Sign in to follow this  

Unity of Being

Recommended Posts

Viking Wrote:

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.

What I do indeed believe is Karaamaat for the Awliyaa-uLLaahi and Mucjizaat for His prophets. In a more serious note though, you and me seem to agree that the source of Caqiidah ought to be from Qur’an And Sunnah. NGONGE, I believe, made a similar view. As this is my last posting in this topic, let me close it with some advice of from Prophet’s last Sermon, his is speech of nation!


O People, No prophet or apostle will come afte me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O people, and understand the words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my Example, the Sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray.


with that I surrender to the will of Allah.

Nabad iyo Salaamaat, Saaxiib.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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


Perhaps you ought to take a few lessons in the art of argumentation. To allege that a person's ratiocination is faulty requires that you lay bare the lacunas and the logical inconsistencies of the said reasoning. My proposition stands unscathed, fair freind; you need to do much better than to allegedly allude to "contradictory statements". My posts are oftentimes calculated and, seldom does one enjoy the luxury of effecting a destruction of my conception. Care you to utilize the power of logic as opposed to the ineptitude of accusations.


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.


Is that the extent of your education and erudition? (notice that the previous sentence is an ad hominem) Are you taught to impeach men instead of impeaching arguments? The Ad Hominem fallacy is, according to David Hume, the trenches of those of depraved intellect . You need not, Good Xiinfaniin, attack the man (argumentum ad hominem) as it does your argument no justice. Alas, many students of the islamic sciences mistake the rule of "Al-Jarh wa at-ta'diil" as a substitute for reasoning; that is to say, disparagment is a tool for authenticity and not for truth. I am sure even you can appreciate the nuance thereof.


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.


Did you really think that you would get away with such a blatant mendacity. Perhaps most of the Nomads are not arabic readers, or students of philosophy and theology for that matter, so it is not unexpected that your concocted lie to go unchallenged. Forgive me, Good Xiinfaniin, for I see it an ethical duty to rebuke and refute falsity. Ibn Arabi, in his book, The Meccan Conquests, speaks of seeing some of the prophets in his dreams; he does not, despite your fetid disregard for the truth, claim that "he met" the prophets of Allah. Would I see you produce the references for this claim (preferably, the arabic version, page number etc.). You see, the "controversy" over Ibn Arabi is around some statements that he wrote in his Fusus Al-Hikam, The Bezels of Wisdom , however, even Ibn Taymiyyah writes in Fatawaa (pg. 212 Juz At-tasawwuf, Arabic Version, Publised by Dar Al-Hikmah) that the content of the Futuhat are not worthy of castigation. It is the Fusus, Ibn Taymiyyah argues, that need be committed to the flames. The systemic distortion of the truth is the dastardly excerise of the weak minded, Good Xiinfaniin.


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.


I have expounded many a time on the SOL fora the nature of the straw man argument. The opponent of a propostion attempts to confute and rebuke the proponent's conception by distorting the said notion in sofar as the position appears untenable and unreasonable. The opponent, in other words, constructs a puppet argument and then floors the puppet with success. For instance,


Mutakallim: Animals should not be tortured because they feel pain. We would not like to be tortured, so we should not torture animals


Xiinfaniin: Mutakallim, I think you are mistaken in your claim that animals are better than humans. You see, we have intelligence and they do not. Are you saying that animals can perform complex mathematical computations?


The straw man is a type of argument (a fallacious one, mind you) in which the opponent attempts to sidestep the opponent's argument by constructing a red herring. Subsequently, the arguer claims that the distorted and weak argument- the straw man- is the opponent's position. This type of reasoning is endemic in the propositions advanced by our esteemed brother.


Can you please provide a detailed reference in which Suhradawi claims that he is a prophet, because I happen to own all his books and, I would fain accept your claim if it be true. You see, what Suhradawi writes in his Philosophy of Illumination is that, pure reason can lead to the apprehension of divine truth (pg. 59, Bringham University Press, Arabic version with introduction by Henry Corbin). I shan't call you a charlatan as some nomads would, rather I will try to heal you of your inner ailment.


