The Nineteenth Flash
On Frugality
[This treatise is about frugality and contentment, and wastefulness and extravagance.]
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Eat and drink, but waste not by excess.(7:31)
This verse gives most important and wise instruction in the form of categorically commanding frugality and clearly prohibiting wastefulness. The matter contains seven points.
FIRST POINT
The All-Compassionate Creator desires THANKS in return for the bounties He bestows on mankind, while wastefulness is contrary to thanks, and slights the bounty and causes loss. Frugality, however, shows respect for the bounty and is profitable.
Yes, frugality is both a sort of thanks, and shows respect towards the divine mercy manifested in the bounties, and most definitely is the cause of plenty. So too, like abstinence, it is health-giving for the body, and since it saves a person from the degradation of what is in effect begging, is a cause of self-respect. It is also a powerful means of experiencing the pleasure to be found in bounties, and tasting that pleasure in bounties which apparently afford no pleasure. As for wastefulness, since it is opposed to these instances of wisdom, it has grave consequences.
SECOND POINT
The All-Wise Maker created the human body in the form of a wonderful palace and resembling a well-ordered city. The sense of taste in the mouth is like a door- keeper, and the nerves and blood vessels like telephone and telegraph wires; they are the means by which the sense of taste communi cates with the stomach, which is at the centre of the body, and informs it of the food that enters the mouth. If the body and stomach have no use for it, it says: “Forbidden!”, and expels it. And sometimes the food is harmful and bitter as well as not being beneficial for the body, and it spits it out immediately.
Thus, since the sense of taste is a doorkeeper, from the point of view of administering the body, the stomach is a master and a ruler. If the gifts arriving at the palace or city and those given to the palace’s ruler are worth one hundred liras, only five liras’ worth is appropriate for the doorkeeper in the form of a tip, lest he becomes conceited and is corrupted, then forgetting his duty he lets revolutionaries into the palace who will give him a bigger tip.
In consequence of this mystery we shall now imagine two mouthfuls. One consists of nutritious food like cheese and egg and costs forty para,(*[1])and the other is of the choicest pastries and costs ten kurush. Before entering the mouth, there is no difference in these two mouthfuls with respect to the body, they are equal. And after passing down the throat, they are still equal in nourishing the body. Indeed, forty paras’ worth of cheese is sometimes more nutritious. Only, in regard to pampering the sense of taste in the mouth, there is a half-minute difference. You can see from this what a meaningless and harmful waste it is to increase the cost from forty para to ten kurush for the sake of half a minute. Now, although the gift arriving for the palace’s ruler is worth one lira, to give the doorkeeper a tip nine times bigger than his due will corrupt him. He will declare: “I am the ruler,” and will allow to enter whoever gives him the biggest tip and most pleasure; he will cause a revolution and conflagration to break out. Then he will compel them to cry out: “Oh! Call the doctor and get him to put out this fire in my stomach and bring down my temperature!”
Thus, frugality and contentment are in conformity with divine wisdom; they treat the sense of taste as a doorkeeper and give it its remuneration accordingly. As for wastefulness, since it is to act contrarily to wisdom, it swiftly receives its punishment, upsets the stomach, and causes real appetite to be lost. Producing from the unnecessary variety of foods a false and artificial appetite, it causes indigestion and illness.
THIRD POINT
We said in the Second Point that the sense of taste is a doorkeeper, and indeed, for the heedless and those who have not progressed spiritually or advanced in the way of thanks, it is like a doorkeeper. Wastefulness should not be indulged in or the sense of taste’s price be raised from one to ten for the sake of giving it pleasure.
However, the sense of taste of those truly on the way of thanks, those seeking reality, and those who approach reality with their hearts is like a supervisor and inspector in the kitchens of divine mercy, as is explained in the comparison in the Sixth Word. Its duty is to recognize and weigh up the varieties of divine bounties on the tiny scales present in it to the number of foods, and to send the body and stomach news of the food in the form of thanks. In this respect the sense of taste does not only look to the physical stomach; since it looks also to the heart, spirit, and mind, it holds a position and importance superior to the stomach.
