The Ninth Flash

The Ninth Flash

Let not everyone read this flash. Not everyone is able to see the subtle errors [of the doctrine] of "the Unity of Being (Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd)," nor are they in need of [seeing them]. 

بِاسْمِهِ (a)

وَاِنْ مِنْ شَئٍ اِلَّأ يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدِهِ (b)

اَلسَّلاَمُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَ رَحْمَةُ اللّٰهِ وَ بَرَكَاتُهُ (c)

_____

a In His Name

b There is nothing but that it glorifies with His praise

c May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allāh be upon you.

_____

My honourable, veracious, sincere, pure brother!

The reason I did not write an independent letter to our brother ‘Abdu’l-Majīd (Abdülmecid) is that I deemed sufficient the letters I wrote to you all. 

‘Abdu’l-Majīd is, after Hulusi, my valuable brother and a student. He is always present in name in my supplications every morning and evening alongside Hulusi, and sometimes before him. Likewise, first Sabri and then Hakki Efendi benefit from the letters I wrote to you, and this is why I have not written independent letters to them. Allāh has made you a big, blessed brother to them both; [thus], stay in touch with ‘Abdu’l-Majīd in my stead, and let him not be worried, for I think of him after I think of Hulusi, yet he does not fully fulfil the duties of discipleship, and this is why I do not contact him directly. 

Your first question: My brother, you have a confidential question pertaining to one of your grandparents signing himself as اَلسَّيِّدْ مُحَمَّدْ (as-Sayyid Muḥammad). (9)

My brother, I am not able to answer this question through knowledge, verification and mystical unveiling, but I used to say to my friends: "Hulusi does neither resemble present-day Turks nor Kurds. I see another [special] characteristic in him." My friends confirmed me [on my thought].

In accordance with the secret of دَادِحَقْ رَا قَابِلِيَّتْ شَرْطْ ن۪يسْتْ (a) a type of nobility appears in him. This is a favour of Allāh.

_____

a [one’s] capacity is not a condition of Divine beneficence. (A Persian saying)

9. That is, he is of the blessed lineage of the Messenger of Allāh (‘alayhi’ṣ-ṣālātu wa’s-salām)

_____

Know for certain that the Most Noble Messenger (‘alayhi’ṣ-ṣālātu wa’s-salām) has ‘two types of Family’: 

The first: The family from his bloodline (‘alayhi’ṣ-ṣālātu wa’s-salām). 

The second: The family, with respect to the prophetic mission, of his luminous spiritual personality. 

Now, you are without doubt part of the second group, and I am convinced, though without evidence, that you are also part of the first group, in that your grandfather's signing himself in this way cannot have been without cause. 

The essence of your second question: My dear brother,

Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī has said that "the [meaning of the] createdness of the spirit is its being unveiled." In asking this question, you are forcing me, a weak and helpless person, to contest with a formidable wonder of spiritual reality, and a genius of the science of secrets, Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī. Yet since my engagement with this topic is directly founded upon texts from the Wise Qur’ān, I can [here] fly higher than that falcon, even though I am a mere fly. 

Know that Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī does not [intentionally] misguide, though he may be mistaken [about this issue]. He is himself rightly-guided, but he cannot be a guide in all of his books. What he has witnessed [mystically] is itself true, but is not the reality. That reality, which is the pivot of your question, has been elucidated in the topic about the spirit in "the Twenty-ninth Word". 

Yes - with respect to its quiddity, the spirit is a law [that proceeds directly] from the Divine command (qānūnun amrī). Yet it is a law (nāmūs) that is alive, and that has been dressed in extramental existence (al-wujūdu’l-khārijī), and it is a law (qānūn) that possesses extramental existence. 

Shaykh Muḥyī’d-Dīn reflected upon the spirit in terms of its quiddity alone. He considers the existence of things to be merely imaginal, in accordance with [the school of] the Unity of Being (Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd).

Since that blessed individual, the Shaykh, with his extraordinary mystical unveilings (kashfiyāt) and gnostic witnessings (mushāhadāt), has [found] an important spiritual approach (mashrab) and has chosen an independent way (maslak), with his weak interpretations, he necessarily applied some Qur’ānic verses to his own approach (mashrab) and what he metaphysically witnessed (mashhudāt) in a way that involves a far-fetched interpretation; this [thereby] hurts the explicit sense of the verses [that is, it gives a slightly different meaning of their explicit meaning].

