Wahdatal Wujud Explained

[Omar HH]

http://www.muftisays.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=327

Very useful.

[abeer_xyz]

Wahdat al-Wujood Simplified

Summary of the explanation of Wahdat al-Wujood by Maulana Zafar Ahmad Usmani in the Introduction of his Urdu book "Al-Qawlul Mansur fi Ibn al-Mansur" (also known as "Seerat-e-Mansur Hallaj")

Allah Ta'ala has many qualities, one of them is wujood (existence). The wujood of Allah is compulsory (Allah is 'wajib al-Wujood'). The wujood of Allah has no beginning and no end. The wujood of the creation of Allah is 'hadis' (of recent occurrence) and dependent upon Allah Ta'ala in all its aspects.

Regarding the wujood of the creation, the Ulama-e-Zahir say that the wujood of the creation is 'mustaqil' (confirmed), meaning that it is not a shadow of the existence of Allah but entirely dependent upon Allah in all its aspects. The soofia-e-kiram say that the wujood of the creation is 'ghair-mustaqil' (unconfirmed). Indeed, the wujood of the creation is 'khayali' (speculative). The real wujood is that of Allah alone. The entire creation is a testimony of the wujood of Allah. In other words, the existence of the creation is totally different than the existence of Allah. One can not make 'qiyas' (analogical deduction) of Allah's wujood with that of the creation. The existence of Allah is real and independent. Therefore, wahdat al-wujood means that Allah is one in His existence as He is one in His 'zaat' (self/identity). It is a much deeper notion of 'tawheed' (oneness of Allah). 'Wahdat as-shuhood' means that the mere speculative existence of the creation testifies the independent existence of Allah.

'Wujood-e-khayali' (the speculative existence of the creation) is of two types:

1. 'Waqi'ee' (occurring)

2. 'Ghair waqi'ee (non-occurring)

The soofia say that the creation is 'waqi'ee' (occurring) but its occurrence is limited in terms of 'makaan' (place) and 'zamaan' (time) and dependent upon Allah. It would be wrong to call the creation non-occurring and say that everything one sees is Allah, this is against the 'aqaa'id' (beliefs) of the Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah. This is where all the misunderstanding arises. In reality, the beliefs held by the 'soofia-e-kiram' in regards to the oneness of Allah are in exact accordance with Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah and much deeper and firm-rooted than those of the 'ulama-e-zahir'. Once a person believes that the creation is only speculative then he will not think and believe that the benefits and harms being displayed by the creation are its creation but all harm and benefit is the creation of Allah. The creation only displays the orders of Allah. The 'hikmah' (wisdom) of 'wahdat al-wujood' and 'wahdat as-shuhood' is to ingrain a deep 'yaqin' (conviction) of Allah in the depths of the hearts. If a person has a hard time understanding this, he should stick to the basic beliefs and tenets of Islam as described by the 'ulama-e-zahir' because these are proven from the Quran with clarity. However, one does not have the right to criticize the 'soofia' for their beliefs just because one is unable to understand the reality of their views. One should also understand that the views of the 'soofia' regarding 'wahdat al-wujood' are not from the fundamentals of 'tassawwuf' and understanding it is not a condition for a 'saalik' (seeker of truth). Those who speak ill of the 'soofia' should fear Allah and contemplate over the following hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi WaSallam):
It is a very nice presentation of Wahdat al-Wujood in simple words. I want to add something more. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The commonsense idea is that the creation is based on material. Material is created by God. But having been created it got an objective existence. God now is running the material world. He has the power to annihilate it at any time. Here the relation between God and Creation is like the relation between a maker and the made object. In this case if the maker dies before the destruction of the made thing, the made thing shall continue its existence but gradually shall fall into disorder.

But the Sufis say that the creation does not have any objective existence even after it has been created. It is continually and incessantly dependent on God for its very existence (not for mere smooth running). If God dies without annihilating this creation, the creation will automatically vanish. The best analogy of the relation between God and Creation is the relation between a dreamer and a dreamt world. If the dreamer dies the world in dream shall automatically vanish. The world is not constituted of any thing called material. Rather the world is a complexly woven stream of ideas (khayal) in God’s “mind”. There are as many “alam” (worlds) as many “nafs” (knower/ego/soul) are there. Each nafs has a alam for it constituting an entity called “life-world”. All such life-worlds communicate with others and become part of other life-worlds. All such life-worlds are ideas of God and make the universe a grand-whole in God’s “mind”.

God is the “rab al-alamin”. He creates by saying “kun”. The creation and recreation of an entire universe is similar to creating a single nafs.