It can follow its pleasure on condition it is not wasteful or extravagant, and is purely to carry out its duty of thanks and recognize and perceive the varieties of divine bounty, and on condition it is licit and does not lead to degradation and begging. In fact, delicious foods may be preferred in order to employ the tongue which bears the sense of taste in giving thanks. The following is an instance of Shaykh Geylani’s wonder-working which alludes to this truth:
At one time, being instructed by Ghawth al-A‘zam, Shaykh Geylani (May his mystery be sanctified), was the only son of an aged and anxious woman. This esteemed lady had gone to her son’s cell and seen that he had nothing to eat but a piece of dry, black bread. Her maternal compassion was aroused by his emaciated condition resulting from his asceticism. She felt sorry for him. Later she went to Ghawth al-A‘zam in order to complain, and saw the Shaykh was tucking into roast chicken.
Out of her concern, she declared: “O Master! My son is dying of hunger while you are eating chicken!”
Whereupon Ghawth al-A‘zam said to the chicken: “Rise up, with God’s permission!” At this, the cooked chicken bones assembled and were thrown out of the dish as an entire live chicken. This has been related unanimously through many reliable and documented channels as a marvel of someone whose extraordinary wonder-working is world-famous.
Ghawth al-A‘zam said to her: “When your son reaches this level, then he too can eat chicken.”(*[2])
Thus, the meaning of Ghawth al-A‘zam’s words is this: whenever your son’s spirit rules his body, and his heart rules the desires of his soul, and his reason rules his stomach, and he wants pleasure for the sake of offering thanks, then he may eat delicious things.
FOURTH POINT
According to the Hadith the meaning of which is: “The thrifty will suffer no family difficulties as regards livelihood,”(*[3])the frugal and economical person will not suffer undue trouble and hardship in supporting his family.There are countless proofs that frugalit y yields plenty and good living.
For instance, I have seen myself and I can say according to the testimony of those who have befriended and assisted me that by being frugal I have sometimes seen a tenfold increase, and so have my friends. Even, nine years ago – and now it is thirty, a number of the tribal leaders who were exiled to Burdur together with me did their best to make me accept their zakat so that I would not suffer privation and humiliation due to lack of money. I said to those rich leaders: “I have very little money, but I am frugal and economical and I am accustomed to being content with little. I am richer than you.” I refused their repeated and insistent offers. It is worth noting that two years later some of those who had offered me their zakat were in debt because they had not been frugal. Praise be to God, seven years on from that, thanks to the plenty resulting from frugalit y that small amount of money was still sufficient for me; it did not degrade me, nor compel me to present my needs to the people, nor make me deviate from my way of self-sufficiency and being independent of people, which is one of the principles of my life.
The person who is not frugal is certain to be abased and reduced to poverty and in effect to begging. At the present time, money, the means of wastefulness and extravagance, is extremely expensive. Sometimes a person sells his honour and self- respect and bribes are taken to obtain it. Sometimes the sacred things of religion are sold, then some inauspicious money received in return. That is to say, material goods worth ten kurush are procured in return for an immaterial loss of a hundred lira.
However, according to the implied meaning of the verse, Indeed, it is God Who gives all sustenance, Lord of all power and strength,(51:58)and the explicit meaning of the verse, And there is no moving creature on the earth but its sustenance is provided by God,(11:6)if a person is frugal and restricts his needs to the essential, he will find enough sustenance to live on in unexpected ways. The verse guarantees it.
Yes, there are two sorts of sustenance:(*[4])
One is true sustenance, which is enough to subsist on. As the verse decrees, this is guaranteed by the Sustainer. So long as man’s inclination towards evil does not interfere, he will find this essential sustenance under any circumstances. He will be compelled to sacrifice neither his religion, nor his honour, nor his self-respect.