The straight way of the Qur’ān and the sound methodology of the Ahlu’s-Sunnah was elucidated in other epistles. Now, Shaykh Ibnu ‘Arabī has a special spiritual station, and he is of the accepted ones, yet he transcended [normal] bounds in his nonlinear mystical unveilings, and disagreed with the majority of the verifying scholars in a great number of questions. 

It is because of this secret that his particular spiritual path [in its real form] only continued for a very short time in the person of Ṣadru’d-Dīn al-Qūnawī, despite the fact that [Ibnu ‘Arabī] was a very exalted, extraordinary spiritual pole and the incomparable genius of all times. It is rare that anyone is able to benefit from his works in a sound and steadfast way, this such that many of the purified ones (aṣfiyā') from amongst the verifying scholars do not recommend that people read his valuable works, and some even prohibit reading them.

The explanation of the fundamental difference between the spiritual method (mashrab) of Shaykh Ibnu ‘Arabī and the spiritual method of the people of verification, and the explanation of their [respective] sources requires a very lengthy investigation, and an extremely lofty, all-embracing perspective. 

Yes - the difference is so subtle and profound, and the sources so exalted and expansive that Shaykh Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī hasn't been reprehended due to his oversight, but has remained widely accepted. 

Otherwise, were that difference and those sources apparent, scientifically, intellectually and in terms of mystical unveiling, his spiritual method (mashrab) would be deemed an immensely major lapse and a very weighty oversight for him. Now, because that difference is so profound, we will now try to elucidate that difference and that source, and Shaykh Muḥyī’d-Dīn's oversight in this particular topic, as follows: 

For example: The sun appears in a mirror, and that mirror is ‘a receptacle’ (ẓarf) of the sun and at the same time ‘described by it’ (mawṣūf), that is, from a certain perspective, the sun exists in the mirror, and from another it ornaments it and becomes a shining dye and attribute thereof. If that mirror happens to be a camera, the image of the sun will move in a fixed form to the paper. In this case, the sun that appears in the mirror and its quiddity manifest upon the paper is not the real sun with regard to its ornamentation of the mirror and its having become an attribute thereof - it is not itself a sun, but rather the entering of the manifestation of the sun into a different body. Now, although the sun that appears in the mirror is not identically the sun witnessed in the external world, it was thought to be the sun itself in so far as it is connected to and points to the sun. 

Based on this example, it could only be said that "there is nothing in the mirror other than the real sun" as long as the mirror is regarded as the receptacle and the sun to be there in the mirror with its extramental existence. Otherwise, if it was to be said that “its reflection that became an attribute and its image that moved to the photographic paper actually is the sun”, this would be an oversight. Saying that there is nothing in the two of them other than the sun is a mistake, because upon the polished mirror there is a reflection, and upon the photographic paper there is an image. Each of these things has its own special existence; thus, although these two existent things are from the manifestation of the sun, they are not the sun itself. 

Man's intellect and imagination resemble this example of the mirror, and this is as follows:

The objects of knowledge (ma‘lūmāt) existing in the mirror of man's thought have two aspects; from a perspective they constitute ‘knowledge’ (‘ilm), and from another aspect ‘the object of knowledge’ (ma‘lūm); were we to consider the intellect to be the receptacle of that object of knowledge, that object of knowledge would then be ‘an object of knowledge with mental existence’; [the physical body] that that object of knowledge has, however, is something else. On the other hand, were we to consider the intellect to be characterised (mawṣūf) by that thing, it becomes an attribute of the intellect, and that thing thus becomes ‘knowledge’, and exists in the external world. Even though that ‘thing known’ (ma‘lūm) also has [extramental] existence and [constitutes a] substance (jawhar), it will also have the like of this accidental (‘araḍī) extramental existence. 

The universe, in accordance with these two similitudes, is a mirror. The quiddity of each existing being is also a mirror. They are both subject to beginninglessly eternal power and Divine existentiation. Every existent being is - from a certain perspective - a mirror of one of the Names of the Beginninglessly Eternal Sun (Ash-Shamsu’l-Azalī), Allāhu Ta‘ālā, that reveals one of His inscriptions.

