IBN ARABI AND SIRHINDI

by Farzana Hassan-Shahid, June 2005

(Review and comments by Ziauddin Ahmed)

God, the ineffable Force, Creator of the Universe, Self-Subsisting, All powerful, all Merciful, reveals Himself to human beings, sometimes as Yahweh, the jealous, Vengeful God; Brahman, the underlying unity behind plurality; Allah, the One and Only; The Trinitarian Godhead comprising the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost; and also Sometimes as Wahdatul Wajud, The Only Being; or Wahdat ul Shuhud, the Only Real Being, whose reality is undeniable as opposed to the illusory world that the Being creates.

He is therefore a spirit residing sometimes with us, and sometimes above and beyond us, sometimes within us, and other times, all around us. But whether He is Judaism’s jealous God, or part of the Christian Trinity, or Hinduism’s many physical manifestations of the one God, He is consistently the focus of many theistic philosophies.

(I want to complement  Farzana sahiba on the all encompassing beginning. Reading the first paragraph gives me the impression that, except for Wahadatul Wajood and Wahadat ul Shuhood,  the God which shines through it all is but a portrayal of the image of the feeling of each observer, as he/ she chooses or is capable of seeing and understanding. A very anthropomorphic Deity enclosed and clouded in  the subjective reflection of the viewer. It reminds me of the urdu verse:     

But for man is to strive and rise, and perhaps reach the source. This sentiment is so magically captured by Iqbal when he says:

These varying views and understandings of God are also reflected in Islam’s philosophical and mystical thought. Although radical monotheism, or the belief in One Indivisible Diety is equated with Islam’s theology more than with any other existing belief system, the philosophical and mystical traditions within Islam, have attempted to understand the nature of that indivisibility and transcendence in different ways, generating controversy and debate as to whether these conform with the Qur’anic exposition of monotheism or not. While belief in the Oneness and Uniqueness of God is central to Qur’anic theology, that Oneness has been understood and perceived in ways that are both complex and diverse philosophically, and we see that the concepts of Tauhid, discussed in Islam’s Mystical discourse are not much different from certain types of pantheism or the Hindu philosophy of Haum Ust, which asserts that all things created are of the same divine Essence as the Divine Being. Religious purists assert that these ideas are not rooted in the Qur’an. Which expounds both the numerical and metaphorical unity of God, but comprise the thought of later times and are therefore to be regarded as accretions to Islam’s pristine core beliefs?

(The purity or shade of the idea as at the emergence of any philosophy, be it religious or otherwise, would be tarnished either by orthodoxy, tradition or simply the passage of time. Accretions are bound to infiltrate the core to give a different flavor, making it palatable to the times and environment. The survival for a vibrant and dynamic system is its basis and foundation. By this I mean that only those principles of faith, that have the inherent strength of flexibility to bear the change of conditions -- supple enough to bend when the winds are high yet strong enough to remain fully entrenched in the ground, will survive. This is only possible if these principles are basic and based on natural axioms. And as the basis of all religions is the same i.e. axioms of nature, they thus have a common ground to prevail, provided they are understood and projected in the light of the circumstance.)    

The two leading thinkers from Islam’s mystical tradition were Mohiuddin Ibn Arabi and Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi. Both their philosophies focus on the nature of the divine, but are vastly different from each other in several respects.  Nonetheless they both derive their ideological framework from the mystical folklore and philosophy of Islam. The role of the latter it appears was to purge Sufism from what he regarded as doctrines that were alien to the Quranic discourse. The philosophies of the two leading thinkers revolved around the concept of Wahdutul Wajud in the case of Ibn Arabi and Wahdatul Shuhud,  a  competing concept within Sufism, expounded by Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi.

Wahdut ul Wajud.

Wahdat ul Wajud as explained by Ibn Arabi, recognizes the existence of Only One Being, negating the existence of all other Beings. As the term is self-explanatory, “Wahdut ul Wajud” means there is only One Being and the physical world is a manifestation of the One Being. Nothing exists beside the One Being.  The essential components of the philosophy of Wahdat ul Wajud can be listed as follows

1)         There is in realty only One Being

2)         The One Being has no parts.