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.


Are you sure that was the theme of Ibnu Tufayl's book. At this stage of our discussion, it is infinitely clear that you have not read much less studied this book. The book, Son, Alive of the Awakened, is famous for the sole fact that Ibnu Tufayl, Philosopher Physican, writes (pg.97, arabic copy, Dar Al-Qalam, Damascuss) that, the rational is a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosmic reality which is the instrument of revelation. In other words, if the rational be unadulterated, then it is not possible for the revealed to contradict it. So, tell me, Good Xiinfaniin, which book did you really read?


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.


I see you are resolved not to understand me, Good Xiinfaniin. First, I have already explicated the intrepretation of the utterance of Hallaj, namely, the utterance: I am the Truth. During the state of ecstatic sojourning, one utters these words out of confusion. To the gnostic, it seems as though union has been achieved; however, as Al-Kalabadhi explains in his At-ta'ruf lil madhab At-tasawwuf, The Doctrine of the Sufis (pg. 149, Dar Tayyibah, Lebanon) that, such utterances indicate a case of "shub al-ittihad" not "ittahad haqiqi". In a state of pure ecstasy, the 'arif becomes extinct from himself, and extinct from his own extinction. For he is concious of neither that state, nor of his own unconciousness of himself. If he were concious of his own unconciousness, then he would still be concious of himself. In relation to the one immersed in it, this state is called, "unification", according to the language of metaphor, or is called "declaring God's unity", according to the language of reality


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!


There is no subtelty in your red herring, Good Xiinfaniin. Your remark is neither here nor there (or so the cliche goes). Or perhaps it is a germane comment?


As this is my last posting in this topic, let me close it with some advice of from Prophet’s last Sermon, his is speech of nation!


Ah! I suppose you can always camaflouge your inability to make good your point by quoting the Habiib, Taha , peace be upon him. Perhaps your aspiration does not rise high enough for these words, but rather falls short before their summit. So take for yourself words that are nearer to your understanding and more suitable to your weakness.


With Salaams


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



I have to confess that this discussion is going no where. Our discussion of the topic is based on purely intellectual gymnatics - not experience. It is though inspiration to the mind and Soul that I am tempted to add my view to the list


A human being is composed of Soul, mind and body. Soul is the primary beingness of the human being and in its pure state, when It is not embodied with mind and body, it can experience reality in a different way. When Soul is in the territory of mind and body, as we do now, It is in handicap. In this later state higher truth are not revealed and that is what is wrong with our discussion. We are trying to understand higher truths through the vehicle of the mind ! The experiences of gnostics as they are presented in this topic are experiences of Soul recieved in a higher state of being.


Anyone who wants to proof/disproof those spiritual experiences has to following the footsteps of the gnostic and find himself what awaits him in those higher spheres of existence where ONLY Soul can travel to!


I mean there are authentic spiritual experiences which God grants to His devotees - and we may disagree with them when they in their human form and mind later try to communicate their experiences to us. But who are we ? Can we disproof them ? NO ! Without a spiritual experience the discussion becomes the blind argueing with the blind about the shape of the elephant !


That is what we are doing now.


If we are BLIND then what should we do?


We should seek experience in the higher spheres of existence. First we should seek to know Self and then by the grace of GOD we may be granted to know God !. " He who knows Self knows God " Should be our goal. This knowing though is not and cannot be based solely on intellect, because then the intellectuals would have conclusive right to visit the heavens while still living here, but it should rather to EXPERIENCE THE EXISTENCE OF THOSE SPHERES AND WHAT EXISTS THERE.




The experiences of the higher spheres have their loop holes. No creation can experience the unity of God. That is impossible. But Soul can expeience unity with All Life or Spirit- if you like this word.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

These ideas are quite interesting and, despite some caution on my part, the way they’re presented does make total sense. Of course, the interchange between figurative speech, lateral, metaphoric, and actual tends to be slightly bewildering. Like a Sufi in a state of intoxication is unable to communicate his experiences to the masses adequately, I find that reading all of this has conjured up a multitude of questions in one’s mind, which one is truly struggling to express in a suitable manner!