Now, those who subscribe to the spiritual method (mashrab) of Shaykh Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī have fallen into error by regarding [the universe] only as a mirror and a receptacle, and by negating the existence of appearances in the mirror, and by supposing that a thing's reflection is identical to that which is reflected, and by disregarding other degrees [of existence] and by saying لاَ مَوْجُودَ اِلَّأ هُوَ (there is no existent but He). Thus, they fell into the degree of negating the fundamental principle حَقَٓائِقُ الْاَشْيَٓاءِ ثَابِتَةٌ (the essences of things have real foundation).

By the secret of the prophetic inheritance and conclusive texts from the Qur’ān however, the people who hold the right position see that the inscriptions that come into existence in the mirrors of existent beings by the Divine power and volition are no more than His effects; they are هَمَه اَزْ اُوسْتْ and not هَمَه اُوسْتْ; that is, all things come from Him, but not every that exists is Him; things have existence, and that existence has some degree of fixity. Despite the fact that when compared to the existence of the Necessary Being (Al-Wājibu’l-Wujūd) their existence is so weak that it is as if [their existence is] imaginary, they do exist, by the existentiation, volition and power of the Beginninglessly Eternal Almighty (Al-Qadīru’l-Azalī). 

Just as the sun in the mirror, as in the similitude, has a type of representational existence which is other than its real extramental existence, and [just as] its reflection that colours the mirror with decoration also has a distinct, accidental [type of] extramental existence, and [just as] the image of the sun that becomes imprinted upon the photographic paper behind the mirror likewise has a distinct, accidental extramental existence, an existence that does has some degree of fixity, so too do the inscriptions of the works of art that appear within the mirror of the universe and the mirrors of the quiddities of things, through the manifestations of the Holy Divine Names, [manifestations] that come about through His volition, will and power, have a temporally originated existence that is distinct from the existence of the Necessary. That [temporally originated] existence has, by the Beginninglessly Eternal Power, been bestowed a type of fixity, yet were the link [to the Divine] to be cut off, all things would altogether pass away; at every moment, all things are in need, in order to abide on, of their existence being perpetuated by their Creator; thus, حَقَٓائِقُ الْاَشْيَٓاءِ ثَابِتَةٌ (the essences of things have real foundation), but they are only real because they have been made to be so by Him, and because of His granting them fixity. 

Thus, Shaykh Muḥyī’d-Dīn's statement "the spirit is not a creation [that has extramental existence], but is a reality that proceeded from the world of the Divine command" contrasts with the apparent meaning of a great many texts [of the Qur’ān]; as is evinced by the critical verification [of the truth of the matter] above, Shaykh Muḥyī’d-Dīn misapprehended the matter and was mistaken, having not perceived the types of weak existence. The loci of the manifestation of Divine Names like the Creator, Who consistently and perfectly creates (Al-Khallāq) and the Provider (Ar-Razzāq) cannot be supposed and imaginal; and since those Names have a reality, there can be no doubt that their loci of manifestation also have an external reality. 

Your third question: Wherein you request a lesson that will serve as a key to the science of letters (‘ilmu’l-jifr). (10)

_____

10. ‘Ilmu’l-jifr: the science that extracts meanings from the secrets of letters

_____

The answer: We are not engaged in this mission and this service as a result of our own personal will and planning. There is a will - much better than ours - above our own will that controls all of our affairs. Because of the great pleasure and satisfaction afforded by the science of the secret properties of letters, it [may] distract one from one's real duties; on numerous occasions, certain secrets of the Qur’ān have been deciphered with this key, yet when I turned all of my attention to it with perfect enthusiasm and delight, [the science] was getting closed to me. I found two wisdoms in this: 

The first: The possibility of transgressing spiritual courtesy towards لاَيَعْلَمُ الْغَيْبَ اِلَّأ اللّٰهُ “None but Allāh knows the Unseen.”

The second: The service of teaching the Islamic community the fundamental spiritual truths of faith and of the Qur’ān through conclusive proofs is a hundred times more distinguished and valuable than esoteric sciences like the science of the secret properties of letters. The conclusive proofs and firm evidences of this sacred vocation leave no room for using this vocation for evil ends, yet the esoteric sciences not founded upon decisive principles, like the science of the secret properties of letters, may well be misused, and there is a possibility that deceivers and plotters may use it to their advantage.

In any case, whenever a need for the service of truths [of the Qur’ān] arises, a portion [of the science] is gifted [to us by Allāh] proportionate to the need.

