviously means that the Imam should also be connected with the people of plain religion who, as sinners, are bound to go to hell.

[3] The author uses the term shakhs, person, in a strange sense, just as mushakhkhas. He apparently wants to emphasise individuality, independent existence.