The veil of lākayfiyyat (absence of modality) had descended. The sciences that informed about ittihād (union) and waḥdat al-wujūd (unity of being) began to cease and disappear. In this station that had been opened and written, iḥāṭa (encompassing all things), sarayān (effusion, flow), qurb (nearness), and maʿiyyat al-Dhāt (togetherness with the Divine Essence) became veiled. Then, as in the aforementioned relations concerning waḥdat al-wujūd, the certainty that the Exalted One (Hazret-i Sānī) is not established together with the world became knowable through yaqīn (certainty). On the contrary, as accepted in the view of the people of ḥaqīqa (inner reality), His iḥāṭa and qurb are only in the aspect of knowledge. He is not united with any of the things. He is Allah; the world is the world. He is exalted above all forms of modality and kayfiyyat (modality).
The world, on the other hand, is arranged according to the order of kayfiyyat (modality) from differentiation (creation in various forms) to pre-eternity (before creation). Therefore, it is not correct to claim that the world is free from kayfiyyat, that the one who arranges the order of kayfiyyat is the same as kayfiyyat, that the Necessary Being (Wājib) is the very possibility (mumkināt) itself, or that the Pre-eternal is the same as the contingent.
Non-existence (ʿadam) never removes the essential possibility of the possible. It is also impossible, both rationally and according to the sacred law, for realities to undergo change. There is no correctness in attributing one to the other in any respect. For this is impossible in every way. What Shaykh Muhyiddin and his followers have said about the Necessary Essence (Wājib Dhāt) is astonishing. The Essence is subject to no ruling, it is unknown and absolute existence (wujūd).
Nevertheless, they have affirmed iḥāṭa, qurb, and maʿiyyat al-Dhāt. This ruling, for the Essence, is nothing but a ruling that exalts and declares Him transcendent. The correct view in this matter is the nearness and proximity of knowledge as stated by the scholars.
The emergence of sciences and maʿrifa (experiential knowledge of God) contrary to waḥdat al-wujūd caused complete distress for this poor one. I used to think that there was nothing higher than this tawhid (the oneness of God). For this reason, I would supplicate to the Exalted Allah, humbly and with a broken heart, so that He would not take from me this maʿrifa, that is, the maʿrifa of waḥdat al-wujūd, and that the veil over this state of mine would be completely lifted.
Then, the reality in the state and the clarity in the intention became manifest as required by the station, and the following became known: Although the world is a locus where the perfections of the attributes are seen and the names manifest, as put forward by the people of waḥdat al-wujūd, the manifest locus (the thing in which manifestation occurs) is not identical with the manifesting one, nor is the shadow the same as the original. (Maktūbāt, I, 42)
Know that for the members of this Ṭarīqa ʿĀliyya (the exalted Sufi path), the tawhid that becomes manifest during the sulūk (spiritual journey) is divided into two: tawhid-i shuhūdī and tawhid-i wujūdī.
Tawhid-i shuhūdī is the witnessing of the One (al-Wāḥid), that is, the sālik (traveler) witnessing that the existence he perceives is nothing other than the One. Tawhid-i wujūdī, on the other hand, is the sālik knowing and believing that existence is one, and believing that all existence apart from Him is non-existent and considering it as such. While believing that all else is non-existent, he also believes that they are loci and manifestations of this One. Tawhid-i wujūdī is of the degree of ʿilm al-yaqīn (certainty through knowledge), while tawhid-i shuhūdī is of the degree of ʿayn al-yaqīn (certainty through direct vision). This tawhid is one of the necessary principles of this tariqa. Thus, the state of fanāʾ (annihilation in God) cannot be realized without tawhid-i shuhūdī, and ʿayn al-yaqīn cannot be attained without tawhid-i shuhūdī. The witnessing of aḥadiyya (absolute oneness) in all its dominance requires seeing nothing but Him. Tawhid-i wujūdī is not like this, that is, it is not necessary. ʿIlm al-yaqīn can be attained even without this maʿrifa. For ʿilm al-yaqīn, in its initial aim, does not require negating everything other than Him. This state, when the knowledge of the One dominates by way of dominance, necessitates the elimination of everything other than Him. (Maktūbāt, I, 56)
The meaning of the phrase 'Ana al-Ḥaqq' (I am the Truth) is this: He is the Truth, not I. For that person, not seeing his own nafs (lower self), affirms Him. Otherwise, he does not say that he is the Truth because he sees himself as a being separate from the Truth. For such a statement is kufr (disbelief). It cannot be said that the absence of affirmation necessarily requires negation, nor that this is the very tawhid-i wujūdī. But it can be said:
The absence of affirmation does not necessarily require negation. For this station is the station of ḥayra (bewilderment). Here, all rulings have fallen away. In the phrase 'Subḥānī...' sentence, it is not the speaker himself, but the transcendence of the Truth that is meant. For the nafs has completely fallen from his view. No ruling applies there.
These and similar statements appear from those at the station of ʿayn al-yaqīn. This station is the station of bewilderment. When one rises from this station to the degree of ḥaqq al-yaqīn (certainty through realization), they refrain from such words and do not exceed the bounds of moderation. (Maktūbāt, I, 57)
The first to openly articulate tawhid-i wujūdī was Muhyiddin Ibn ʿArabī. Even if the earlier shaykhs, in their expressions, spoke of tawhid and ittihād (union), it is possible to interpret these as referring to tawhid-i shuhūdī. Since nothing but the Truth is seen, some (as part of ecstatic utterances) have said, 'There is nothing in my cloak but Allah,' others, 'Subḥānī mā...'