Unity of Being

[Mutakalim]

The concept of the Unity of Being (tawhiid Al-wujuud or wahdah al-wujuud) has an important philosophico-mystical meaning in Islam. Unlike Pantheism and Panentheism, which assert that God is everything and Everything is God , the concept of the Unity of Being in Islam articulates a diametrically opposed conception. The only true existent is God, and everything other than He is not truly existent. He, the True, the Real, the Existent is and everything else is-not.

 

The word "existence", if it be applied to anything other than He, is sheer metaphor. Existence can be classified into the existence that a thing posseses in itself and that which it possesses from another. When a thing has existence from another, then its existence is borrowed and has no support in itself.

 

Al-Ghazali provides an intelligible analogy in his book "Mishkaat al-Anwaar or The Niche of Lights" :-

 

Do you think that someone who borrows clothing, a horse, a blanket, and a saddle, and who rides the horse when the lender lets him do so and only to the extent that the he allows him is rich, or just metaphorically so?

 

Is the Lender rich or the borrower? Indeed, the matter is clearer than the light of day, nay to doubt this truth would be tantamount to labelling as dubious "necessary propisitions". The Borrower is rich (metaphorically) whilst the Lender is truly Rich.

 

In like manner, the existence of everything is borrowed from He; thusly, everything exists in asmuch as He who has disappeared due to the excess of his presence, allows it.

 

It has been often related that when the Gnostics (Al-Caarifiin) leave the lowlands of metaphor and ascend to the highlands of reality, they concieve of nothing but He. Plurality is totally banished from them, and they become immersed in sheer singularity. Thier rational faculites become so satiated that they are, as it were, stunned! No room remains for the rememberance of any other than God. Nothing is with them but God. They become intoxicated with such an intoxication that the ruling authority of their rational faculty is overthrown! Hence one of them says: I am the Truth انا الحق

 

Another says

I am He whom I love,

and He whom I love is I

انا من اهوى ومن اهوى انا

 

"Glory be to me How high is my station" سبحاني ما اعظم شاني

 

"There is nothing in my Robe but God" ما ÙÙŠ الجبة الا الله

 

 

The Speech of Lovers in the state of intoxication should be concealed and not spread about in accordance with the Sufi dictum "To Divulge the Mystery of Lordship is unbelief". اÙشاء سر الربوبية ÙƒÙر

 

This is so because the masses can not apprehend with their intellect the mysteries of the Lord. Ibn Rushd mentions in his treatise Ùصل المقال the methodology of Islam as pertains to spiritual and intellectual instruction; he mentions the Hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari in which the prophet, Peace be Upon Him, says "We, the prophets, have been commanded to adapt ourselves to the conditions of the people, and address them according to their intelligence."

 

When the Gnostics try to remember, recollect, and reckon what they had witnessed during the state of "Al-Fanaa" or annihilation (the annihilation of all other than He), it becomes excruciatingly difficult for them to articulate in human language that which they had experienced. This is the reason why some Gnostics attempt to explain this phenemonon by employing metaphors.

 

If one peruses the book The Garden of Reality or حديقة الحقيقة by the eleventh century Sufi, Shirazi, then one will find many an allusion to wine and women.

 

It is true that they, the Gnostics, cannot adequately communicate their experience and as result are labelled as unbelievers by those of weak insight (ضعÙاء البصيرة)

 

It is not unlikely that a person could look into a mirror in an unexpected place and not see the mirror at all. He supposes he sees the mirrors form. Likewise, he could look at a glass filled with wine and suppose the color of the wine to be the color of the glass. However, when the situation becomes familiar to him and his foot becomes firmly established within it, he asks God for forgiveness and says:

 

The glass is clear, the wine is clear,

the two are similiar, the affair confused

As if there is no wine and no glass,

or glass and no wine.

