Oneness of Being

Wahda al-Wujud or Oneness of Being

Perhaps the most famous misrepresentation of the Shaykh that resulted from the Fusus is the attribution to him of the doctrine of "oneness of being" (wahda al-wujud) in the pantheistic sense of the immanence of the Deity in everything that exists.

Al-Qari cites, for example, a verse of poetry which he references to the Fusus, stating:

Subhana man azhara al-ashya'a wa huwa `aynuha

Glory to Him Who caused things to appear and is those very things!1

This attribution and others of its type are evidently spurious, and Ibn `Arabi's `Aqida flatly contradicts them.

Furthermore, verifying scholars such as Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi in his epistles, Shaykh `Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi in al-Radd al-Matin `ala Muntaqid al-`Arif Billah Muhyi al-Din and Idah al-Maqsud min Wahda al-Wujud, and al-Sha`rani in al-Yawaqit wa al-Jawahir and Tanbih al-Aghbiya' `ala Qatratin min Bahri `Ulum al-Awliya have rephrased Ibn `Arabi's expression of "oneness of being" (wahda al-wujud) as "oneness of perception" (wahda al-shuhud) in the sense in which the Prophet  defined excellence (ihsan) as "worshipping Allah as if you see Him."2

Al-Buti said:

What is the meaning of the expression "oneness of perception"?
When I interact with causes with full respect to Allah's ways, His orders, and His Law, knowing that the sustenance that comes to me is from Allah; the felicity that enters my home is from Allah Almighty; my food is readied for me by Allah - I mean even the smallest details; the wealth with which I have been graced, comes from Allah; the illness that has been put in my being or that of a relative of mine comes from Allah Almighty; the cure that followed it is from Allah Almighty; my success in my studies is by Allah Almighty's grant; the results which I have attained after obtaining my degrees and so forth, are from Allah Almighty's grant - when the efficacy of causes melts away in my sight and I no longer see, behind them, other than the Causator Who is Allah Almighty: at that time, when you look right, you do not see except Allah's Attributes, and when you look left, you do not see other than Allah's Attributes. As much as you evolve in the world of causes, you do not see, through them, other than the Causator, Who is Allah.

At that time you have become raised to what the spiritual masters have called oneness of perception. And this oneness of perception is what Allah's Messenger  expressed by the word ihsan [which he defined to mean]: "That you worship Allah as if you see him." You do not see the causes as a barrier between you and Allah. Rather, you see causes, in the context of this doctrine, very much like pure, transparent glass: the glass pane is present - no one denies it - but as much as you stare at it, you do not see anything except what is behind it. Is it not so? You only see what is behind it. The world is entirely made of glass panes in this fashion. You see in them Allah's efficacy in permanence, so you are always with Allah Almighty. None has tasted the sweetness of belief unless he has reached that level of perception.3

Ibn Taymiyya's Unreliability

Ibn Taymiyya is quoted in his Fatawa as being asked repeatedly about
"the verdict of Islam concerning Ibn `Arabi who asserted Oneness of Being," and other similar questions.

However, it seems that Ibn Taymiyya did not review the Shaykh's huge Futuhat in its totality when he answered these questions. At times, his discussions about Ibn `Arabi depend, as he puts it, on "whether these are his actual words" while at other times he attacks him outright on the basis of these unverified assumptions, or himself levels specific accusations against the Shaykh.

Muhammad Ghurab - a contemporary authority on Ibn `Arabi's works - in a book published in the 1980s by Dar al-Fikr in Damascus, states having read the Futuhat several times from cover to cover without finding the expressions for which Ibn Taymiyya took the Shaykh to task while citing this work.

