The most significant area where prejudiced individuals attack the Saʿādat-i Ṣūfiyya (the felicity of the Sufis) with ignorance, slander, and lies is hulūl and ittiḥād. Hulūl and ittiḥād mean that Allah, Glorified and Exalted, enters and indwells every part of the universe—seas, mountains, rocks, trees, humans, animals, and others. Alternatively, it means that the created being is identical to the Creator, so that all perceived and visible existents in the universe are the very essence and identity of Allah. However, the Exalted Allah is far above and greater than these (for He is free and pure from all deficient attributes).
Undoubtedly, such statements are manifest kufr (disbelief) that contradict the beliefs of the ummah. The Sufis are those who realize and live by Islam, iman (faith), and ihsan (spiritual excellence). How could they deviate into such misguidance and kufr? To accuse them of such disbelief and arbitrary things without examining and establishing the facts is not befitting of a just believer. It is inappropriate to attribute slanderous and false statements to them without understanding their intent, without being clearly acquainted with their stated beliefs, and without studying their principal works such as “Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya,” “Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn,” “Risāla al-Qushayriyya,” and many other books.
Some malicious accusers of the Sufiyya may say: Instead of merely exonerating the Saʿādat-i Ṣūfiyya from the idea of hulūl and ittiḥād, or offering a dry defense to a prejudiced person by saying, “You are a person of bigotry or caprice,” you should have provided statements that would clear your field from such accusations.
Let us clarify and explain, even to a small extent, the manifest ḥaqīqa (inner reality) in the words of the Saʿādat-i Ṣūfiyya, so that it may be established that they are far removed from the statements and accusations of hulūl and ittiḥād! Let this prevent people from adopting a deviant creed about them! Let the statements attributed to them be made clear, and let it be understood that the issue of hulūl and ittiḥād attributed to them is a slander against them! Furthermore, let the forthcoming explicit texts be interpreted in accordance with the beliefs of the ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jamāʿa!
Imām al-Shaʿrānī (may Allah have mercy on him) says: “By my life, even idolaters do not dare to claim that the idol or what they worship is identical to Allah. When asked, they say: ‘These gods (idols) bring us closer to Allah, the Exalted.’ How then can these slanderers believe that the awliyāʾ (friends of God) of Allah unite the Truth with creation? Would even a person of weak intellect accept this? May Allah be pleased with those awliyāʾ! They are far removed from such slanders. No walī would do this. For they know very well that the ḥaqīqa of Allah is different from all other realities. The ḥaqīqa of Allah is beyond the knowledge of creation. Indeed, Allah encompasses all things.”[1]
Hulūl and ittiḥād can only occur between things of the same kind. Allah is not a genus that He could indwell within genera. How can the Eternal enter into the contingent? How can the Creator enter into His creation? If an accident (something that comes into being) enters into a substance, Allah is not an accident. If a substance enters into a substance, Allah is not a substance either. Hulūl and ittiḥād are impossible among created beings. Two men cannot become one due to their essential differences. The difference between the Creator and the created, the Maker and the made, and the Necessary Existent and the possible existent is even greater and more significant. For there is a vast difference between two realities.
The scholars and the verifying Sufis have continued to explain that hulūl and ittiḥād are bāṭil (false), warning that this idea is corrupt and cautioning against it as a misguidance. Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī (may Allah have mercy on him) says in “al-ʿAqīda al-Ṣughrā”: “The Truth, Exalted is He, is far above being contingent, or that the contingent could indwell in Him.”[2]
In “al-ʿAqīda al-Wusṭā,” he says: “Allah, Exalted is He, is one and unique by consensus. Know that Allah, Who is one in His station, is far above and pure from indwelling in anything, or anything indwelling in Him, or uniting with anything.”[3]
In the chapter “Bāb al-Asrār,” he says: “Even if a gnostic reaches the highest degrees of proximity, it is not permissible for him to say, ‘I am Allah.’ Such statements, God forbid, could never come from a gnostic; I declare them free from such. In their walking and resting, they only affirm their incapacity by saying, ‘I am a humble servant.’”[4]
Again, in chapter 169, he says: “Just as the Eternal cannot be the locus for the contingent, so too the Eternal does not indwell in the contingent.”[5]
In “Bāb al-Asrār,” he says: “Whoever claims hulūl is sick. To utter hulūl is an incurable disease. Those who speak of ittiḥād are deniers. Indeed, those who claim hulūl are ignorant and curious people.”[6]
Again, in “Bāb al-Asrār,” he says: “The contingent is not far from other contingents. If the Eternal were to indwell in the contingent, then the words of those who corporealize Allah would be correct. The Eternal Allah neither indwells nor becomes a locus for indwelling.” (Allah is pure from indwelling and from being a locus for indwelling.)[7]
After discussing at length in chapter 559, he says: “All of this indicates to you that the world is not identical to the Truth, nor does the Truth indwell in the world. For if the world were identical to the Truth or if He indwelled in it, then the Truth, Exalted is He, would be neither eternal nor the Creator.”[8]
In chapter 314, he says: “If a human could leave his humanity, or an angel his angelhood, and unite with the Creator, then reality would be reversed. It would also be possible for the deity to leave divinity. The Truth would become creation, and creation would become the Truth. No one could trust knowledge, and the impossible would become necessary. Thus, there is never a way for realities to change.”[9]
Likewise, in one of his poems, he has a statement negating hulūl and ittiḥād:
“Leave the words of the scholars of a people who claim to have united with a single deity!