3)         The One Being is neither more here, nor less there.

The next question that must be answered is how the One Being manifests itself or through what process does it become a physical form? According to Ibn Arabi, the One Being knows how to create plurality from its unity and such a form of creation is known as “Ta’ayyun”. The physical forms and manifestations begin to occur through this recess of Ta’ayyun. This does not mean that the Being is divisible in the sense of the Christian Trinity. The manifestations of the One Being in whichever form they appear are the representation of the One Being in its entirety. Ibn Arabi explained his concept   by way of analogy, giving the example of water, ice or vapor as different manifestations of the Being in its entirety. 

(These are the different states of matter depending on its energy content at that time. Energy and its coefficient within the system make it static or dynamic. However, harnessed energy leads to progress and evolution but an uncontrolled or random energy is usually catastrophic. Let us take an example here as it will illustrate my comment yet to come. It seems at birth man is endowed with unconscious, or shall we say, potential energy which is slowly released as he grows. In a way it becomes kinetic from a static state. From the time of its birth a child starts to realize and probe the environment around it. Initially from within the cradle, where the senses are taking roots, and then at the age of toddle, where its motor skills begin to advance, with more developed awareness. It starts to poke and probe and learns the nature of things. Let us call this stage as ‘Unconsciously -- Conscious’, -- where awareness is changing from a static stage and is becoming dynamic, perhaps. The next major stage in life is at its prime, where man is in full bloom and is ‘Consciously -- Conscious’ of his/ her actions. To give it another simile, this is the stage of life when all that matters is the ‘present’; because if you see that as a child all that really mattered was -- what else can be done. Child stage is the forward looking stage or perhaps the ‘future’ stage, future in a concocted sort of a way. Why concocted? Because ‘future’ usually follows after the passing of the ‘past’ and ‘present’. . The last stage is the stage of dotage. Here the capabilities are waning and one starts to look more to the ‘past’. Lets refer to this state as that of becoming ‘Consciously – Unconscious’. Notice that future, present and past is a triad, and like so many triads in Nature, signifies the completion of a phenomena. Here it covers the phenomena of life on earth. This triad of ‘present’, ‘past’ and ‘future’ or ‘now’, ‘then’ and ‘then’ are akin to the triad of ‘thought’, ‘word’ and ‘deed’ --  discussed in my review of Mutaal sahib’s paper. I quote from it here for easy reference.

(These same phenomena of reality, and its sensory manifestations, has been so accurately described by Ghalib in his verse.

Taking inspiration from the above stanza one gets to a relative quantum notion that, the triad of life, which is, ‘thought’, ‘word’, and ‘deed’, is to be viewed from an entirely different angle. We see that these three are closely interlinked and somehow interdependent. As in the context of  E = m C² , where energy and matter are interchangeable, i.e. two non-material entities ( Energy and the Speed of Light) manipulate the material or the tangible quantity – matter, so perhaps is the case in THOUGHT, WORD and DEED. I.e. in the context of the interchangeability of the three. Where, ‘ thought’ may connote the intangible, ‘word’ the linking agency, akin to the speed of light in the other case, and the        ‘ deed or act’— the tangible or the material manifestation of the other two. Hence, it may be that  the outcome of the two intangibles leaves a tangible effect in the world of existence – both this material world, and some other --  the realm of the supra natural ,  and so above common  experience.   Interestingly enough, here I would like  to mention  that I am feeling a lack of adequacy in explaining in writing what I may perhaps be able to explain in talk or a direct verbal narrative. This is the inherent limitation of ‘material manifestation of Life’, that it somehow restricts an even flow of thought. This inadequacy, similar to our actions in the material domain of this life, makes us realize its imperfections and hence the search for the missing element and quest for perfection, or wholeness, or completion.   Now this experience of mine makes me search some other form of communication – telepathy or mysticism perhaps— as has been so aptly described below by Mr. Mutaal.)