The easiest of all of the keys to the science of letters (‘ilmu’l-jifr), indeed, the purest of them all, nay the most beautiful of them, are the types of congruent alignment that spring from the Name "The Unique Existentiator (Al-Badī‘)," which made its manifestations to appear in [the instances of] the Majestic Divine Name in the Qur’ān, and that has ornamented the works that we have issued; certain of those [manifestations] have been elucidated in certain sections of “The Ghawthian Wonder (Karāmatu’l-Ghawthu’l-A‘ẓam).” Amongst them are examples such as:

If congruous alignment (tawāfuq) reveals a particular thing from many different perspectives, this constitutes an indication that is on the level of a demonstration, and even a single alignment is sometimes like a demonstration, when certain indicia of context [are taken into account]. In any case, this is enough about that for now, and whenever there is a pressing need the information [you requested] will arrive to you. 

Your fourth question, being [really] Ömer Efendi's question, and not yours:

A wretched doctor had made the claim that ‘Īsā the son of Maryam (‘alayhimussalām) had a father,^(Footnote) and it seems that as evidence he provides a deranged interpretation of a [Qur’ānic] verse. 

_____

Footnote: The extraordinary circumstances of an extraordinary, unique individual - who took on the leadership of a fourth of humanity, and in one sense went from being a human being to being an angel, and left the earth and made the heavens his homeland - entail an extraordinary form of the law of reproduction. This being the case, it would not be befitting to affix the law governing his birth to the ordinary law [of reproduction] in a dubious, unclear, unnatural and lowly manner, nor is there a need to do so in any way at all. 

Moreover, the explicit statements given by the Qur’ān on this matter do not allow interpretation. How could strong laws - like the law governing the gender of angels which is excluded from the law of reproduction and has never been broken in any way, and the law that the Qur’ān has explicitly stated - be undermined, just in order to save [the supposed necessity of] the law of reproduction, which has been broken in a hundred different ways? 

_____

That poor man had been working enthusiastically trying to think up something new by [writing in] disjointed letters (al-ḥurūfu’l-muqatta’at). At that moment, I understood that that man had sensed from the behaviours of the atheists that the atheists were about to attempt to abolish the Islamic letters. He worked profusely but completely futilely in an attempt to obstruct that torrent. 

Now, in this issue [of ‘Īsā (‘alayhi’s-salām)] and also the second issue [of the Qur’ānic letters], he has perceived the severe attack of atheists against the fundamental principles of Islam, and I think he wished, by means of these trivial, meaningless interpretations, to open the door to reconciliation. 

Established and decisive texts like اِنَّ مَثَلَ ع۪يسٰي عِنْدَاللّٰهِ كَمَثَلِ اٰدَمَ (a) conclusively demonstrate that ‘Īsā (‘alayhi’s-salām) had no father; as such, no weight should be given to the words of those who strive by means of groundless interpretations to change this firmly rooted fact, imagining that any suspension of the law of reproduction is impossible, nor is this worthy of your attention. 

_____

a “Surely, the similitude [of creation] of ‘Īsā [without a father] to Allāh is like [the creation] of Ādam.” (Āli ‘Imrān, 3:59)

_____

For there is no law that does not admit odd exceptions (shudhūdh) and rare instances, and individual cases independent [of the law]; and there is not a universal principle but that it is qualified by unusual individual cases. It is not possible for there to have not been a single exception to a law from the time of Adam (‘alayhi’s-salām) up until our day. 

First of all, the law of reproduction was broken in [the fact of] the origination of two hundred thousand species of animals and [the fact that these laws have no exceptions] was initially ended. That is, their two hundred thousand original progenitors, all of whom were like their Adams, all broke the law of reproduction - that is, they did not come from a father and mother, but were rather have existence conferred upon them independent of that law. Moreover, the illimitable members of the great majority of one hundred thousand species we behold every spring are all created and are bestowed existence quite independently of the law of reproduction on the tops of leaves and within putrid substances.

How imbecilic then is the one whose intellect is unable to comprehend one single exception having taken place over the course of one thousand nine hundred years to a law that was broken at its inception, and indeed to which there are every year so many exceptions, instead [deeming it necessary] to hold on to [groundless] interpretations of Qur’ānic verses? Think about it! 