The details and descriptions that a Sufi would experience when in a state of annihilation (intoxication) are of no concern (for now). However, the steps leading to such a “nirvana†are of the utmost importance here (IMHO). Reading the exchanges above and conducting a hasty research on the topic at hand, I’m left with the impression that in order for one to reach such a high state of “existence†one need not only go through the process of purification! One also has to be favoured by the almighty!


Now the puzzling question I have, and may Allah forgive me if I erred, is in the priority between purification and being chosen? Which would come first (this I ask as a mere mortal using his intellect and available information from the Quran and Sunna)?


I’m of the belief that, for us mortals, the state of purification would come first. I don’t wish to patronize anyone with a repetition of a Muslim’s duties and the importance of total submission to Allah. However, my limited understanding of this topic would suggest that this “purification†process is just another name for “total submissionâ€! Up to this point at least, most people should be in agreement and I see no deviancy or innovative ideas (save for the semantics).


My real questions arise when talking about a Sufi just before, during and after having been “immersed in sheer singularityâ€! The idea, for a novice, is astonishing! In this, I find myself agreeing with the detractors of the Sufis (and the Sufis themselves). This reminds me of Hayy ibn Yaqdan’s story (which I‘m recalling from memory and only read as a short work of fiction). In the story, Hayy is abandoned in an island as a baby and looked after by a female dear. The dear dies when he’s seven or eight years old and Hayy has to fend for himself in this isolated island. He spends most of his life amongst the animals and studies their behaviour and makeup. This study finally leads him to “discover†God. He later goes to another populated island and finds out that the people there follow a religion with signs and symbols that are no different to his own belief. He’s surprised at all these symbols and extra layers. He tries to reason with these people and explain his own ideas to them. They ignore him and refuse to listen. Rather than persisting with his pleading, he decides to leave them to it and return to his island! He reasons (as I understood) that it’s better to let the masses follow the “We hear and we obey†doctrine rather than attempting to illuminate them and lead them astray in the process!


It’s not my intention to accuse any of the Sufis of being deviant, kaffirs (which by the way always astonishes me when people easily let such a grave accusation roll of their tongue on the strength of hear say and second hand information) or even lost sheep. I can’t do so because I don’t have enough knowledge to condemn them. For exactly the same reasons, one can’t also sing their praises or wish to join their ranks (yet).


Still, the mystery of Sufi practises requires, for an ordinary person, a huge level of faith. Since one who has been in a state of intoxication can not adequately explain how and what it is they went through to normal people, these normal people will either have to take his word for it or not. Those that take his word for it on the strength of faith alone (not illumination) will likely accord him a higher level of reverence and might even fall into the trap of treating him as a lesser “godâ€! Those that don’t will consider him a mad man or, invariably, a disbeliever!


It seems to me that without solid grounding in Islam to begin with one should not consider nor encourage others to follow Gnostic ideas. Those that have the basic knowledge (and basic here would mean “very substantial†in ordinary people’s eyes) would be sufficiently equipped to explore this side of Islam. But, the overwhelming majority, the masses; the man in the street as it were, will not and frankly, should not attempt to enter this complex world. For the consequences for most are not likely to be any illumination.


These were but a few of the thoughts crossing my mind as I read this topic, if and when I succeed in articulating any of the rest in the form of statements or questions, I shall endeavour to return.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The art of persuasion, once you mastered, enables you to make an unjust cause appear just or make a bad case look good. Reading Mutakalim’s delineation, I sense the importance he accords to this art and pride he takes in knowing how arguments are constructed, defended, or advanced. The pitfall of all of this is that the substance gets lost somewhere in the argument and the rules of logic and deductive reasoning take over!