 

رق الزجاج وراقت الخمر** Ùتشابها Ùتشاكل الامر

Ùكانما خمر ولا قدح**Ùˆ كانما قدح ولا خمر

 

The Scholars of Allah (العلماء بالله) unlike the scholars of Law (العلماء باحكام الله), do not need to wait till the Day of Judgement to hear the Fashioner proclaim "Who is the Kingdom Today? God's the One, the Overwhelming". Rather, this proclaimation never leaves their hearing. A spirtual station that I am ever-crawling to reach.

 

That everything is perishing except his face (كل شئ هالك الا وجهه)is not a phenemon that occurs to each thing at one point in time, but it is an assertion that everything is perishing from eternity without beginning to eternity without end(ابدا و ازلا). A thing can only be said to "exist" with reference to He, because a thing cannot be concieved to exist with reference to itself.

 

With Salaams

PK

[xiinfaniin]

It has been often related that when the Gnostics (Al-Caarifiin) leave the lowlands of metaphor and ascend to the highlands of reality, they concieve of nothing but He. Plurality is totally banished from them, and they become immersed in sheer singularity. Thier rational faculites become so satiated that they are, as it were, stunned! No room remains for the rememberance of any other than God. Nothing is with them but God. They become intoxicated with such an intoxication that the ruling authority of their rational faculty is overthrown! Hence one of them says: I am the Truth انا الحق

 

Another says

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am He whom I love,

and He whom I love is I

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

انا من اهوى ومن اهوى انا

Allah is the source of existence. In fact Allah is the source of every thing. No question about that. But I humbly ask clarification about the meaning of ‘immersing in sheer singularity’ in your post. Don’t you believe Allah is uniquely and distinctively separate from his creatures? If you do, don’t you agree that it is Consequently impossible—Mahaal- to be unified with the Creator?

[NGONGE]

This is so because the masses can not apprehend with their intellect the mysteries of the Lord. Ibn Rushd mentions in his treatise Ùصل المقال the methodology of Islam as pertains to spiritual and intellectual instruction; he mentions the Hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari in which the prophet, Peace be Upon Him, says "We, the prophets, have been commanded to adapt ourselves to the conditions of the people, and address them according to their intelligence."

 

When the Gnostics try to remember, recollect, and reckon what they had witnessed during the state of "Al-Fanaa" or annihilation (the annihilation of all other than He), it becomes excruciatingly difficult for them to articulate in human language that which they had experienced. This is the reason why some Gnostics attempt to explain this phenemonon by employing metaphors.

This business of the masses not apprehending sounds to me as if this is not a case of knowledge in the accepted everyday sense! We are talking some sort of revelation here, are we not? (Forgive the simplicity of the question by the way).

 

Many, many years ago I tentatively delved into the sphere of Islamic philosophy and Sufism and was turned off by the language used doublespeak and, in parts, mixture of rationality and mysticism!

 

I recently started watching the debates on the Al Mostaqbal channel (not sure if you’re aware of them). In these debates (which seems to be the only program on that channel), they have a group of intellectuals, professors and scholars discussing the different schools of thought in Islam. They seem to have an obsession with Ibn Arabi and Ibn Taymia in particular. On the strength of those debates and the little I read since, I find myself in agreement with Ibn Taymia’s opinions regarding such issues.

 

Still, and like I said, I’ve only done very little reading on these subjects (whatever reading I did in the past is long forgotten). What puzzles me in your quote above is the mention of the prophet (csw)! Do these Gnostics claim to experience revelations similar to those the prophet’s had? Is this what’s known as being a perfect human (الانسان الكامل)? Is this a blessing or نعمه from the almighty bestowed upon them, and where does that leave them when judgment comes? Will they be judged with the masses or does having this “knowledge†give them some sort of immunity? How does this knowledge differ from having total Iman?

 

(I beg your pardon for all these questions; I’ve acquired a strange fondness for question marks lately).