Ittiḥād is impossible; only ignorant madmen say it,
And none but one who has left reality and sharia would say it,
Unify your God (tawhid), and do not associate anything as a partner with Him (shirk)!”
In chapter 292, he said: “The greatest proof negating the idea of hulūl and ittiḥād in some people’s imagination is that you know there is nothing of the sun’s light in the moon. The sun has not transferred its essence to the moon. The moon is only a locus for the sun’s light. In the same way, there is nothing of the Creator in any servant, nor has He indwelled in him.”[10]
The author of “Nahj al-Rashād fī al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Waḥda wa’l-Hulūl wa’l-Ittiḥād” says: “Kamal al-Dīn Marāghī (may Allah have mercy on him) spoke and said to me: ‘I met with Abū ʿAbbās al-Mursī (may Allah have mercy on him), a student of the great Shaykh Abū’l-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī (may Allah have mercy on him), and discussed this issue of ittiḥād with him, and I saw that he vehemently denied such things. Forbidding their path, he said: ‘Can any work ever be identical to its maker?’”[11]
However, any apparent statements in the books of the Saʿādat-i Ṣūfiyya that seem to lead to hulūl and ittiḥād are later interpolations. (Their clear statements have already provided evidence in the section negating these deviant beliefs.) Or, they did not intend these evil ideas by such words. For these deviant beliefs were later inserted. However, malicious people misinterpreted their ambiguous statements in this wrong sense and accused them of heresy and disbelief.
Thus, the meticulous and fair scholars who have attained firmness in knowledge have understood that their statements are in accordance with and valid for the creed of ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jamāʿa. They have also realized that it is appropriate to interpret them in line with the iman and taqwa (God-consciousness) of the Sufis.
Allāma Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (may Allah have mercy on him) says in his work “al-Ḥāwī li’l-Fatāwā”: “Know that in the expressions of some verifying scholars, the word ittiḥād occurs. This refers to the reality of tawhid (the oneness of God) among them. For them, ittiḥād is an exaggeration in tawhid. Tawhid is to know the One and the Unique. Those who do not understand its indications found this suspicious and interpreted it in a sense it does not denote. Thus, they became confused and perished by it.” Imām al-Suyūṭī concludes: “The very root of ittiḥād is false and impossible. The doctrine of ittiḥād is, by consensus of the prophets, Sufis, shaykhs, scholars, and other Muslims, rejected in the sharia, reason, and custom. (Indeed, this) is not the madhhab (school) of the Sufis. Rather, it is the statement of those who have gone to extremes, have little knowledge, and are ill-fated by Allah. These heedless ones likened their words to what the Christians say about Jesus (peace be upon him): ‘The humanity of Jesus united with his divinity.’ However, by the grace of Allah, those whom He protects do not believe in ittiḥād or hulūl. If the word ittiḥād occurs among the Sufis, they mean by it the annihilation of their nafs (lower self) and the affirmation of the Truth, Glorified is He.”
He also says:
“Sometimes,
ittiḥād
is used to mean the annihilation of oppositions, the persistence of concordances, the departure of the nafs’s share from the world and the persistence of its inclination toward the Hereafter, the departure of bad attributes and the persistence of beloved attributes, the departure of doubt and the persistence of certainty, and the departure of heedlessness and the persistence of dhikr (remembrance of God).”