The late hadith scholar of Damascus Shaykh Mahmud al-Rankusi similarly affirmed that Ibn Taymiyya answered questions about Ibn `Arabi without confirming them against his actual writings, and that the sharp temper of the former further complicated his attitude towards the Shaykh. On the basis of these opinions and in the light of Ibn Taymiyya's occasional reservations and his otherwise apparently correct approach to ambiguous expressions, it seems that the misquotations of Ibn `Arabi became so numerous in Ibn Taymiyya's time that it became inconceivable to him that they were all incorrect, whereupon he treated them as facts. The errors causing these misquotations can also be inferred from the fact that since the misquotations revolved around issues of doctrine - in which misunderstandings are fraught with grave dangers - and in light of the Shaykh's complex style and obscure expressions, queries would be commonly sent to muftis concerning what some people thought they had read, without actually citing nor understanding the expressions in question. All this could have been avoided by the due observance of faithfulness (amana) in textual citation, as the early scholars insisted with reference to hadith transmission. Yet many later scholars, beginning with Ibn Taymiyya and after him, relied on second and third-hand paraphrases and attributions, endorsing the accusations against Ibn `Arabi and even generalizing them so as to target all tasawwuf.

Finally, Ibn Taymiyya in his letter to al-Munayji actually states his admiration for the Futuhat and reserves his criticism only for the Fusus!4

Other Critics of Ibn `Arabi

Among the scholars cited by al-Qari as condemning Ibn `Arabi as an innovator or even an outright heretic (zindiq) and disbeliever because of Fusus al-Hikam:
Ibn `Abd al-Salam,
al-Jazari,
Sharaf al-Din ibn al-Muqri,
Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi,
Sa`d al-Din al-Taftazani,5 
Jamal al-Din Muhammad ibn Nur al-Din,6 
Siraj al-Din al-Bulqini who supposedly ordered his books burnt,7 
Burhan al-Din al-Biqa`i,
Ibn Taymiyya,8 
and his student al-Dhahabi who said:

He may well have been one of Allah's Friends Whom He strongly attracted to Himself upon death and for whom He sealed a good ending. As for his words, whoever understands them, recognizes them to be on the bases of communion-with-the-divine (ittihadiyya), knowing the deviation of those people and comprehending their expressions: the truth will be apparent to him as against what they say.9

The Hanafi shaykh `Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari, like Ibn al-Muqri, went so far as to declare anyone who did not declare Ibn `Arabi a disbeliever to be himself a disbeliever. This is the same `Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari who said that anyone that gives Ibn Taymiyya the title Shaykh al-Islam is a disbeliever.

Al-Haytami's Response

Al-Haytami said in his Fatawa Hadithiyya:

“Our shaykh [Zakariyya al-Ansari] said in Sharh al-Rawd... in response to Ibn al-Muqri's statement:

"Whoever doubts in the disbelief (kufr) of Ibn `Arabi's group, he himself is a disbeliever":

The truth is that Ibn `Arabi and his group are the elite of the Umma. Al-Yafi`i, Ibn `Ata' Allah and others have declared that they considered Ibn `Arabi a wali, noting that the language which Sufis use is appropriate among the experts in its usage and that the knower of Allah (`arif), when he becomes completely absorbed in the oceans of Unity, might make some statements that are liable to be misconstrued as indwelling (hulul) and union (ittihad), while in reality there is neither indwelling nor union.

It has been clearly stated by our Imams, such as al-Rafi`i in his book al-`Aziz, al-Nawawi in al-Rawda and al-Majmu`, and others:

When a mufti is being asked about a certain phrase that could be construed as disbelief, he should not immediately say that the speaker should be put to death nor make permissible the shedding of his blood.
Rather let him say: The speaker must be asked about what he meant by his statement, and he should hear his explanation, then act accordingly.10

Look at these guidelines - may Allah guide you! - and you will find that the deniers who assault this great man (Ibn `Arabi) and positively assert his disbelief, are riding upon blind mounts, and stumbling about like a camel affected with troubled vision. Verily Allah has blocked their sight and hearing from perceiving this, until they fell into whatever they fell into, which caused them to be despised, and made their knowledge of no benefit.

The great knowledge of the Sufis and their utter renunciation of this world and of everything other than Allah testify to their innocence from these terrible accusations, therefore we prefer to dismiss such accusations and consider that their statements are true realities in the way they expressed them. Their way cannot be denied without knowing the meaning of their statements and the expressions they use, and then turning to apply the expression to the meaning and see if they match or not.