[xiinfaniin]

Since it is seemingly taking longer than I expected for Mutakallim to answer those two-question s of mine, let me present a bigger argument against the so-called wahdat al-wujud concept, which was eloquently propounded by the great Suffi scholar and theologian Ibn al-'Arabi.

 

In wahdat al-wujud, Sufis think they are able to effect a merging of their souls with the Allah’s essence. In simple terms this means there is no deference between Allah and self.

You see, this is where Sufis indulge in the so-called mystical experience that takes them beyond the realm of intellectual discourse. A merging occurs, they claim, but could not be expressed in rational terms.

 

This concept has one fatal and serious deviant theological shortcoming as it clashes Allah’s createdness attribute. The Creator created and formed the universe. The existence of an absolute distinction between the Creator and created beings is a sound and established theological position, which Qur’an firmly supports. As Ibn Taymiyya observed, Sufi who subscribes to this concept is simply someone who is overcome by an outburst of emotions. A sufferer of excessive and extreme emotions, he diagnosed.

 

So how can one accept or trust the sense of perception of someone whose weak intellectual foundation have already collapsed by onslaught of excessive feelings?

 

The alternative is to let your believe in Allah emanate from a foundation of knowledge based on the Qur’an and the authentic Sunna. That, unlike Sufis and Philosophers, is reliance on divined Truth, the real Truth.

 

Salaamaat.

[Zaylici]

A very good discussion

[Salma]

Great Suffi scholar and theologian Ibn al-'Arabi??!!

 

Ibn Al Arabi was Great Suffi Scholar??!!!!!!

 

To tell you the truth, What makes me stay away from Sufism is the complete Mysticism in it.

 

Everytime I try to understand the concept of the Sufism and Sufis Ideas I feel more lost and can't understand them , Why the Sufis' words & ideas are so clouded and not clear, specially this "We7dat Al Wujood- Unity of Being Idea" ?! I feel Sahaba (May Allah be pleased with them) started the Sufism in a good way but their followers changed the real meaning of it.

 

I believe following the Clear meanings of the Holly Quraan and the Sunnah as were told & practiced by the Prophet (PBUH) is much better than following those who gave the complete freedom for their Minds and emotions like:-

 

1- Ibn Arabi

2- Al Hallaj

3- Rabea Al Aadaweyah

4- Omar Al Khayyam (in some of his poems, I won't say all of them)

5- Al Sayuuti

6- Al Harith AlMohasbi

7- Jalal Ul-diin AL Ruumi

etc...

 

Ngonge what is the name of that Program n "Future Channel"??!!

 

Salaam

[NGONGE]

^^^ Heh. I see that you’re as cautious as me when it comes to making a choice between the ideas of Moxi-el- Din (Ibn Arabi) and Taqi-El-Din (Ibn Taymiyya)! For the time being, I’m forced to agree with the clarity of Sheikh El Islam and avoid the approach of Ibn Arabi (and the many others that agree with his principles). Still, maybe the more I read and learn about this particular subject, the more I’ll find myself moving towards their way of thinking!

 

The TV channel I speak of is called Al Mostaqbal and, as far as I know, these debates are the only programs they seem to have on! The names of the programs (or debates) depend on the subjects they discuss on a particular evening. The guest list is usually very impressive! Intellectuals, scholars (All branches of Sunni and Shica), Arabic and philosophy professors and even political thinkers from all parts of the Arab world!

 

 

(Apologies to the author for this slight hijacking of his topic). Carry on..

[Baashi]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

As Ibn Taymiyya observed, Sufi who subscribes to this concept is simply someone who is overcome by an outburst of emotions. A sufferer of excessive and extreme emotions, he diagnosed.

Bull's eye! I liked how he put it.

[xiinfaniin]

Classique:

 

In some Sufi circles, Ibn 'Arabi is considered as the most influential Sufi scholar of all time. His supporters called him al-Shaykh al-akbar, the Greatest Master. For me, calling him the great Sufi scholar was a mere acknowledgement of that fact, not an endorsement.