Is this universe an illusion? No. Because it is the khayal of God.

Is this universe of commonsense and science is invalid? No. Because it is the ultimate thing God wanted to create through this ideal (khayali) process.

The Sufis like Ibn al-Arabi and others just got the deeper understanding.

Allah knows the best.

[Abba]

Why was Ibn Arabi hanged?Who were the Ulema who prosecuted him and gave a verdict of death?

What does Fana Fillah mean?and What does Fana Fi Sheikh means?

[Sadiq]

Al-Suyuti's attitude (one group considering him a friend of Allah, another considering him a heretic - such as a large number of the jurists - while others expressed doubts concerning him) and what he reports from al-Munawi is echoed by Imam al-Safadi who said of Ibn 'Arabi:

"He was a very great man, and whatever can be understood from his words is excellent and upright; as for what we find difficult, we leave its matter to Allah, for we were not tasked with following him nor with doing all that he said." [Source: In al-Suyuti, Tanbih al-Ghabi (p. 70). ]

al-Qari admitted in one of his fatwas against Ibn 'Arabi and his works: "The safest course in Religion concerning the person of Ibn 'Arabi is silence, as the scholars differed about him." [Source: Al-Qari, Risala fi Wahda al-Shuhud (p. 62). ]

Taken from a very lengthy article on livingislam website... for those who wish to "read" more... Best action, as my teacher said, who took the position of Imam Suyuti, "take what we understand, leave the parts we don't, and his books are not to be read"

Wasallam.

[Omar HH]

Ibn Arabi (ra)'s words have been greatly skewed today.

Some of the stuff he wrote which doesn't make sense (i.e. about idols etc. which seem to be talking about paganism or the trancendant unity of religions or pantheism) is actually alot of times poetic stuff that's written with ANOTHER totally different meaning (as Shaykh Girbil explained on his website).

Thank you for al-Suyuti's position, Jazkaallahu khayrun.

[faqir]

From Ask-imam.com

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=8075


1. In the terminology of the Soofis, Wahdatul Wujood means to believe that all the Mawjoodaat (things present around us) are an indication of Allah’s presence and to believe that everything besides Allah is subjective.


Mufti Muhammad Kadwa
FATWA DEPT.

CHECKED AND APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai

[faqir]

Taken from the article by Umm Sahl on:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/masud/...isc/nabulsi.htm


Wahdat al-Wujud


The first issue that we'll look at, inshallah, is the "doctrine of the unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud)". I would rather translate this as "oneness of being" as I believe this more accurately represents what is meant by this concept. Akram wrote the following after translating one of the poems of Sheikh `Abd al-Ghani from his Diwan al-Haqa'iq (Collected Poems of Higher Spiritual Realities), "Notice the doctrine of "unity of existence (wahdat al-wujud)", which is to believe that the existence of all things is one and that existence itself is Allah. Exalted is Allah Most High above their Satanic heresy". Akram has made the common mistake of taking this concept of "oneness of being" in its ostensive sense, as would be expected, as this is what comes to mind from the literal meaning of the words and he hasn't been exposed to any other definition.

In order to understand this concept we will first have to look at how existence is defined by the Imams of tenets of faith (`aqida). In the Ahl al-Sunna schools of `aqida existence or being is divided into three categories. The first is necessarily existent (wajib al-wujud), which defines the existence of Allah Most High. Allah Most High exists independently through Himself and His existence is necessary for the existence of all other things. None of His creation share in His existence. It is to this category of being that the Sufis are referring when they say "oneness of being (wahdat al-wujud)". The second category is contingent existence (al-wujud al-mumkin). This defines the existence of created things that may or may not exist. Created things have no independent being and their existence is not necessary. Allah Most High brought them into being through His will, power and knowledge and if He willed they would have no existence. Creation only exists through Him giving it being, so in this sense it exists through Him, but doesn't share in His independent, necessary being. The third category is impossible being (mustahil al-wujud), which includes the existence of a co-sharer in Allah's entity, attributes or actions, which is impossible both according to revelation and the intellect.

If the difference between necessary existence (wajib al-wujud) and contingent existence (mumkin al-wujud) is clearly understood, then a lot of difficulty in Sufi literature is explained. When the Sufis such as `Abd al-Ghani refer to "oneness of being", they are referring to the existence of Allah Most High. Creation is not what is intended. Created things have no being in themselves in the sense that the movement of a puppet points to the presence of the puppeteer, or a shadow that something is making the shadow. If the puppeteer stopped pulling the strings the puppets being would come to an end. Is the puppet the same as the puppeteer and share in his existence? No. Could the puppet exist without the existence of the puppeteer? No. Does the puppet have a true existence that is in any way parallel to or comparable to the existence of the puppeteer? No. If not that Allah created us and sustains every moment of our life, we would have no life. Does this mean that we are Allah? Certainly not. Is our existence independent of Allah? No. Does our appearance of being in any way resemble the independent being of Allah Most High? No.