He also says: “As for the statement of Abū Yazīd al-Bisṭāmī (may Allah have mercy on him), ‘I declare myself free from all deficiencies, how great is my glory,’ Imām al-Suyūṭī said that this statement was narrated from Allah by way of hikāya (relating). The statement ‘Anā al-Ḥaqq’ (I am the Truth) was also narrated in this way from Allah. Let it not be thought that these gnostics inclined toward hulūl and ittiḥād! It is inconceivable that a person distinguished by direct witnessing, certainty, and unveiling would fall into such ideas. It is not reasonable to suppose that select, intelligent, and outstanding individuals who spend their time in knowledge, righteous deeds, spiritual struggle, and maintaining the limits of the sharia would mistakenly fall into hulūl and ittiḥād. For this is like the mistaken belief of the Christians regarding Jesus (peace be upon him). (God forbid that such a belief should come from the scholars of Islam.) Such erroneous ideas and incidents in Islam have arisen from ignorant impostors who claim to be Sufis. God forbid that such things should come from the verifying gnostic scholars!” He continues: “In summary, ittiḥād is a shared term. It is condemned when based on a blameworthy meaning, which is none other than hulūl itself and is disbelief. The word ittiḥād is used as a technical term by the Sufis in the station of fanāʾ (annihilation in God). One cannot object to technical terms. No one can be prevented from using a word in its correct sense. There is no legal objection to this. If it were forbidden, the word ittiḥād would not be permissible for anyone. In that case, it would not be permissible for you to say, ‘There is unity (ittiḥād) between me and my friend Zayd.’”
Traditionists, jurists, grammarians, and others have used the word ittiḥād in various senses in hadith, fiqh, and grammar.
For example, as when traditionists say, ‘The isnād (chain of transmission) of the hadith has united (ittiḥād),’ or jurists say, ‘The species of livestock have united (ittiḥād),’ or grammarians say, ‘The agent has united (ittiḥād) in wording or meaning.’
Wherever the word ittiḥād is used by true Sufis, they intend by it the meaning of fanāʾ, the annihilation of the nafs, and the affirmation that in all states and actions, it is Allah, Glorified is He, Who acts. They do not intend by ittiḥād the hair-raising, blameworthy meaning. Sayyid ʿAlī b. Wafā (may Allah have mercy on him) alludes to this in his own ode, saying:
“They think I claim hulūl and ittiḥād,
But my qalb (heart) is empty of anything but tawhid (the oneness of God).”
By reciting this verse, he declared that he is far from using ittiḥād in the sense of hulūl. In other verses, he says:
“You know that all your states and conditions,
Are my desire and wish,
This is the meaning given to ittiḥād and union.”
What they intend by the word ittiḥād is to surrender to Allah in all states and conditions, to abandon one’s own will and choice to Him, to submit to what occurs without objecting to destiny, to have tawakkul (reliance upon God) and appoint Him as one’s trustee, and not to attribute anything to anyone other than Him.”[12]
Al-Shaʿrānī narrated the following statement of my master ʿAlī b. Wafā: “Wherever the word ittiḥād (union) occurs among this group, it means the servant’s fanāʾ (annihilation) in the will of the Truth. For example, as when it is said, ‘So-and-so united (ittiḥād) with so-and-so.’ This is said when two people agree with each other and their ideas unite.”
He then recited the same poem again:
“You know that all your states and conditions,
Are my desire and wish,
This is the meaning given to ittiḥād and union.”[13]
Allāma Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (may Allah have mercy on him), in his commentary “Madārij al-Sālikīn” on “Manāzil al-Sāʾirīn,” says: “The third degree of fanāʾ is that of the elite among the awliyāʾ and the close imams. To be annihilated from the will of another is to seek the flash of annihilation in the will of another, and to pursue the path of gathering what Allah is pleased with and loves. It is to go beyond one’s own will to be annihilated in the will of the Beloved. At that point, the will of the beloved and one’s own will unite (ittiḥād). What I mean here is religious commands, not worldly or decreed matters. At that point, the two wills unite. Then he said: ‘The only valid unity (ittiḥād) in reason is this.’ The unity in knowledge and report is that there are two wills, two knowns, two mentioned, two intentions, two knowledges, and two reports, which, though distinct, are still one. The goal in love is for the will of the lover and the beloved to unite. This unity is the unity of the elite among lovers and their annihilation. For they have become annihilated in the worship of their beloved and do not worship anything else. In fear, hope, tawakkul, seeking help, and asking, they do not love anything except Allah, and are annihilated in His love. Whoever realizes this annihilation and achieves it with love, loves only for Allah, hates only for Allah, and his love is for Allah. He is an enemy for Allah, gives for Allah, withholds for Allah, hopes only from Allah, and seeks help only from Allah. His entire religion, outward and inward, is for Allah. Allah and His Messenger become more beloved to him than anyone else. He does not love those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they are his closest relatives.
As a poem says:
‘He is an enemy to anyone who is an enemy to all people,
Even if that person is his most beloved friend.’