 

One of his theological innovations, deficiencies one may say, that I was trying to address was the concept of Tawhiid Al-wujuud. This, I think, contradicts the sound Salafi Caqiidah to which I subscribe. That was all sxb.

 

Bashi, thanks sxb.

[Viking]

A clash of the Gnostics and the Literalists!

 

Mutakalim,

I am in the belief that gnosticism is esoteric and will always stir things up when explained to the masses.

[xiinfaniin]

Viking,

 

The masses are prudent enough to distinguish between what is a Sufi gimmick or, for worse, a satanic deception from the real Caqiidah. As they know, the masses that is, that in the final analysis, with all the bewilderment, intoxication and the like, the love of Allah does not end with Unity and that perfection is not a mortal attribute.

 

So masses are thankfully safe from the mystic delusions of the Sufis.

 

The correct teaching of the Prophet is to excel in worshiping Allah not to be Him, but to serve Him. This simple and beautiful message, unfortunately, escaped from the besieged minds of the Gnostics. They refused to weight their tenets by the scale of the Islamic Law and evaluate it by the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Consequently, and with great sadness, they are in a futile and fruitless quest to reach a spiritual station, where sufficient tranquility of heart in the Union of God and perfect man is promised. Like I said, this is indeed a satanic deception.

 

As always, exalted is He Who said:

“There is none like unto Him; He is the All- Hearer, the All-Knower.â€

 

Salaamaat.

[sayfulaah-almasluul]

i am enjoying the discussion..

[Viking]

The correct teaching of the Prophet is to excel in worshiping Allah not to be Him, but to serve Him.

xinfaniin,

This has always been the case when things are taken literally. Do you believe in hypnosis or at least understand it? Let's say you were hypnotised and did certain things that the hypnotists told you to do i.e. floating in space or that you are being chased by a pack of wolves.

 

Physically, you might be lying on the couch in his office, but your "soul" or "consciousness" has taken off and is experiencing the things that the hypnotist is describing.

 

The experiences you had would be very difficult to explain to someone who hasn't experienced the power of the mind through hypnosis and definately wouldn't make sense to them. How would you get them to believe that you actually "experienced" being chased by a pack of wolves or that you "actually" were floating in space?

 

This might be a lousy analogy and I stand to be corrected by people who have deep knowledge in gnosticism.

[Mutakalim]

Xiinfaniin wrote:

[qoute] But I humbly ask clarification about the meaning of ‘immersing in sheer singularity’ in your post. Don’t you believe Allah is uniquely and distinctively separate from his creatures? If you do, don’t you agree that it is Consequently impossible—Mahaal- to be unified with the Creator?

 

It is clear that huluul and Ittihad are nowise possible. The meaning of the phrase "immersed in sheer singularity" is only figurative and not literal. When the 'Arif (gnostic) is in a state of extinction, annihilation or الÙناء , he takes leave of his better senses. Allah is not, despite pervasive anthropormorphic belief, a body; thusly, it is not possible for an infinte being to merge with a finte one(Man).

 

Like 'Ashari theology, Sufi theology and cosmogony stipulate that everything that can be concieved of, can be categorized into three cardinal categories:

 

1. Wajib Al-Wujud:(واجب الوجود) Necessary Existent, is the Being whose nonexistence is not possible. This being is not brought into existence nor can this being become nonexistent, it is logical contradiction for this being to come into existence or to go out of existence. He, exalted, exists through Himself independently and his existence is required for the existence of everything else. It is important to comprehend the notion that none shares with Allah this independent attribute of existence. This is in part an answer to the age-old metaphysical question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

2. Mumkin Al-Wujud:(ممكن الوجود) Contingent Existent or Possible existent, the existence of anything in this category is only possible. In other words, the mumkin al-wujuud may or may not exist. Therefore, the existence of the mumkin (the possible) is contingent (dependent or conditional) and not necessary. There is a 50/50 chance that this being could exist or not exist; the question therefore is, why do these beings exist? That is to say, there needs must be an agent that brings it into existence since creation does not have in itself the reason for its existence.