That what Sheikh `Abd al-Ghani meant when referring to "oneness of being" was the necessary existence of Allah and not creation is verified in the following poems also taken from the Diwan al-Haqa'iq. On page 44:

The Oneness of Being that we maintain is none other than
the Oneness of the Truth (al-Haqq), so understand what we say,
The Oneness of Allah, the sole Unity, which the pre-eminent
luminaries have witnessed,

And there is no difference with us, O ignoramus, whether we say
"Being (wujud)" or "The Truth (al-Haqq)",

Don't imagine that the Being (wujud) that we mention is
creation according to us.

Also, in vol.1, Page 22:
Truly, Being is unseen by eyes,
In respect to what the beholder sees;
Eyes perceive nothing of it besides "what is besides",
Namely, contingent things, a collection of shadows;

A shadow but shows that there is something standing,
That controls it, beyond any doubt;

So beware of thinking that what you perceive
Is that Being: be one of those who know;

For all of what you perceive is but what "is there (al-mawjud)",
Not this True Being, He of Glorious Signs;

Of a certainty, Being is completely debarred from you,
In its majesty, elevation, and exaltedness;

For all you see is contingent and perishable,
and you too, are bound to perish.

It should be obvious that Sheikh `Abd al-Ghani was not a pantheist and I think that if Akram had not been hasty, but rather made an objective investigation, he would have reached the same conclusion and absolved himself the responsibility of accusing a Muslim of a doctrine that has no resemblance to that Muslim's belief.

[Abba]

Ibn Arabi was not hanged. He died with Imam Al Ghazzali's Ihya Uloom ad Din in his lap. He was in Damascus at the time.

The Sufi who was condemned to death was the Martyr of the Sufis Mansoor al Hallaj. The Alim, who passed a fatwa on him was a great Sufi himself, ash Sheikh al Mashaikh Hazrat Junaid al Baghdadi r.a.

And he was not killed because of "Anal Haq"... that was one of the reasons cited for his death, but was not the actual reason. To go into the circumstances prevailing his death would require a doctoral thesis. It suffices to say that there were political elements involved. And Hallaj was stirring up rebellion against the government.

Fana fIllah - Fana = Annihilation, Fi = In, Allah = Allah

This term is applied to a person who has reached that state of Ihsan, at which he actually "feels" the power (Qudra) of Allah. Behind every event he "sees" Allah. In other words, it's an extreme state of Tawakkal ala Allah.

Fana fil Sheikh - This is a different term and bears no similarity in meaning to "Fana fIllah". It is very difficult term to translate or expound upon. Maybe others here can detail the meaning.

Pardon me,true,it was Mansoor Hallaaj who was hanged.But this is new to me that it was Junaid Baghdadi who passed Fatwa on him.

But Junaid Baghdadi is extremely revered and respected Sufi,so how can we expect him to be influenced by politics and issue a Fatwa on Mansoor Hallaj?

[Muawiyah]

no it was the Mansoor Hallaj character who was engaging in politics, trying to stir up rebellion under the cover of an ecstatic sufi, that's why he was killed, though I don't know if it was Shaykh Junaid rahimahullah who passed fatwa on him.

[muslim786]

Pardon me,true,it was Mansoor Hallaaj who was hanged.But this is new to me that it was Junaid Baghdadi who passed Fatwa on him.

But Junaid Baghdadi is extremely revered and respected Sufi,so how can we expect him to be influenced by politics and issue a Fatwa on Mansoor Hallaj?
re read what the brother has said, I think it will make it clear. No one said Hazrat Junaid RA was influenced by politics.

[Abba]

I think I was quite specific. I never claimed that Imam Junaid was influenced by politics. Sheesh... putting words in my mouth....

I am sorry if i have got u wrong,but u said about Mansoor Hallaj "Martyr of Sufis",which means to me as if he has some special position among Sufis.And then u write that Junaid Baghdadi ra gave a verdict to hang him.So either he deserved to be hanged as Junaid Baghdadi ruled or he was not a martyr

[Muawiyah]

When a wa'iz or a poet want to present a moral or an abstract idea from a story, it's not necessary for the story to be historically true, that's why you have poets and sufis referring to al-Hallaj as a martyr whereas more objective sources say that he was a rebellious shi'ite.