this concerns questions of “the divine attributes and decree,” which are among the greatest subjects of religion, the noblest branches of knowledge among earlier and later generations, and the most difficult for most people’s minds to grasp. The point here is that the Sufi shaykhs, scholars, and others have explained that some forms of contentment are permissible, while others are not even permissible, let alone recommended or characteristic of those brought near to Allah. Abū al-Qāsim also mentioned this in the Epistle.

If it is asked: “What you have mentioned is clear and evident. How, then, did those who say that contentment means neither asking Allah for Paradise nor seeking His protection from the Fire fall into error? And how did those who approve of such words, whoever they may be, fall into error?”

The answer is: They erred because they thought that someone content with something does not seek anything else. Thus, when a servant is in a particular state, they considered it part of his contentment not to seek any other state. They then saw that Paradise is the ultimate object of desire, and the Fire the ultimate object of aversion.

They therefore said: “He should seek nothing, even Paradise, nor dislike whatever befalls him, even the Fire.” This is where they went wrong.

They were led astray in two ways:

The first was their assumption that being content with everything that happens is something Allah loves and is pleased with