 

3. Mustahil Al-Wujuud:(مستحيل الوجود) Impossible existent, such are things that cannot be concieved to exist aught. In this class belongs other Gods other than Allah or partners. According to reveleation and intellect, the existence of such beings is naught.

 

When Gnostics refer to the "Unity of Being", they are alluding to the first category; viz., the Unity of Allah's necessary existence. To imagine that the Sufis are referring to the two other categories would be to delibrately misconstrue their conception. Creation has no independent being; its existence is sustained and supported by Allah, and as such it is not truly existent but only metaphorically so. This is why Suhradawi, the Neoplatonist mystic, writes in his book حكمة الاشراق The Philosophy of Illumination that our existence is "sheer nothingness" and "sheer metaphor" (مجار محض). It is only possible, Suhradawi adds, that we can be said to exist (metaphorically) only with respect to Allah. In other words, only Allah truly exists because his existence is necessary and independent.

 

Sufis do not understand the term Allahu Akbar or God is most Great to mean that He is greater than other things. God forbid! Afterall, there is nothing in existence along with Him that he could be greater than. Or rather, as Ibn Arabi says in his Futuhat Al-Makkiyyah, The Mecaan Conquests or Revelations that, nothing other than He possesses the level of "withness" (المعية); indeed, everything other than God exists with respect to Him. At the risk of sounding redundant, the Unity of Being only refers to God's Being since he is the only one whose existence is independent, true, and neccessary.

 

NGONGE Wrote

 

[qoute We are talking some sort of revelation here, are we not?

 

Let me declare at the outset that, the gnostics do not claim to be the vessels of divine revelation. However, they are the vessels of divine illumination and Hikmah.

 

As for the servant, the door of the world of dominion will not open for him and he will not become "dominional" unless, in relation to him, the earth changes to other than the earth, and the heavens to other than the heavens. This is the first ascent for every traveller who has begun his journey to the proximity of the Lordly presence(الحضرة الربوبية).

 

As Al-Ghazali delianates in his Mishkat , people are veiled by sheer darkness, darkness mixed with light, and light alone. These veils cause the faculties of perception to function improperly. Selfish appetites and anger are dark veils; corrupt beliefs and imaginations are veils of light and darkness; and corrupt rational analgoies are veils of light. Hence, people end up worshipping the gods of their decieved perceptions- idols, their own souls, a supreme being located "up" and other objects of worship. For correct worship, the faculties must be cleansed of these distorting influences. Purification of this corruption comes through sincere religous practice, the goal of which is to actualize the highest faculty, the holy prophetic spirit, which is found fully in the prophets and partially in the saints. However, even this faculty at some point in the journey to God becomes a limitation. The highest state of realizing this faculty is to become extinct (fana) from all the faculties, at which point all veils are burned away and there remains God's light alone, illuminating the hearts of the travellers, whom Ibn Tufayl calls in his magnum opus, Hayy bin Yaqzan, Alive, Son of the Awakened , "those who have arrived" (الواصلون)

 

Do these Gnostics claim to experience revelations similar to those the prophet’s had? Is this what’s known as being a perfect human (الانسان الكامل)? Is this a blessing or نعمه from the almighty bestowed upon them, and where does that leave them when judgment comes? Will they be judged with the masses or does having this “knowledge†give them some sort of immunity? How does this knowledge differ from having total Iman?

 

The actualization of the highest faculty, the holy prophetic spirit, is, indeed, the summom bonum of Gnosis. Even the obstinate orthodox scholar, Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, writes in his , Majmu' Fatawaa Ibn Taymiyyah (the volume of Tasawwuf) that, the conception of hierarchy of proximity to Allah is an islamic tenet. Ibn Taymiyyah writes, "how can we deny this when Allah, Jalla Sha'nuh, says , الا ان اولياء الله لا خو٠عليهم ولا هم يحزنون , Verily, the freinds of Allah, no fear shall come upon them nor shall they grieve. However, it is only fair to mention that Ibn Taymiyyah does not believe that the Sufis are the freinds of Allah.