The second sort is metaphorical sustenance, due to which and its abuse, inessential needs become like essential ones, and owing to the calamity of custom and tradition, people become addicted to them and cannot give them up. Such sustenance is not guaranteed by the Sustainer, so the obtaining of it is extremely expensive – especially at the present time. These unfruitful, inauspicious goods are obtained by first of all sacrificing one’s self-respect and accepting degradation, and sometimes stooping to what is in effect begging, kissing the feet of the vile, and sometimes sacrificing the sacred things of religion, which are the light of eternal life.
Also, at this time of poverty and hardship, the distress people with consciences feel at the anguish of the hungry and needy sours any pleasure to be had from unlawfully acquired money.
As far as doubtful goods are concerned, one has to make do with them to the minimum degree necessary during strange times such as these. For according to the rule, “Necessity is determined according to its extent,” if compelled, illicit goods may be taken to the minimum degree necessary, not more. Someone in dire need may eat prohibited meat, but he may not eat his fill. He may eat enough only to remain alive. Also, one could not fully enjoy more than this in the presence of a hundred people who are hungry.
The following is a story showing that frugality is the cause of dignity and distinction:
One time, Khatim Tay, who was world-famous for his generosity, was giving a large banquet. Having given his guests a superfluity of presents, he went out to walk in the desert. There he saw a poor old man carrying a load of thorny bushes and plants on his back. The thorns were piercing his skin and making him bleed.
Khatim said to him: “Khatim Tay is giving a large banquet and giving away gifts. Go there and you will be given five hundred kurush in return for your load worth five kurush.”
The frugal old man replied: “I raise and carry this thorny load with my self-respect; I am not going to become obliged to Khatim Tay.”
Later, they asked Khatim Tay: “Have you come across anyone more generous and estimable than yourself?”
He replied: “The frugal old man I met in the desert was more estimable, elevated, and generous than me.”(*[5])
FIFTH POINT
Out of His perfect generosity, Almighty God makes a poor man understand the pleasure of His bounty the same as a rich man, and a beggar the same as a king. Indeed, the pleasure a poor man obtains from a dry piece of black bread because of hunger and being frugal is greater than the pleasure a king or a rich man obtains from the choicest pastries consumed with the weariness and lack of appetite resulting from excess.
It is surprising but some dissolute, extravagant people accuse the frugal and economical of being mean and stingy. God forbid! Frugality is dignity and generosity. Stinginess and meanness are the inner face of the apparently noble qualities of the wasteful and extravagant. There is an event corroborating this which occurred in my room in Isparta the year this treatise was written. It was as follows:
One of my students insisted on my accepting – contrary to my rule and life-long principle – a present of nearly two and a half okkas(*[6])of honey. However much I reiterated my rule, he was not to be persuaded. So I told the three brothers who were with me to take it, saying that by being economical they would eat the honey for thirt y to forty days in the months of Sha‘ban and Ramadan, and not lack something sweet to eat, and the one who brought it would earn the reward. I myself had an okka of honey as well. Although my three friends were moderate and appreciated frugality, because they offered the honey to each other, and flattered each others’ souls, and each preferred the others to himself, which in one respect is a good quality, they forgot about being economical. They finished the two and a half okkas of honey in three nights. Laughing, I said:
“I would have given you the taste of that honey for thirty to forty days, but you have reduced the thirt y days to three. I hope you enjoyed it!” I consumed my one okka of honey frugally. For the whole of Sha’ban and Ramadan both I ate it, and, Praise be to God, every evening while breaking the fast I gave each of those brothers a spoonful,(*[7])and it became the means of signficant reward.