 Now to continue further a similar equation as the famous E=MC²,   must be out there somewhere, which will link the ‘thought’, ‘word’, and ‘deed’ triad. This, in my opinion is what the present science, and for that matter philosophy is seeking; and they call it the ‘The Grand Unification Theory’. 

The stage prior to the multiplicities appearing as physical forms is known as “Ahadiya” or the stage of Absolute Unity. The second stage is known as the “Wahdah” or “uincity” when internal distinctions begin to emerge. These have not yet assumed physical form and are the mere conceptual prototypes of future material manifestations.  

This stage is followed by intermediary stages but the final stage involves the actual physical representations of the prototypes in their existential state. According to the concept of Wahdatul Wajud, there are three types of manifestations i.e. spiritual, symbolic, or physical of the One Being. Thus the unity and the plurality are the same Being in various forms manifesting as spiritual, symbolic or physical. According to this, there would be no essential difference between the plurality that we see and the transcendental unity from which it emerged. According to this, God in the physical form Suffers, Wills and takes pleasure in the enjoyment of the physical world as a part of it.

(Now, do not the state of  “Ahadiya”, ‘INTERMEDIARY’ or ‘SCHEMING’ ( This is my addition ), and  the   “Wahdah”, make another triad to correspond to the triad of ‘thought’, ‘word’ and ‘deed’ ? If we can agree to this then the three manifestations of ‘spiritual’, ‘symbolic’ and ‘physical’ also fall in line with our triad of ‘thought,’, ‘word’ and ‘deed’ and become the states of ‘ thought process’ of the Deity followed by the ‘scheming process’ before it finally reaches the physical or the ‘creative process’. All it then means is that these three are nothing but the three STATES of the same Entity – Its forms, depending on the energy - (in this case awarness) content at the moment.)    

His transcendence is still maintained in so far as he is infinite and eternal in the “Ahadiya” stage.  These attributes are not expressed as corporeal determinations and would not be demonstrated in any physical forms that the Being may assume.  

This plurality of physical forms, based on the realization that it is truly one with the Divine, also strives to achieve union with the Being again, and this begs the question: what is the driving force behind this movement towards unity?

(This some how seems an antiquated idea, because as per Quantum Mechanics and the Principle of Uncertainty, simultaneous existence   in two states is a possibility. (Touched upon in Mutaal sahib’s paper. and so vividly explained by Mr. Rafi Aamer ) The sages of the old may not have been able to fathom it then, for otherwise, I am sure things would have been different. Now to expand the thought further, perhaps in the realm of the ‘Being Itself,’ It may have the capacity to be in all three stages at the same instant—extrapolation from the quantum idea above, where we  have  come to fathom the existence of  only two simultaneously  variables at the present time. So, if two simultaneous states are possible why not three?  Am I not demonstrating the simultaneous  existence of the three states of ‘thought’, ‘word’ and ‘ deed’ at the time of writing this review -- where I am thinking, verbalizing my thoughts and printing them down simultaneously. It seems that the Diety and so also we are capable to demonstrating ‘The Grand Unification Theory’ only that we do not yet know HOW. Mansur Halaj seemed to have decoded it – only, he was not able to put it into demonstrable action and perhaps not able to rationally explain it to his contemporaries.  ) 

 ( However it seems, that if the Wahahadat ul Wajood concept is to survive, the Wajood (or the physical state of the Entity) must be inherently capable of exercising its choice to change and/or remain in which ever state it Chooses to at Will. As and when this can be rationally fathomed and explained we may well have solved the equation of ‘The Grand Unification Theory’. I wish to introduce another concept here to substantiate this contention through my understanding of Sura Ikahlas ‘chapter 112 of the Qur’an. I reprint it here for easy of reference.