 

The following two hadiths support the propostion that there are amongst Men(even amongst the muslims), those who Allah favors and grants the knowledge of divine mystery (الكش٠والذوق) throug a lifting of the veil and through a provision of taste. These freinds of Allah (I believe the sincere sufis to be of this party not the pseudo-mystics) are granted a lofty postion on the Day of complete unveiling.

 

There is a famous authentic hadith in which the prophet, the earthly lamp, peace be upon him, says, "There are some people who because they are so poor cover their unlawful nakedness with two pieces of ragged clothing; whose hair is tousled and appearance dusty such that if they knock at a door, they would be turned away. Yet, if they raise their hands and make supplication to Allah, they will be answered." رب اشعث اغبر ذي طمرين مدÙوع بالابواب لو اقسم على الله لابره . That the "awliya" have a "karaamah" that other muslims is a notion which enjoys a consensus between all scholars(the dispute is about whether is possible to identify them). Of course, I am confident that you are also familiar with the hadith al-qudsi in which Allah says, "...I become my servant's ears, his eyes, his hands and his feet...". It is also reported by Sunni Narrators that the Second Caliph experienced an unveiling whilst he was in Madinah. In this well-known incident Omar Ibn Al-Khattab saw the Battle of Qadisiyyah (معركة القادسية),other narrators say that it was Nahawand, he shouted, يا سارية الجبل الجبل ; subsequently, the muslim army, which was many miles aways, heard, with clarity, his cry from afar. In any event, the difference between the freinds of Allah and those who simply have Iman is a difference in rank. Most people are imitators of religion (obey and follow), while others are actualizers of religon.

 

Islamic teaching addresses three basic domains of human experience- doing, knowing, and being; or practice, doctrine, and realization اسلام ايمان احسان . Sufism focuses specifically on the last, employing the first and second, however, as primary means to achieve this focus. The great Sufis in the days of yore, strove to perfect ihsan, which involved, according to the prophet's definition, peace be upon him, "worshipping God as if you see Him" اعبد الله كانك تراه Ùان لم تكن تراه Ùانه يراك. From the point of view of "as if" the world appears as a far different place than from the point of view of jurisprudence , whose characteristic stance in relation to God is "we hear and we obey"(سمعنا واطعنا), with no talk of seeing. This is why Al-Ghazali in his autobiography, Al-Muniqidh min Ad-dalaal, Deliverance from Error, writes, that it is not inconcievable that people whose inner reality is impure may become masters of Law, Theology, and Philosophy, but they never actualize the wisdom offered through the sincere practice of Islam demanded by Sufism. Other disciplines, he argued, explain the behavior and beliefs necessary to do the good; it does not teach the virtous attitude of being good .

 

As Hussein bin Ali said:

 

الهي تركت الخلق طرا ÙÙŠ هواك** Ùˆ ايتمت العيال كي اراك

Ùلو قطعتني ÙÙŠ الحب اربا*** لما مال الÙؤاد الى سواك

 

Viking : You will find the literlists الحشوية and the "Metaphoriscists" الباطنية on the extreme poles of the theological spectrum. Islam is a religon that has both an outward and inward meaning, and to restrict oneself to one of the two dimensions would be a great folly. Lastly, as regards those who castigate Gnostiscim out of confusion such as Ibn Taymiyyah, I will quote the arab poet:

 

عاب الكلام اناس لا عقول لهم

وما عليه اذا عابوه من ضرر

ما ضر شمس الضحى ÙÙŠ الاÙÙ‚ طالعة

ان لا يراها من ليس ذا بصر

 

With Salaams

PK

[xiinfaniin]

Mutakallim wrote:

It is clear that huluul and Ittihad are nowise possible.

