Wahdat al-Wujud versus Wahdat al-Shuhud

From: [http://www.stevenmasood.org/articles/Wahdat.html]

It is self-evident that any exposition on the person of God is incomplete and can be misunderstood; the doctrine of Wahdat al-Wujud and its interpretation is no different. For example some thought that this doctrine could be misinterpreted as meaning a continuity or identity of substance between the world and God, that the world is God in disguise. Thus against this danger there arose the idea of Wahdat al-Shuhud (Unity of Consciousness or Unity of Being in vision).

Although Sufism is divided and subdivided into many groups, in regard to their speculation concerning God, some believe that Sufis can be divided into two main groups. The larger of these is composed of those to whom everything is of the same essence. For them the creed, There is no God but God, means that beside Allah there is no existence. They are called itihadiya or alternatively, Wahdatal Wajudiya.

Those forming the second group, in their anxiety to conform to monotheistic teaching, explain the pantheistic expressions of mystic writers, interpreting them in the sense that the existence of the universe and all that it contains is so far transcended by the reality of God that these things count for nothing. Sufis of this class are called Ilhamiya, inspired; they generally uphold the doctrine of Wahdat al-Shuhud, a belief that all existence is One; unity of Being in vision or the unity of consciousness. Due to restriction on length of the essay we consider onlySirhindi's view.

Sirhindi's criticism of Wahdat al-Wujud

Ibn Al-Arabi's mysticism was widely taught in the Yemen, Turkey, Iran and India. Ibn Taymiyya (d.1327), Taki al-Din al-Subki, Ibn Khalduncriticised his mystical ideas, claiming they were meaningless. However, Ibn al-Arabi found defenders in Suyuti, al-Idris and others.

In Iran and India some Ulama did write against his explanation of Wahdat al-Wujud, the important being Ahmad Sirhindi (d. 1624), an eminent Indian Sufi whose ideas shaped the second or Mujaddidi phase of the Naqshbandi order. Some of his claims, for instance that he had surpassed Ibn al-Arabi in reaching the last divine manifestation, aroused powerful opposition from colleagues. In his pre-Sufi phase, he wrote work typical of a scholar of his time, refuting Shiism; in his Sufi phase, he produced a range of works suffused with spiritual insight. The most important of these is the collection of 534 of his letters known as Maktubat-i- imami rabbani.

Sirhindi's prime concern was to integrate his Sufi ideas with a Sunni framework. He accepted most of al Arabi's teachings but elevated the concept of Wahdat al-Shuhud (unity of witness) over Ibn Al-Arabi's Wahdat al-Wujud (unity of being) as believed by the majority. According to him believers had to realise that "Everything is from HIM" rather than "Everything is HIM." However, his interpretation did not replace Wahdatal-Wujud in Naqshbandi- Mujaddidi thinking except that his emphasis "on obedience to shariah and sunnah as a means of achieving spiritual realisation was widely accepted by the Naqshbandiyah and was carried by his successors into Central Asia, Turkey, and the Arab lands, where it has been a source of inspiration."

Most Sufi believers try to interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah in the light of the doctrine Wahdat al-Wujud. However, there are others who do not approve of it. Wali Allah (d. 1762) for instance who believed in the fundamental doctrine of Wahdat al-Wujud said, "One who interprets the words of the prophets on the lines of wahdat al-wajud, does not know them, nor their ways." He believed that prophets spoke in the natural language, tawr al-fitrah, and did not indulge themselves in the ontological language associated with Wahdat al-Wujud.

In spite of some opposition in Sufi circles, most Sufi teachers today stress this doctrine wholeheartedly because to them, as Shaikh Ahmad Al-Alawi said, "It is natural that Spiritual Masters should stress Wahdat al-Wujud above all, because it is the Supreme Truth and therefore the ultimate goal of all mysticism."

Mufti Taqi Usmani on Wahdat al-Wujud

From: http://www.deoband.org/2010/05/hadith/hadith-commentary/wahdat-al-wujud-wahdat-al-shuhud-and-the-safest-position/

One of the adherents of the doctrine of the Oneness of Being, and the foremost of them is Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi (Allah Most High have mercy on him), would say that the existence of Allah Most High is eternal and beginningless, and there was nothing before the creation of the world besides this beginningless eternal existence along with His names and attributes, and this is what is called in their terminology “external existence” (zahir al-wujud). All the possible entities were non-existent in the exterior but its detailed knowledge was available to Allah Most High. These possible entities from the perspective of their being known to Allah Most High are called in the terminology “the immutable entities” (al-a’yan al-thabita). Hence, when Allah Most High intended to remove the world from pure non-existence, He manifested these immutable entities upon external existence, by different levels of manifestation and in a manner whose true nature is known only to Allah. Thus, the reflections of these immutable entities were manifested into external existence, whereby they do not acquire an existence from the outside, nor do they acquire the ability to penetrate into external existence, and it only acquires an imaginary existence that appears from the outside as though it is an external existence, just as the disc of the sun acquired an imaginary existence in the glass without it acquiring a real existence externally. Thus, the real existent is none other than Allah Most High and the entire world is a reflection of the immutable entities and is nothing but pure imagination, which appears to be existent externally, but is not existent with a real existence.

Moreover, although Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi (Allah have mercy on him) claimed that the existence of the world in its entirety is purely imaginary, he nevertheless believed that the imagination has different levels. Hence, from the imaginary existent is that which disappears by stepping up the imagination, thus rules do not pertain to them; and from it is that which does not disappear by stepping up the imagination, so it is proper that some rules pertain to it. The existence of the world is from the second type of imaginary existence which does not disappear by stepping up the imagination, and for that reason it is correct for the rules of the Shari’ah to pertain to it. So, what some people raise as an objection to him that the view of the entire world being purely imaginary necessitates the view of the negation of laws and rules, is an objection not brought about by what Shaykh Ibn ‘Arabi said.

Wahdat al-Wujud and the Puppeteer

Umm Sahl, the wife of Shaykh Nuh Keller, explains how Shaykh 'Abd al-Ghani al-Nablusi understood the doctrine of wahdat al-wujud. From: [http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/nabulsi.htm] 

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

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

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

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

The Oneness of Being that we maintain is none other than 

the Oneness of the Truth (al-Haqq), so understand what we say,

The Oneness of Allah, the sole Unity, which the pre-eminent 
luminaries have witnessed,

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

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

Also, in vol.1, Page 22:

Truly, Being is unseen by eyes, 

In respect to what the beholder sees;

Eyes perceive nothing of it besides "what is besides",
Namely, contingent things, a collection of shadows;

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

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

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

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

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

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