Perhaps anyone who saw my doing this thought it was stinginess and what my brothers did for three nights was generosity. But in point of fact I perceived that concealed beneath the apparent stinginess lay an elevated dignity, increase and plenty, and great reward. If they had not stopped, it would have led to something much worse than stinginess beneath the generosity and excess, like beggarliness and watching another’s hand greedily and expectantly.
Altıncı Nükte
İktisat ve hıssetin çok farkı var. Tevazu, nasıl ki ahlâk-ı seyyieden olan tezellülden manen ayrı ve sureten benzer bir haslet-i memduhadır. Ve vakar, nasıl ki kötü hasletlerden olan tekebbürden manen ayrı ve sureten benzer bir haslet-i memduhadır.
Öyle de ahlâk-ı âliye-i Peygamberiyeden olan ve belki kâinattaki nizam-ı hikmet-i İlahiyenin medarlarından olan iktisat ise sefillik ve bahillik ve tama’kârlık ve hırsın bir halitası olan hısset ile hiç münasebeti yok. Yalnız, sureten bir benzeyiş var. Bu hakikati teyid eden bir vakıa:
Sahabenin Abâdile-i Seb’a-yı Meşhure’sinden olan Abdullah İbn-i Ömer Hazretleri ki halife-i Resulullah olan Faruk-u A’zam Hazret-i Ömer’in (ra) en mühim ve büyük mahdumu ve sahabe âlimlerinin içinde en mümtazlarından olan o zat-ı mübarek çarşı içinde, alışverişte, kırk paralık bir meseleden, iktisat için ve ticaretin medarı olan emniyet ve istikameti muhafaza için şiddetli münakaşa etmiş. Bir sahabe ona bakmış. Rûy-i zeminin halife-i zîşanı olan Hazret-i Ömer’in mahdumunun kırk para için münakaşasını acib bir hısset tevehhüm ederek o imamın arkasına düşüp ahvalini anlamak ister. Baktı ki Hazret-i Abdullah hane-i mübareğine girdi. Kapıda bir fakir adam gördü. Bir parça eğlendi; ayrıldı, gitti. Sonra hanesinin ikinci kapısından çıktı, diğer bir fakiri orada da gördü. Onun yanında da bir parça eğlendi; ayrıldı, gitti. Uzaktan bakan o sahabe merak etti.
Gitti o fakirlere sordu: “İmam sizin yanınızda durdu, ne yaptı?”
Her birisi dedi: “Bana bir altın verdi.”
O sahabe dedi: “Fesübhanallah! Çarşı içinde kırk para için böyle münakaşa etsin de sonra hanesinde iki yüz kuruşu kimseye sezdirmeden kemal-i rıza-yı nefisle versin!” diye düşündü, gitti, Hazret-i Abdullah İbn-i Ömer’i gördü.
Dedi: “Yâ İmam! Bu müşkülümü hallet. Sen çarşıda böyle yaptın, hanende de şöyle yapmışsın.”
Ona cevaben dedi ki: “Çarşıdaki vaziyet iktisattan ve kemal-i akıldan ve alışverişin esası ve ruhu olan emniyetin, sadakatin muhafazasından gelmiş bir halettir; hısset değildir. Hanemdeki vaziyet, kalbin şefkatinden ve ruhun kemalinden gelmiş bir halettir. Ne o hıssettir ve ne de bu israftır.”
İmam-ı A’zam, bu sırra işaret olarak لَا اِس۟رَافَ فِى ال۟خَي۟رِ كَمَا لَا خَي۟رَ فِى ال۟اِس۟رَافِ demiş. Yani “Hayırda ve ihsanda (fakat müstahak olanlara) israf olmadığı gibi israfta da hiçbir hayır yoktur.”
Yedinci Nükte
İsraf, hırsı intac eder. Hırs, üç neticeyi verir:
Birincisi: Kanaatsizliktir. Kanaatsizlik ise sa’ye, çalışmaya şevki kırar. Şükür yerine şekva ettirir, tembelliğe atar. Ve meşru, helâl, az malı (Hâşiye[8]) terk edip; gayr-ı meşru, külfetsiz bir malı arar. Ve o yolda izzetini, belki haysiyetini feda eder.
