You found fault with me when I stated that I give money precedence over learning (ilm) because it is by money that the scholar is sustained and (human) beings supported, before the superior merit of knowledge is realized and that the root is worthier of preference than the branch, and that I said: "If we ourselves see things clearly then it is through having adequate means that we are able to do so. Lack of such means makes us blind." You said: "How can you say this when the head of the sages and chief of the literati was asked: 'Are the ulema or the wealthy more honorable? "The ulema certainly!' he replied." (The question) was asked, "How is it that the ulema come to the doors of the wealthy more frequently than the wealthy come to / the doors of the ulema?» "Because of the ulema's recognition of the value of wealth and the ignorance of the wealthy of the value of knowledge," he replied. So I answered: "It is between the (opposing) circumstances of the two that (the line of) division lies—for how can something which all are seen to need and something with which some but not others can dispense, be equal?" Page 12
No comments:
Post a Comment