                                                         Chapter 112 

Sura AL –Ikhlas  has been described by some to be the essence of the Qur’an. Let us examine that and see what it may mean. It is said that it was the tradition of Arabs to ascribe their gods with attributes and these attributes of each deity were then highlighted, praised and worshiped. Tradition has it that the Prophet was questioned on several occasions to define ‘Allah’, the God he was propagating, and to describe His attributes so that the people could understand Him. The revelation of Sura Al-Ikhlas must have silenced them. Now whether they fathomed its meaning and concept is quite another matter. Till this day the depth of the ocean of its meaning is being probed and different people come up with different jewels from it. This has been very aptly described in the Urdu verse :( quoted  above)

112          Pure Faith

Al_Ikhlas:  Makki   

          In the name of Allah, most benevolent, ever merciful. 

          SAY:  “HE IS God

          The one the most unique,

           The authenticity that it is a revelation is established by the very first word-Say- asking the receptor to announce exactly what is being told. The mentioning of the word ‘say’ itself shows the innocence and simplicity of the votary, exactly like an innocent baby who repeats even the command word itself. The narration of the message verbatim is the whole beauty of it and reaffirms the revelation is from the over-self, in its entirety and original form. It also goes to prove that    He is--The One, the Source, the Only Al-Haiyoo  Al-Qayyum i.e.( the living, eternal, self- subsisting  ever-sustaining).        

 2. God the immanently indispensable,

             This ayat in my opinion is the pivot around which the philosophy of Islam revolves. As said earlier it has different connotation to different people. ( It is to be kept in mind that each of us is an individual and that we can not devoid our views from subjectivity however much we may wish to remain objective and neutral, and hence the assigned meaning reflects the basis of the thoughts of the thinker.) 

Some translate ‘As Samad’ to be ‘God – the totally un-needful’   (the classic orthodox view). They understand God as beyond everything, completely aloof and un- needy.

Then it is also described as ‘God – the uncaused cause  ( Karen Armstrong)

And also defined as ‘God – the unmoved mover   (Plato)

It can be seen that there are as many view- points as there are concepts. However, to say ‘God the immanently indispensable’ means He is the inherent necessity of each and every thing, and that nothing is possible without Him. This seems the most appealing, because as we have seen above this concept makes God the pivot and the undeniable essential element, the inherent necessity of all things and everything.  The more one tries to conceptualize this more one appreciates the uniqueness and the immensity of the Deity.  

          3. He has begotten no one,      

          and is begotten of none. 

           This means He has not produced any one the same way we humans produce; through the reproductive process, and so also He has not come into being by that method. For if it was so He would need a mate to copulate, negating the very basis of the theory of oneness. He has His own way of producing things. For He says ‘Kun’ fa ya ‘Kun’. i.e. ‘Be’ and it ‘Is’. The whole concept of this command and its resultant outcome shall be discussed in later chapters.  

           4. There is no one comparable to Him.” 

          Being the only one of His kind obviously leaves no room for comparison.

Were a comparison available there would not be the individuality and         uniqueness of the Being. This then reaffirms the singularity of His self and also His actions.        

It may be mentioned in the passing that Sura ‘Al Ikhlas’ gets closest to conceptualizing the Supreme Deity – if ever a comprehending of that reality is at all possible. It is noteworthy however, that the Qur’an is perhaps the only source which defines so closely and clearly the attributes and nature of the Almighty in such a vivid thought provoking and lucid manner. 

Upon examination of the Sufi philosophy one learns that what propels this movement towards union is the force of Love, God intoxication or “Ishq”.  It is this force that motivates union with the Divine as an intensely powerful feeling compelling the Sufi to acknowledge that the soul is Divine, but that it is trapped in a physical body. The Sufi therefore attempts to seek the Divine by denying the body the physical or worldly pleasures. He hopes that by denying him the worldly pleasures the love of the Divine will increase.