Hırsın ikinci neticesi: Haybet ve hasarettir. Maksudunu kaçırmak ve istiskale maruz kalıp, teshilat ve muavenetten mahrum kalmaktır. Hattâ اَل۟حَرٖيصُ خَائِبٌ خَاسِرٌ yani “Hırs, hasaret ve muvaffakiyetsizliğin sebebidir.” olan darb-ı mesele mâsadak olur.
Hırs ve kanaatin tesiratı, zîhayat âleminde gayet geniş bir düstur ile cereyan ediyor.
Ezcümle, rızka muhtaç ağaçların fıtrî kanaatleri, onların rızkını onlara koşturduğu gibi hayvanatın hırs ile meşakkat ve noksaniyet içinde rızka koşmaları, hırsın büyük zararını ve kanaatin azîm menfaatini gösterir.
Hem zayıf umum yavruların lisan-ı halleriyle kanaatleri, süt gibi latîf bir gıdanın ummadığı bir yerden onlara akması ve canavarların hırs ile noksan ve mülevves rızıklarına saldırması; davamızı parlak bir surette ispat ediyor.
Hem semiz balıkların vaziyet-i kanaatkâranesi, mükemmel rızıklarına medar olması; ve tilki ve maymun gibi zeki hayvanların hırs ile rızıkları peşinde dolaşmakla beraber kâfi derecede bulmamalarından cılız ve zayıf kalmaları, yine hırs ne derece sebeb-i meşakkat ve kanaat ne derece medar-ı rahat olduğunu gösterir.
Hem Yahudi milleti hırs ile riba ile hile dolabı ile rızıklarını zilletli ve sefaletli, gayr-ı meşru ve ancak yaşayacak kadar rızıklarını bulması ve sahra-nişinlerin (yani bedevîlerin) kanaatkârane vaziyetleri, izzetle yaşaması ve kâfi rızkı bulması; yine mezkûr davamızı kat’î ispat eder.
Hem çok âlimlerin (Hâşiye[9]) ve ediblerin (Hâşiye[10]) zekâvetlerinin verdiği bir hırs sebebiyle fakr-ı hale düşmeleri ve çok aptal ve iktidarsızların fıtrî, kanaatkârane vaziyetleri ile zenginleşmeleri kat’î bir surette ispat eder ki: Rızk-ı helâl, acz ve iftikara göre gelir; iktidar ve ihtiyar ile değil. Belki o rızk-ı helâl, iktidar ve ihtiyar ile makûsen mütenasiptir. Çünkü çocukların iktidar ve ihtiyarı geldikçe rızkı azalır, uzaklaşır, sakîlleşir. اَل۟قَنَاعَةُ كَن۟زٌ لَا يَف۟نٰى hadîsinin sırrıyla kanaat, bir define-i hüsn-ü maişet ve rahat-ı hayattır. Hırs ise bir maden-i hasaret ve sefalettir.
Üçüncü Netice: Hırs ihlası kırar, amel-i uhreviyeyi zedeler. Çünkü bir ehl-i takvanın hırsı varsa teveccüh-ü nâsı ister. Teveccüh-ü nâsı müraat eden, ihlas-ı tammı bulamaz. Bu netice çok ehemmiyetli, çok cây-ı dikkattir.
Elhasıl: İsraf, kanaatsizliği intac eder. Kanaatsizlik ise çalışmanın şevkini kırar, tembelliğe atar; hayatından şekva kapısını açar, mütemadiyen şekva ettirir. (Hâşiye[11]) Hem ihlası kırar, riya kapısını açar. Hem izzetini kırar, dilencilik yolunu gösterir. İktisat ise kanaati intac eder.