We thank Allah that all of their deniers are ignorant in that kind of knowledge, as not one of them has mastered the sciences of unveilings (mukashafat), nor even smelled them from a distance! Nor has anyone of them sincerely followed any of the awliya' so as to master their terminology.

You may object: "I disagree that their expressions refer to a reality rather than being metaphorical phrases, therefore show me something clearer than the explanations that have been given."

I say: Rejection is stubborness. Let us assume that you disagree with what I have mentioned, but the correct way of stating the objection is to say: "This statement could be interpreted in several ways," and proceed to explain them. You should not say: "If it meant this, then... and if it meant that, then..." while stating from the start "This is kufr"! That is ignorance and goes beyond the scope of sincere faithfulness (nasiha) claimed by the critic.

Do you not see that if Ibn al-Muqri's real motivation were good advice, he would not have exaggerated by saying: "Whoever has a doubt in the disbelief of the group of Ibn `Arabi, he himself is a disbeliever"? So he extended his judgment that Ibn `Arabi's followers were disbelievers, to everyone who had a doubt as to their disbelief.
Look at this fanaticism that exceeds all bounds and departs from the consensus of the Imams, and goes so far as to accuse anyone who doubts their disbelief.

{Glorified are You, this is awful calumny} (24:16)

{When you welcomed it with your tongues, and uttered with your mouths that whereof you had no knowledge, you counted it a trifle. In the sight of Allah, it is very great} (24:15).

Notice also that his statement suggests that it is an obligation on the whole Community to believe that Ibn `Arabi and his followers are disbelievers, otherwise they will all be declared disbelievers - and no one thinks likes this.

As a matter of fact, it might well lead into something forbidden which he himself has stated clearly in his book al-Rawd when he said:

"Whoever accuses a Muslim of being a disbeliever based on a sin committed by him, and without an attempt to interpret it favorably, he himself commits disbelief."

Yet here he is accusing an entire group of Muslims of disbelief.11

Moreover, no consideration should be paid to his interpretation, because he only gives the kind of interpretation that is detrimental to those he is criticizing, for that is all that their words have impressed upon him.

As for those who do not think of Ibn `Arabi and the Sufis except as a pure light in front of them, and believe in their sainthood - how can a Muslim attack them by accusing them of disbelief?

No one would dare do so unless he is accepting the possibility to be himself called a disbeliever. This judgment reflects a great deal of fanaticism, and an assault on most of the Muslims. We ask Allah, through His Mercy, to forgive the one who uttered it.

It has been narrated through more than one source and has become well-known to everyone that whoever opposes the Sufis, Allah will not make His Knowledge beneficial, and he will be inflicted with the worst and ugliest diseases.

We have witnessed this taking place with many naysayers. For example, al-Biqa`i - may Allah forgive him! - used to be one of the most distinguished scholars, blessed with many meritorious acts of worship, an exceptional intelligence, and an excellent memory in all kinds of knowledge, especially in the sciences of tafsir and hadith, and he wrote numerous books, but Allah did not allow them to be of any kind of benefit to anyone. He also authored a book called Munasabat al-Qur'an in about ten volumes, about which no-one knows except the elite, and as for the rest, they never heard about it. If this book had been written by our Shaykh Zakariyya [al-Ansari], or by anyone who believes [in awliya'], it would have been copied with gold because, as a matter of fact, it has no equal: for

{ Of the bounties of thy Lord We bestow freely on all, these as well as those: the bounties of thy Lord are not closed to anyone} (17:20).

Al-Biqa`i went to extremes in his denial and wrote books about the subject, all of them clearly and excessively fanatical and deviating from the straight path.

But then he paid for it fully and even more than that, for he was caught in the act on several occasions and was judged a disbeliever. It was ruled that his blood be shed and he was about to get killed, but he asked the help and protection of some influential people who rescued him, and he was made to repent in Salihiyya, Egypt, and renew his Islam.”12

[This quote from Al-Haytami in his Fatawa Hadithiyya
is also online as pdf-document, < here >]