The reality of this fanāʾ is to leave the desires of the nafs and to be annihilated, seeking the pleasure and rights of his Lord. What brings all this together is the realization, in knowledge, maʿrifa (gnosis), action, state, and intention, of the phrase ‘Lā ilāha illallāh’ (There is no god but Allah). The reality of the negation and affirmation contained in this testimony is fanāʾ (annihilation) and baqāʾ (subsistence). He becomes annihilated, in knowledge, acknowledgement, and worship, from taking anything other than Allah as a deity. He worships only Him. This fanāʾ and baqāʾ is the reality of tawhid, upon which the prophets (peace be upon them) agreed. The divine books were revealed for this, all creatures were created for this, the sharia was legislated for this, Paradise is established upon tawhid, and the attributes of creation and command are founded upon it.” He concludes: “This is a matter in which many of those with will have erred. Only those protected by Allah are infallible. Help, tawfīq (divine success), and protection are only by the will of Allah.”[14]
Elsewhere, he says: “If someone strives with all his might to attain the highest fanāʾ, which is to be annihilated from all besides Allah, then nothing remains in his heart except the will of the religion, the prophetic law, and the Qur’an. Perhaps then the two wills unite, and the will of the servant becomes identical to the will of his Lord. This is the reality of pure love. Through this love, a true unity (ittiḥād) occurs. This is unity in will, not the merging of the murīd (aspirant) and his will.”[15]
Although Ibn Taymiyya was an adversary of the Saʿādat-i Ṣūfiyya and criticized them harshly, he still defended them as innocent and blameless of the statement of ittiḥād attributed to them, interpreting their words in a sound and valid manner. In his work “Fatāwā,” he says: “No one among the people of maʿrifa (gnosis) who knows Allah believes that Allah, Exalted is He, indwells in Himself or in any of His creation, nor do they believe in His unity (ittiḥād) with them. If such statements are heard or transmitted from some of the great shaykhs, most of them are lies, fabricated by slanderers, and invented by those misled by Satan and following the Christians.”[16]
He also says: “All the shaykhs who are followed in religion, as agreed upon by the predecessors and imams of the ummah, have agreed that the Creator and the created are distinct. The consensus of the predecessors and imams of the ummah is that the Creator is separate from His creation. Nothing of the creation is in His essence, and nothing of His essence is in the creation. It is obligatory to distinguish the Eternal from the contingent and the Creator from the created. This is the statement of many people whose names we cannot enumerate here.”[17]
While interpreting the words of the Sufis, Ibn Taymiyya says in his “Majmūʿat al-Rasāʾil”: Regarding the poet’s statement:
“I am the lover and the beloved.”
The intended meaning is spiritual unity. For example, if two lovers love what the other loves, hate what the other hates, say what the other says, and do what the other does, there is resemblance and analogy here, not that the essence of one is identical to the essence of the other. When a person is immersed in the love of his beloved, he does not see himself in his own self, but is annihilated in the love of the other. Thus, one loves what the other loves.”
In another poem, it is said:
“I became so lost in you that I thought I was you.”
This kind of unity in love and action is permissible.”[18]
Many explicit texts clarify for us that the word “ittiḥād” in the statements of the Saʿādat-i Ṣūfiyya, when understood correctly, is in accordance with the creed of ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jamāʿa. It is not correct or valid to interpret their words in a way that contradicts the meaning explained by the ahl al-sunnah wa’l-jamāʿa. What befits a fair-minded person is to think well of the believers and interpret their words in a sound and upright manner according to the sharia.
Notes
- Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, p. 83
- Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Shaykh Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī, al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya; Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Up to this point, the articles are from Shaykh al-Akbar Muḥyiddīn Ibn ʿArabī’s Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya. See Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, pp. 80–81
- Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Ḥāwī li’l-Fatāwā fī al-Fiqh wa ʿUlūm al-Tafsīr, vol. 2, p. 134
- Allāma Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, al-Ḥāwī li’l-Fatāwā, vol. 2, p. 134; Suyūṭī, author of many works, died in 911 AH
- Al-Shaʿrānī, Al-Yawāqīt wa’l-Jawāhir, vol. 1, p. 83
- Madārij al-Sālikīn, Sharḥ Manāzil al-Sāʾirīn, vol. 1, pp. 90–91; the author, Allāma Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, died in 751 AH
- Madārij al-Sālikīn, Sharḥ Manāzil al-Sāʾirīn, vol. 1, pp. 90–91
- Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, Sufism section, vol. 11, pp. 74–75
- Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, ʿIlm al-Sulūk section, vol. 10, p. 223
- Ibn Taymiyya, Majmūʿat al-Rasāʾil, p. 52