عَزَّ مَن۟ قَنَعَ ذَلَّ مَن۟ طَمَعَ hadîsin sırrıyla kanaat, izzeti intac eder. Hem sa’ye ve çalışmaya teşci eder. Şevkini ziyadeleştirir, çalıştırır.
Çünkü mesela, bir gün çalıştı. Akşamda aldığı cüz’î bir ücrete kanaat sırrıyla, ikinci gün yine çalışır. Müsrif ise kanaat etmediği için ikinci gün daha çalışmaz. Çalışsa da şevksiz çalışır. Hem iktisattan gelen kanaat; şükür kapısını açar, şekva kapısını kapatır. Hayatında daima şâkir olur. Hem kanaat vasıtasıyla insanlardan istiğna etmek cihetinde teveccühlerini aramaz. İhlas kapısı açılır, riya kapısı kapanır.
İktisatsızlık ve israfın dehşetli zararlarını geniş bir dairede müşahede ettim. Şöyle ki: Ben, dokuz sene evvel mübarek bir şehre geldim. Kış münasebetiyle o şehrin menabi-i servetini göremedim. –Allah rahmet etsin– oranın müftüsü birkaç defa bana dedi: “Ahalimiz fakirdir.” Bu söz benim rikkatime dokundu. Beş altı sene sonraya kadar daima o şehir ahalisine acıyordum. Sekiz sene sonra yazın yine o şehre geldim. Bağlarına baktım. Merhum Müftünün sözü hatırıma geldi. Fesübhanallah dedim, bu bağların mahsulatı şehrin hâcetinin pek fevkindedir. Bu şehir ahalisi pek çok zengin olmak lâzım gelir. Hayret ettim. Beni aldatmayan ve hakikatlerin derkinde bir rehberim olan bir hatıra-i hakikatle anladım: İktisatsızlık ve israf yüzünden bereket kalkmış ki o kadar menabi-i servetle beraber o merhum Müftü “Ahalimiz fakirdir.” diyordu.
Evet, zekât vermek ve iktisat etmek, malda bi’t-tecrübe sebeb-i bereket olduğu gibi; israf etmek ile zekât vermemek, sebeb-i ref’-i bereket olduğuna hadsiz vakıat vardır.
İslâm hükemasının Eflatun’u ve hekimlerin şeyhi ve feylesofların üstadı, dâhî-i meşhur Ebu Ali İbn-i Sina, yalnız tıp noktasında كُلُوا وَ اش۟رَبُوا وَ لَا تُس۟رِفُوا âyetini şöyle tefsir etmiş. Demiş:
: جَمَع۟تُ الطِّبَّ فِى ال۟بَي۟تَي۟نِ جَم۟عًا وَ حُس۟نُ ال۟قَو۟لِ فٖى قَص۟رِ ال۟كَلَامِ
فَقَلِّل۟ اِن۟ اَكَل۟تَ وَ بَع۟دَ اَك۟لٍ تَجَنَّب۟ وَ الشِّفَاءُ فِى ال۟اِن۟هِضَامِ
وَ لَي۟سَ عَلَى النُّفُوسِ اَشَدُّ حَالًا مِن۟ اِد۟خَالِ الطَّعَامِ عَلَى الطَّعَامِ
Yani “İlm-i tıbbı iki satırla topluyorum. Sözün güzelliği kısalığındadır: Yediğin vakit az ye. Yedikten sonra dört beş saat kadar daha yeme. Şifa, hazımdadır. Yani kolayca hazmedeceğin miktarı ye. Nefse ve mideye en ağır ve yorucu hal, taam taam üstüne yemektir.” (Hâşiye[12])
Cây-ı hayret ve medar-ı ibret bir tevafuk
İktisat Risalesi’ni, üçü acemi olarak beş altı ayrı ayrı müstensih ayrı ayrı yerde ayrı ayrı nüshadan yazıp birbirinden uzak, hatları birbirinden ayrı, hiç elifleri düşünmeyerek yazdıkları her bir nüshanın elifleri; duasız elli bir, dua ile beraber elli üçte tevafuk etmekle beraber; İktisat Risalesi’nin tarih-i telif ve istinsahı olan Rumîce elli bir ve Arabî elli üç tarihinde tevafuku ise şüphesiz tesadüf olamaz. İktisaddaki bereketin keramet derecesine çıktığına bir işarettir. Ve bu seneye “Sene-i İktisat” tesmiyesi lâyıktır.