(The denial of the physical part, in my opinion, is bit of a misnomer, because keeping all things at a balance is the ‘Nature of Nature’.  And only after fully living and appreciating life as it comes, does one tread the correct path of Self-fulfillment. The physical, mental and spiritual all have to be fully experienced together and one can not be sacrificed at the expense of the other.  ) 

The Sufi observes “zikr” or the remembrance of Allah, which will bring about the unitive experience. When the unitive experience is realized, the Sufi may declare himself or herself God because he begins to see that there is in reality only One Being and also begins to believe in the unity of existence or the concept of “Wahdat-ul Wajud”. As we will see in our examination of Tauhid  Shuhudi or Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi’ competing  view, the realization of Whadutul Wajud is actually only the first stage in the mystical experience, the ultimate objective being to attain realization of Wahdutul Shuhud.

Wahdut ul Shuhud,

The two competing views around the concepts of Wahdatul Wajud and Whadut ul Shuhud, revolve around the nature of the mystical experience. The mystical experience itself is primarily focused on the union with the Divine and how this union with the Divine is interpreted in terms of either oneness of existence or duality of existence.

Previously I stated that Ibn Arabi expounded his doctrine of Wahdatul Wajud as centered round the belief in the unity of existence which negates the independent reality of the physical world. Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, refuted that claim systematically in his doctrine of Wahdatul Shuhud, by stating that while the former expounded by Ibn Arabi was antithetical to the Qur’an, the latter, his own view, was in complete conformity with the Qur’an, which as authenticated scripture would have to be the ultimate arbiter between opposing viewpoints. He thus came up with another concept which would explain the mystical experience in a slightly different way.  Sirhindi states that while there are other beings beside the One Deity, the mystical experience enables the Sufi to perceive only One Being. He explains the difference between the two competing views in his own words as follows:

“Tauhid Shuhudi is to see One Being that is in his perception. The Sufi has nothing but One Being.  Tauhid Wujudi on the other hand is to believe that there is only One Being there, that other things are nonexistent and that in spite of their non existence, they are the manifestations and appearances of One Being” 

For proponents of Tauhid Shuhudi or Wahdutul Shuhud, the perception of the one Being does not negate the existence of other beings as it does in Wahdatul ul Waujud. The Sufi in other words sees only One Being but is cognizant of the fact that there are other beings in existence as well. Wahdutat ul Shudhud does not necessitate the denial of the existence of other beings. Thus the seeing of one Being is a mere subjective observations of the Sufi.The defining feature of Wahdut ul Shuhud is the recognition that God is above and beyond his creation and therefore transcendent, not immanent as he is in Wahdult ul Wajud. God therefore is One Being who is distinct from his creations. He creates by the power of His words, not Ta’aayun as suggested by proponents of the doctrine of Wahdutl Wajud.  Sirhinid therefore maintains that the world is not God (huma ust) but proceeds from God (huma uz ust) and has an existence independent of the Divine Being, but that it is only an illusory existence. In reality therefore Sirhindi also asserts that there is only One Real Being who is God. The created world being imaginary is therefore not of the same Divine essence. In Sirhindi’s view, the world is in essence non- existent and therefore unreal. 

The world although unreal and illusory, has an identity of its own because reflections and attributes of God elevate it form non existence. The illusory object in the world therefore has free will, and the ability for self-direction. Man therefore has free will. His actions are his own and not of God. Wahdutul Shuhud therefore recognizes dualism as its defining characteristic because of the distinctiveness between the nature of God and the nature of the created world.

( The essence of the two have to be one, as one is the origination of the other. Whether ‘man made God’ or ‘God made man’ is rather irrelevant as none can exist without the other. I have discussed this in my essay “Nature of Nature”.) 

Perhaps, the distinctions between the doctrines of Wahdat ul Wajud and Wahdut Shuhud can be better understood through a discussion of the concepts of “fana” and “baqa”.

“Fana “and baqa are both stages in the mystical experience. “fana billah” is understood as merging with the Divine Essence or unification with God.or the “existence of the self in God”.

This is the first stage in the mystical experience and only a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal of attaining “baqa billah” or “eternal life in union with God” . When fana is experienced by the mystic, he forgets his self but when he reaches the stage of experiencing “baqa” he regains some of his individuality and therefore the distinction between him and the Divine again becomes apparent to him.