That which these wretched people call "Laws of Nature" are in fact the laws of Allāh's customary determination (‘ādatullāh), which are universal manifestations of the Divine command (al-amru'l-ilāhi) and the Lordly volition (al-irādatu'r-rabbāniyya); Allāh Most High changes His customary determination for the sake of particular wisdoms, and thereby reveals the decree of His volition and will over all things, and over every law; He transcends His customary determinations through certain transcendent individuals, and elucidates this reality by means of the exposition and proclamation of اِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسٰي عِنْدَاللّٰهِ كَمَثَلِ اٰدَمَ . (a)

_____

a “Surely, the similitude [of creation] of ‘Īsā [without a father] to Allāh is like [the creation] of Ādam.” (Āli ‘Imrān, 3:59)

_____

Ömer Efendi's second question regarding this doctor: 

This doctor has behaved so foolishly with regard to this topic, and he is thus beneath being listened to or having any weight attached to his words by being refuted, for this poor man wants to find a middle course between unbelief (kufr) and faith (īmān). Thus do I say, merely in answer to Ömer Efendi’s enquiry, and not as a refutation of the doctor’s trivial, inconsequential words: 

The [real] causal rationale (‘illah) of the commands and prohibitions of the Sacred Law is that they are Divine commands and Divine prohibitions. The benefits and wisdoms underlying them simply preponderate (murajjiḥ), in that they constitute grounds for a command or prohibition to become attached to [a specific thing] in terms of the Divine Name "the Wise (Al-Ḥakīm)." For example, the traveller shortens his prayer. The shortening of the Prayer has both a causal rationale (‘illah) and a wisdom (hikmah). The causal rationale is travel, [but] the wisdom is the hardship involved [in travel]. At the time of travel, the Prayer is shortened even if no hardship is to be found there. If there is no travel yet one suffers one hundred troubles in his house, that prayer is not to be shortened. For the fact that travel sometimes causes hardship is enough to make hardship the wisdom underlying the shortening of the Prayer, and for its part it also makes travel a causal rationale for shortening the Prayer. 

It is on the basis of this principle of Sacred Law that rulings of Sacred Law do not change in accordance with [their underlying] wisdoms, but are rather attached to their real causal rationale. For example, along with the harm and illnesses that the doctor refers to and is aware of, there is also the principle "he who eats pig meat takes on [a pig's] characteristics in a certain way";^(Footnote) thus the meat of that animal cannot be eaten without harm though the meat of other domestic animals can be. Aside from the fact that the harm of eating its meat is much greater than the benefit thereof, the dense fat in it is medically harmful anywhere other than in the very cold lands of Europe, and it has been proven that its meat and fat is extremely harmful both spiritually and materially.

The like of this wisdom has become a wisdom for [pig meat] being prohibited, and for the Divine prohibition to pertain to it. The wisdom does not have to exist in every particular individual at all times, [whereas] the causal rationale is not changed by the wisdom changing, and the ruling (ḥukm) does not change unless the causal rationale changes.

Thus on the basis of this principle, let the great distance of that poor man's words from the spirit of the Sacred Law be understood; his words are not to be given any weight, not is he to be paid attention in terms of the Sacred Law (sharī‘a), for the Creator possesses a great many animals who have the forms of foolish, unthinking philosophers!

_____

Footnote: Europe have progressed in an astonishing manner, both civilisationally and in the modern sciences and all sorts of sciences that are of great service to mankind, yet I must ask: does not the Europeans’ consumption of pig meat have something to do with getting themselves stuck, like a pig, in the [swamps and] darknesses of materialism and naturalism, both of which are completely antithetical to this progress and to these excellences and sciences? The proof that man is affected in his nature by that which he nourishes himself on is the proverbial: "whoever eats meat for forty consecutive days will be afflicted by hardness of heart."

_____

An appendix to the previous question concerning Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī:

A question:

Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī considered the Unity of Being to be the loftiest spiritual degree, and many of the great saints from amongst the people of ecstatic spiritual love have followed him [in this]. You on the other hand say that it is not the highest degree, and that it is not real, but that it is the spiritual approach (mashrab) of the people of spiritual intoxication, yearning and love. Explain to us, then, exactly what the highest degree of unification of the Divine (tawḥīd) is, that is elucidated by the secret of the prophetic inheritance, and in explicit texts of the Qur’ān? 