When you go down in this road, one risk to question everything and there is this danger that logic untimely becomes the only measure to weigh arguments. The other two fidhra (the natural innate human disposition) and revealed word (divine guidance: Quran) are relegated to the backburner. I’m not implying here that faith and reason are incompatible. No! What I’m trying to say is simply that the dogmatic bickering in religious issues is a prescription for fitnah.


The philosophical Sufism in Islamic thought is arguably one of the subjects that invites this fitnah. The little I know about the subject is that there are variations among the Sufis too. To see how fitnah creeps in the subject just consider these questions: Can mere mortal become one with Allah? How? Can we the mere mortals reach knowledge independent of the revealed word?


You see for the faithful or laymen as some would call them, the substantive unity is unthinkable! This rejection is simple but profound for it is in line with the fundamental Islamic divide between the divine nature and everything else. This simple understanding gets lost in the argument once you get engaged in the circular argument of the Kalam.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man Ragiba Can Sunatii Falaysa Minii, aw kamaa qaala Salawaatulaahi Calayhi wasalam.


This thread entices me to outpour my thoughts, it is one of the few threads that has some substance in it-- though sophistry plays quite a prominant role in it; oh well, the subject matter would be much poorer without it. But I am constrained by time so I shall come back to it later on insha Allah.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



The title of the topic" unity of being " creates confusion in the mental plane of the reader. The word BEING in the literal since of the word refers to a created being. It can also though refer to God in His manifested state of existence .In both cases the word: being refers to a created state( being). Logically this created state needs a sponsor and that sponsor is always the creator Who remains behind and beyond all His creations. God IS is the right conception we can have NOTHING more.


To say that God is a being is to put Him at a category or give Him identity. As we ALL agree, I think, we can speak the attributes of God not Him.


In your discourse of the subject you say qoute:


1." Wajib Al-Wujud: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"?


"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 The Philosophy of Illumination that our existence is "sheer nothingness" and "sheer metaphor". 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".


In my understanding of the subject, your above statement correctly refers to what is poetically called the OCEAN OF LOVE AND MERCY which is a state of manifestation of God. Again this state is not HIM. This Ocean of Love and Mercy in Its pure and highest state is the nearest that a BEING can come to God. In this ocean of Love and Mercy Soul experiences a unity of being with All creation. It attains also Love, wisdom and freedom.


Beyond the Ocean there is ONLY God and NO being can cross into Him for simple reason that the ocean is the borderline of the manifestation. Other names for the ocean of Love and Mercy are: Kelmullah, Spirit, the Word and many other names.


The creator, out of necessity, has created a polarity which is creation. The created planes and the life forms that exist in them, although an illusion, still exists through the power and Love of Him. From the higher polarity of God they do not exist because they are relative. But, seen from the lower pole, creation exists because God Loves it and Wills it to exist.


The highest or the source of a being( Soul ) is the creation or the effect of God- not Him. It( Soul) exists because God wills it to do so.


Consequently there is no unity of God and His creation. Neither God is A BEING. He Is God the creator and He ALONE exists.


May God forgive me if I erred.


More to come


The Awakener2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong†Thomas Paine once wrote, “ gives it a superficial appearance of being a right.â€


So I can safely report that your intellectual arrogance has become a trademark of your postings. You write as though the rest of us are under-educated savage from the jungle. It is a much-repeated pattern that reveals an interesting character of yours. Only Allah can heal you from that weakness. And perhaps, as Paine writes in his Common Sense, time would convince you more than reason.


Nevertheless, I must not give up trying.



Mutakallim wrote:

Did you really think that you would get away with such a blatant mendacity. Perhaps most of the Nomads are not arabic readers, or students of philosophy and theology for that matter, so it is not unexpected that your concocted lie to go unchallenged

It’s not a “blatant mendacity†nor it is a “concocted lie†that Ibn Arabi claimed receiving revelation from Allah. He had indeed written this claim in his voluminous Futuhat Al Makkiyyah. In chapter 373, Ibnu Arabi wrote:


ويقول ÙÙŠ الباب 373: جميع ما كتبته ÙÙŠ هذا الباب Ù€ الÙتوحات Ù€ إنما هو من املاء الهي والقاء رباني أو Ù†ÙØ« روحاني ÙÙŠ روح كياني


Rough translation:


"Every thing I wrote in this book is a dictation from Allah, a recitation of God, and spiritual emit ion from the Devine."