 The two concepts: namely “fana billah” or “baqa billah” are again interpreted differently by those who subscribe to Wahdualt Wujud and those who believe in Wahdat ul  Shahud. 

According to Sirhinid for example, the experience of “fana”, or the forgetting of the self in order to merge with the Divine is an imagined, not a real experience. It is therefore only “fana shudhudi” or perceived annihilation and merging.with the Divine. According to exponents of Wahdatul Wajud on the other hand,  “fana” is a real existential experience.

“Fana” is the first stage in the mystical journey and also the unitive experience in the quest for union with the Divine.  Sirhindi believed that some mystics remain trapped in the first unitive stage. Those who cannot proceed to the next stage are prevented from  Acknowledging separation from the Divine and it is these Sufis who according to Sirhindi, preach the doctrine of Wahdat ul Wajud. It is at this stage of the mystical experience that heresies such as the one Mansoor Hallaj was guilty of when he declared he was “Anul Haqq, or ‘I am Truth”,  begin to occur. According to Sirhindi, Ibn Arabi was one such mystic who could not proceed beyond this first stage and therefore expounded his theory of Wahdatul Wajud. That is why he saw the world and God as essentially One Being. 

( This in my opinion is the whole purpose of the exercise of the triad of being, that is, to start from a state of ‘Unconsciously – Conscious’ and reach  the stage of ‘ Consciously – Unconscious’, which in any case was the starting point, only this time man is aware of the process of departure as against the arrival mode, where he was completely ignorant of the reason of the  process itself. The in between phase is the real purpose of his existence i.e. to learn to become aware, or become ‘Consciously- Conscious’; not only of himself but also of whole reason of his being.)  

According to Sirhindi, real “fana” means something different. In his own words he states:

“Real fana is to forget the “not Divine”, to free oneself from the love of this world, and to purify the heart from all desires and wishes as it is required of a servant. And real “baqa” is to fulfill the wishes of the Lord, to make his Will one’s own, without losing one’s self identity”. 

Sirhindi believes that his ideas were more consistent with the Quranic discourse of belief In a transcendent God, submission to His will, recognizing human limitations of seeking God’s forgiveness. Sirhindi’s discourse on “fana Shudhdi” rather than “fana Wajudi” gives him the assurance of being consistent with pristine Islamic theology. 

To wrap up, as two distinct visions of Tauhid, it is easy to conclude that Sirhindi’s view which appeared much later in Sufi thought, came as a reformative movement within Sufi philosophy.  As stated earlier, Sirhindi’s objective was mainly to purge Sufism of doctrines that he perceived as contradicting the Quran’s simple theology centred around The belief in one Transcendent Divine Being. Although Ibn Arabi’s concept of tauhid Wajudi or Wahdat ul Wajud, can be interpreted both as a pantheistic philosophy which acknowledges God’s physical presence in all things material or created, it can just as easily be construed as an ideology that takes monotheism to the extent of totally negating the existence of the material world and therefore upholding correct Islamic belief. .That is not however how Sirhindi viewed Ibn Arabi, and he felt compelled to discredit the doctrine of Wahdat Wajud as heretical, and replace it with his own vision of Tauhid, calling his doctrine Wahdatul Shuhud.

(I am taking the unprecedented step of putting forth the idea that both Wahadat ul Wajood and Wahadat ul Shood, so brilliantly laid down by  Farzana sahiba in this paper, are the two sides of the  same coin. They are dissimilar in as a much as the two sides of the coin are, and also as similar  as much as they together give it its value. If I may be permitted to say so both these concepts originate from the same source - The Qur’an, which is still an open book and waits for divers to plunge in  and try to reach the Depth of its Ocean.

Going back to the beginning of the paper, it seems the assertion by the purist's orthodoxy is perhaps as idealistic as their contention in making Islam what Islam is not i.e. keep going in circles of rituals and dogged traditions, without knowing or exploring the reason and significance behind these rituals and the core values in the belief system itself.   ) 

Zia

http://tidylink.net