The answer: 

Judging of these lofty degrees is hundred times further beyond the limits of a poor individual like me who is nothing within nothingness, a helpless man with a somewhat short-sighted thought, but I will nonetheless elucidate one or two subtle points that have come from the spiritual effusion of the Wise Qur’ān; perhaps they prove to be of benefit in this question. 

The first subtle point: There exist many reasons for their being stuck in the spiritual approach (mashrab) of the Unity of Being, some of which will be briefly expounded: 

The first reason: They were not able to comprehend the "Creatorhood (khallāqiyyah)" of the [supreme] degree of Lordship (rubūbiyyah) in its fullness, and they were unable to perceive with their hearts that the Creator holds everything in the grasp of His Lordship by the secret of singularity (aḥadiyyah), and that all things come into existence by means of His power (qudrah), will (irāda) and volition (ikhtiyār). This is why they have been compelled to say "everything is ‘Him’" or "nothing exists," or "everything is imagination," or "everything is just His becoming manifest," or "His manifestations." 

The second reason: Because of their ecstatic spiritual yearning - that wishes never to be separated and passionately flees from it - they fear and shudder at the thought of distance and abandonment in the same way that they fear Hell, and intensely hate extinction, and love union as they love their spirits and lives, and yearn for proximity with illimitable longing just as they yearn for Paradise, and also because of their holding fast to the manifestation of Divine closeness in all things, they have counted separation and distance nonexistent, and deemed the encounter (liqā') and union to be perpetual, thus saying لَا مَوْجُودَ اِلَّا هُوَ (no existent being is there but He). Thus have they conceived, in the drunkenness of ecstatic love, and in accordance with the entailments of the love of the perpetual abiding, encounter (liqā') and union, that in the Unity of Being (Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd) is a spiritual method involving a state that is at the pinnacle of spiritual experience, whence they took the Unity of Being (Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd) as refuge where they can liberated from all kinds of intense, painful separation. 

The wellspring of 'the first reason' then is the following: The intellect's not having arrived at certain very expansive, elevated realities of faith, and its not being able to encompass them, and the intellect's not having been flourished fully in matters of faith. 

As for the wellspring of 'the second reason': This stems from the heart being exceptionally flourished in its ecstatic love, and its being opened up and widened in extraordinary fashion.

That which is deemed to be the supreme degree of the unification of the Divine by the greatest of the saintly inheritors (awliyā') of prophethood and the pure of heart (aṣfiyā') who are the people of sobriety, is exceptionally elevated, and elucidates the supreme degree of the Divine Lordship and Creatorhood, and makes clear that all of the Beautiful Names are real, and that they preserve the foundations and principles [of created being], and that they do not impair the balance of the rulings of Lordship; for those saints and ones pure of heart say: 

“All things are encompassed by, individualised and determined directly by the knowledge of Allāh Most High and His Divine actions (shu'unat); and are made to preponderate [over one another] and particularised by His volition, and are given fixity and are created through His Power - all this along with the singularity of His Essence and His being transcendently beyond existing in a place. He Most High originates and directs the whole universe [with the same ease with which] He originates and directs each individual thing. He creates the vast spring just as He creates a single flower and with the same ease. One thing does not obstruct another. There is no partitioning or division in His orientation. He exists in every place at every moment in terms of His free disposal through His power and knowledge. There is no separation nor partitioning in His free disposal.”

This secret has been fully explained and proven in "The Sixteenth Word," and in the "second aim" of the "second standpoint" of "The Thirty-second Word." 

Based on the principle of لَا مَشَاحَةَ فِي التَّمْثِيلِ (there could be no error in a parable), since one does not question to find a mistake on a parable, I will tell a very faulty parable, so that the difference between these two methods (mashrabs) is to be understood to a certain point. 

For instance, let us imagine a singularly marvellous and extremely unique, immensely great and excessively embellished peacock that is able to fly to the east and west in an instant, and flap its wings that are spread from the north to the south, and is adorned with thousands of fine decorations and extraordinarily genius works of art are placed on every single feather of its wings. 

Now, there are two men watching [this peacock]. They want to fly with the wings of their intellect and heart to look at the elevated ranks and wonderful decorations of this bird. One of them looks at that peacock’s posture, body and the extraordinary decorations of power on its every feather and loves it in an exceedingly ecstatic and enthusiastic way. 