So as the Arab poet once said:

Ùإن كنت تعلم Ùتلك مصيبة


وإن كنت لاتعلم Ùالمصيبة أعظم

Mutakallim wrote:

he does not, despite your fetid disregard for the truth, claim that "he met" the prophets of Allah

In Fusus Al Hikam, Ibnu Arabi claims that he met all the messengers and prophets from Adam to Muhammad in a great gathering of theirs near Cordoba in 586 H. (Fus al-huwdy, Fusus Al Hikam.)


Mutakallim wrote:

Can you please provide a detailed reference in which Suhradawi claims that he is a prophet, because I happen to own all his books and, I would fain accept your claim if it be true.

In Suhradawi case, I commented his book and told you what he was killed for. I have not, despite your implicit claim, said that he claimed prophecy in his books. He did so in his lectures and debates. His students reported that. The great scholar and the Master of Al-Jarh wa ta-ta’diil, Al-imam ad-dahabi, in his Siyaru A’laamu an-nubulaa narrated through Suhradawi’s student that he, Suhradawi that is, said that prophesy could be earned through knowledge. Al-imam ad-dahabi described Suhradawi as a man with great and ever-sharpening intellect but with very little religion.

كان يتوقد بذكاء ولكنه قليل الدين

(Pg. 397, V.16, Dar al-fikir, Lebanon.)


The man for whose orders Suhradawi was put on trail was no other than Salah Al-Din Ayubi, the capturer of Jerusalem. His sense of justice was known from far and near.

In The Epic of the Crusades, Renee Gousse testifies to Salah Al-Din’s integrity.


"It is equally true that his generosity, his piety, devoid of fanaticism, that flower of liberality and courtesy.."


It was also the consensus of Muslim scholars of Halab that Suhradawi was found guilty of the crimes he was accused of and subsequently put to death.


Mutakallim wrote:

Are you sure that was the theme of Ibnu Tufayl's book?

Poor Mutakallim, that was indeed the implicit conclusion of his book. Since the character of his novel left the masses with their signs and symbols safe and sound and went back to its secluded place in the island.

I see you are resolved not to understand me, Good Xiinfaniin. First, I have already explicated the intrepretation of the utterance of Hallaj

The failure and the inability to explain this recursive utterance are not yours, sxb. Rather it’s inherent with the very Concept that you’re trying to expound. Hallaj would not have wanted your ‘interpretation’ of his utterance though. He had an ample opportunity to do that and he chose not to as he really meant what he said.


Are you taught to impeach men instead of impeaching arguments?

To weigh the integrity of those who claim to be the vessels of knowledge is an authentic and old Islamic Science. It attempts to verify the reliability of their work by subjecting them to a very strict set of rules. And yes Caqiidah and mental sanity are included. So I hope I have not broken news to you by impeaching them.


It’s the eve of Ciid al-adxaa, so let me say: may you and the rest of the nomads on SOL have happy and pleasant Ciid and may Allah accept the deeds of those who stood Carafah today.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting topic! Eid Mubarak to all!


I strongly agree with Baashi.

It doesn't matter if you are a sophist

who is well acquainted with the art of debating.

Truth is Truth, and Kufr is Kufr.


To claim that "Allah(swt) exists everywhere" and that "Allah(swt) and his creations are one and the same thing", is blasphemy and a statement of kufr that has no support in the Qur'an and Sunnah.


This is why Sheik-Ul-Islam declared Ibn Arabi a Kafir, because he attributed to Allah(swt) something that we were never told in the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet(saaw) nor in the understanding of the Companions.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this