Evet, zaman iki sene sonra bu keramet-i iktisadiyeyi, İkinci Harb-i Umumî’de her taraftaki açlık ve tahribat ve israfatla ve nev-i beşer ve herkes iktisada mecbur olmasıyla ispat etti.
سُب۟حَانَكَ لَا عِل۟مَ لَنَٓا اِلَّا مَا عَلَّم۟تَنَٓا اِنَّكَ اَن۟تَ ال۟عَلٖيمُ ال۟حَكٖيمُ
- ↑ *There were forty para to a kurush, and a hundred kurush to a lira. (Tr.)
- ↑ *See, Gilani, Ghunya al-Talibin, 502; Nabhani, Jami‘ Karamat al-Awliya’, ii, 203.
- ↑ *Musnad, i, 447; al-Munawi, Fayd al-Qadir, v, 454, no: 7939; al-Hindi, Kanz al-‘Ummal, iii, 36; vi, 49, 56, 57.
- ↑ *See, al-Jurjani, Tarikh Jurjan, 366; al-Ghazali, al-Maqsad al-Asna, 85-6.
- ↑ *See, Bukhari, Musaqat, 13; Zakat, 50; Buyu’, 15; Ibn Maja, Zakat, 25; Musnad, i, 167.
- ↑ *One okka equalled 2.8 lbs. (Tr.)
- ↑ *That is, a fairly large teaspoon.
- ↑ Hâşiye: İktisatsızlık yüzünden müstehlikler çoğalır, müstahsiller azalır. Herkes gözünü hükûmet kapısına diker. O vakit hayat-ı içtimaiyenin medarı olan “sanat, ticaret, ziraat” tenakus eder. O millet de tedenni edip sukut eder, fakir düşer.
- ↑ Hâşiye-1: İran’ın âdil padişahlarından Nuşirevan-ı Âdil’in veziri, akılca meşhur âlim olan Büzürücumhur’dan (Büzürg-Mihr) sormuşlar: “Neden ulema, ümera kapısında görünüyor da ümera ulema kapısında görünmüyor. Halbuki ilim, emaretin fevkindedir?”
Cevaben demiş ki: “Ulemanın ilminden, ümeranın cehlindendir.” Yani ümera, cehlinden ilmin kıymetini bilmiyorlar ki ulemanın kapısına gidip ilmi arasınlar. Ulema ise marifetlerinden mallarının kıymetini dahi bildikleri için ümera kapısında arıyorlar. İşte Büzürücumhur, ulemanın arasında fakr ve zilletlerine sebep olan zekâvetlerinin neticesi bulunan hırslarını zarif bir surette tevil ederek nazikane cevap vermiştir.
Hüsrev - ↑ Hâşiye-2: Bunu teyid eden bir hâdise: Fransa’da ediblere, iyi dilencilik yaptıkları için dilencilik vesikası veriliyor.
Süleyman Rüşdü - ↑ Hâşiye-3: Evet, hangi müsrif ile görüşsen şekvalar işiteceksin. Ne kadar zengin olsa da yine dili şekva edecektir. En fakir fakat kanaatkâr bir adamla görüşsen şükür işiteceksin.
- ↑ Hâşiye: Yani vücuda en muzır, dört beş saat fâsıla vermeden yemek yemek veyahut telezzüz için mütenevvi yemekleri birbiri üstüne mideye doldurmaktır.