He partially leaves the contemplation of exactitude and holds unto ecstatic love. Yet, he sees that those sweet decorations are transforming and changing every single day. Those lovers that he fell for and he admired as far as the degree of worshipping are all getting lost and disappearing. 

As he does not grasp [the reality], instead of having such a conviction like “this bird is indeed a marvellous decoration of art of a decorator who possesses real unity and absolute, sovereign lordship, oneness of essence and universal creatorhood,” rather he says to give consolation to himself: 

“The spirit in this peacock is so sublime that its creator is within that bird or its creator is that bird itself. What is more, that spirit is in unity with its body, and its body is in harmony with its apparent form that perfection of its spirit and sublimity of that body show these manifestations in this manner, every other minute it shows another decoration, and it reveals another beauty. It is not a creation with real will, rather it is a manifestation, and a revealing reflection.” 

The other man says: “These decorations of fine balance and harmonious order that are in an artistic fashion most certainly demand a will and volition, determination and intention. Manifesting does not appear without willful volition, and revealing of reflection does not occur without determined intention. 

Yes, the very being and quiddity of the peacock is charming and sublime yet its quiddity cannot be the active subject but rather it is the passive object, and it cannot be in unity with its doer in any way. Its spirit is beautiful and elevated, yet it is not [its] cause of existence nor an owner of authority over it. Rather, it is the thing where existence is reflected on (maẓhar) and it is a passive means that the authority acts around (madār). 

For an art of endless wisdom, and a decoration of embellishment of limitless power is manifestly seen on every single feather. This state cannot happen without a will or volition. These works of art that manifest this singular perfection of wisdom within perfection of power, and perfection of sovereign lordship and mercy within the perfection of will cannot be the manifestation [of that spirit] in any way possible. 

The author that wrote this gilded book cannot be inside this book, and it cannot be in unity with its writer. Rather, that book has a connection with the tip of the writing pen of this book’s writer. Thus, the extraordinary decorations of this representative peacock that is called the universe are a gilded written letter of the peacock’s Creator.” 

Now, look at that universe peacock. Read that letter. Say Māshā'Allāh, BārakAllāh, SubḥānAllāh to its writer. The one who supposes the letter as its writer or the one who presumes the letter’s writer is inside the letter, or the one who imagines that the letter is a pure imagination has certainly hid his intellect under the veil of ecstatic love and has not been able to see the real form of the reality.

Of all types of ecstatic love, the most important aspect that causes the doctrine of the Unity of Being (Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd) is the love of dunyā. When the metaphorical love of dunyā turns into real love, it turns into Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd. 

A lover adores his personal loved one from amongst human beings with a metaphorical love and later on he loses her by way of separation or death. As that lover cannot accept his loved one’s separation or death in his heart, in order to eternalise his loved one in a state of real ecstatic love, he gives a type of consolation to himself by saying:

“She is a mirror of the beauty of the Worshipped One (Ma‘būd) and the Real Loved One (Al-Maḥbūbu’l-Ḥaqīqī)” and he holds onto a reality. 

Just as this is so, similarly the person - who takes this immense world and universe with all of their components as his loved one, but later when that astonishing love turns into real love due to the continuous lashes of decadence and separation - now takes refuge in the doctrine of Waḥdatu’l-Wujūd to save that incredibly massive loved one from decadence and separation. 

If they have a really strong and sublime conviction, it is a pleasing, luminous and accepted rank for the individuals like Muḥyī’d-Dīn Ibnu ‘Arabī. Otherwise, it is probable that one may fall into dangerous pits, or materialism or get drowned in the [pool of] material causes. The Unity of Witnessing (Waḥdatu’sh-Shuhūd) on the other hand is harmless. It is also a sublime method of the sensible people (ahluṣ-ṣaḥw). 

اَللّٰهُمَّ اَرِنَاالْحَقَّ حَقًّا وَارْزُقْنَا اتِّبَاعَهُ (a)

سُبْحَانَكَ لَاعِلْمَ لَنَٓا اِلَّا مَا عَلَّمْتَنَٓا اِنَّكَ اَنْتَ الْعَل۪يمُ الْحَك۪يمُ (b)

_____

a O Allāh! Show us the truth as true, and inspire us to follow it. (Tafsīr ibnu Kathīr, v.1 p.188)

b Glory be to You! We have no knowledge, except that which You have taught us - surely You are the All-knowing, the Wise. (Qur’ān: al-Baqarah, 2:32)