This declaration of yours sits well with Ibn Taymiyya’s Salafi Caqiidah. It also affirms the theological position that I have articulated in my previous postings.

So I shall there fore ignore the rest of your argument, which, to my surprise, is full of irreconcilable and contradictious statements.

 

But I can’t leave this topic without impeaching the integrity of those men whose writings you relied on in defending this incoherent concept, Unity of Being that is.

 

Ibnu Arabi

 

Perhaps no Sufi holds higher regard than, in all Sufi schools, Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi. This Spanish Sufi had deviated from the authentic and original Islamic theology and created unbridgeable gap between Islamic Law and Sufism. In Futuhat Al-Makkiyyah, he claimed that he received revelations. He reported that he met with Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad and got instructions and direct orders from them. So one is only left to conclude the man was either intentionally adulterating the Caqiidah of this Religion or, sadly, was a victim of what is called in Psychiatric circles, disinhibition syndrome. A freedom to act according to one’s inner drives or feelings, with no regard for restrains imposed by cultural norms and religious believes. Further more, there was never proper schooling of his, except brief introduction to Ibnu Rushdi, in the Islamic fields of Hadith, Fiqh, and Qur’an reported.

 

Abu 'l-Futuh al-Suhrawardi

 

This Iranian Sufi, “the Master of Oriental Theosophy†as he was called, was so out of step from the sound Islamic Theology that he was promptly executed and deservedly so, I may add. The greatly celebrated, off course by Sufis, masterpiece of his--or so it was called—is Hikmat al-Ishraq. In it his line of reasoning is more in line with the ancient Greek philosophers, like Plato, than it is with the Prophet’s teachings. For him no need for Muhammad’s teaching as he felt he was knowledgeable enough to be the Prophet by himself! A crime he was found guilt of, Claiming Prophecy that is.

 

Ibnu Tufayl

 

A Spanish-Arab philosopher, who made, rather eloquently, in his fictional and philosophical romance novel Hayy ibn Yaqzan, that religion and philosophy have natural conflicts and can’t be reconciled. Those who tried with good intent, like Al-Ghasali, I may add, failed miserably. You see, this man was a scientist, a physician to be precise, and to be true to his discipline he delivered the correct verdict. And that spares him from impeachment of his integrity. His work is not suitable, how ever, as a source for Unity of Being, at least from theological perspective.

 

Al Hallaj

 

Mansur Al Hallaj will ever be remembered by his infamous utterance: I Am the Truth.

What an evil utterance! For the Truth he meant Allah, he was imprisoned and later executed. Of course he was found guilty of apostasy. I read some of his books years ago and I do count him as a Kafir. At times, I think of him as a man who lost his mental sanity. That might have given his lawyers legal argument to spare him from execution, I gathered. Jokes aside, he wouldn’t have made in any one’s list of Friends of Allah either, I suppose.

 

So to the Nomads of SOL, above are the proponents of the concept Unity of Being. A delusional assertion that man and Allah can merge and hence become One! Not withstanding Mutakallim’s attempt to cast it differently.

Are these men Mutaqqiin? Do they seem credible enough to have a reasonable debate with their theological work? And above all did their work adhere to the Qur’an and Sunnah way of doing Ijtihad? I leave you with these propping questions so you can perhaps arrive same conclusion as I did: that these men swum against the tide of strict Islamic Law as it relates to theology and Caqiidah. And that they are in conflict with the confirmed guidelines of worshiping Allah as it is imposed by Sharia.

 

I appreciate your Mutakallim's citation of Arabic Poetry and I particularly liked Hussein Ibn Ali’s qasiidah! If I were not technically challenged, I would have otherwise posted Farasdaq’s famous madxi of Hussein. It is so breathtakingly beautiful and elegant it does not only show the literary capacity of its author but it also reveals the depth from which it is delivered!