Wahdat al-wujūd (the unity of being), one of the most frequently evoked and hotly debated terms when Sufism (taṣawwuf) is mentioned, has generally been translated into Turkish as "the unity of existence" or "the oneness of being."
This system, based on the thesis that "in the world, the only true being is Allah; beings other than Allah are not real beings, for they do not possess independent existence but have come into being through the existence of another being," can be traced in the earliest Sufis. However, it was the Sufi Ibn ʿArabī (d. Damascus, 638/1240) who brought it to its full expression.
Born in al-Andalus (Spain), raised amid the intellectual and philosophical movements of his time, traversing North Africa from end to end, and later coming to Anatolia, Ibn ʿArabī spent his final years in Damascus, where he composed his famous work, Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam.
Although he is regarded as the architect of wahdat al-wujūd, Ibn ʿArabī does not use this term in his works; instead, he expresses the unity and oneness of being through other words and phrases. Similar expressions can be found in al-Ghazālī, who provided important groundwork for Ibn ʿArabī, as in the following: "When the gnostics (ʿārifūn) ascend from the pit of metaphor to reality and complete their spiritual journey, they see with the eye of the heart (qalb) that there is nothing in existence except Allah. Everything other than His existence is perishable... They do not understand much from the phrase 'Allāhu akbar' (Allah is the greatest). He is greater than others... Astonishing... There is no other being besides Him to be greater than..."
In his work Mishkāt al-Anwār, al-Ghazālī touches on this subject, stating that dervishes who ascend to the realm of reality encounter no being other than Allah, and that, in that psychological state, they express their feelings through utterances known as shathiyyāt (ecstatic sayings). He adds, "The words of lovers in the state of sukr (spiritual intoxication) are inexpressible and should be kept secret." However, when one examines the statements of the Sufis, it becomes apparent that this ecstasy is not always kept hidden.
If a third master of this mode of thought is to be sought, it would be Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (d. Konya, 672/1273). Fuṣūṣ as prose and the Mathnawī as poetry have, for centuries, served as two rich sources nourishing this thought. Notably, these works have attracted and influenced not only Muslims but also non-Muslims.
Wahdat al-wujūd is constructed upon the relationship between human, creation, and Allah. Since the subject of philosophy is, in brief, "being," wahdat al-wujūd has also been viewed as a Sufi philosophy. Indeed, every book titled "Islamic philosophy"—even if it does not address other Sufi topics—must address Ibn ʿArabī. In fact, the resemblance—at least in form—between pantheism, a philosophical movement, and wahdat al-wujūd is also noted. However, every philosophy is the product of a specific cultural environment and is nourished by it. In this respect, pantheism and wahdat al-wujūd will naturally differ.
Wahdat al-wujūd is, in essence, a mystical interpretation rooted in Islam. Like all mystical interpretations, it will encounter opposition. However, when discussing the reasons for its widespread interest rather than opposition, one must not forget: wahdat al-wujūd is a system of philosophical depth and intellectual richness. Therefore, for those who take pleasure in reading, contemplating, and debating such matters, there is nothing to do but follow this path. This reality remains valid today.
In every branch of knowledge, there are topics that are debated with a harsh style. Over time, such debates are among the most important reasons for the emergence of sects and schools.
The subject in Sufism that has received the most and the harshest criticism is wahdat al-wujūd. Why? Because many of the assertions and diagnoses of this system appear, at first glance, to contradict the Qur'an. For example, the phrase Lā ilāha illā Allah is the foundation of Islam and means "there is no god but Allah." To derive from this the meaning "there is no being but Allah" is incorrect. "The fundamental structure of the Qur'an is based on the human-Allah relationship; when this is reduced to one, issues such as good-evil, lawful-unlawful, paradise-hell are suspended..." Many criticisms of this kind are answered from the perspective of wahdat al-wujūd, and the verses (āyāt) of the Qur'an are interpreted in a way compatible with this system. It should be noted that the authors of hundreds of works and treatises written in this style of thought, especially Fuṣūṣ and the Mathnawī, have found satisfaction in it. However, to assume that everyone will be satisfied with such a mode of thought is contrary to human nature. Even today, many Muslim scholars whose scholarly competence is beyond doubt oppose wahdat al-wujūd and consider it un-Islamic.
The greatest representative of this opposition in the past was Ibn Taymiyya, who was born in Harran and died in Damascus in 728/1328. This scholar, who declared Ibn ʿArabī and those who thought like him to be kāfir (disbelievers), was followed by many in later centuries. Yet, just as many have striven to defend wahdat al-wujūd. According to the first group, Ibn ʿArabī is the shaykh al-akfar (the most extreme disbeliever shaykh); according to the second, he is the shaykh al-akbar (the greatest shaykh).
One concern of those who criticize wahdat al-wujūd is this: starting from the point that there is only one being in the universe, namely Allah, it may lead to the conclusion that everything that exists is Allah, and from there to the result that the universe is Allah. In other words, wahdat al-wujūd can at any moment turn into wahdat al-mawjūd (the unity of the existent), that is, materialist pantheism. For this reason, some scholars, while acknowledging the greatness of Ibn ʿArabī, have not rejected him but have not deemed it appropriate to read his works, being mindful of this danger.
Ibn ʿArabī and Mawlānā opened broad horizons for Sufis who lived after them. Since earlier Sufis could not articulate the issue so clearly, this "opening" did not occur. For this reason, it can be said that the dominant color of Sufi thought developed after the 13th century is wahdat al-wujūd. The objections of the exoteric scholars (ʿulamāʾ) and the criticisms and opposition of Sufis such as Alāʾ al-Dawla Simnānī (d. Simnān, 736/1336) and Imām Rabbānī (d. Sirhind, 1035/1626) could not significantly hinder this trend.
Sufis such as Imām Rabbānī, who criticized Ibn ʿArabī, stated that he erred in the Sufi knowledge known as kashf (unveiling), and asserted that the principle should be wahdat al-shuhūd (the unity of witnessing), not wahdat al-wujūd.
Among those who prepared the ground for the spread of this culture in Ottoman society, Davud of Kayseri should be mentioned first. This scholar, who established the first Ottoman madrasa in İznik in 1332, also wrote an Arabic commentary on Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam. The Mathnawī has also been transmitted to people for centuries through translation and commentary. The commentary by Rusūḥī Dede is among the most popular. This tradition of translation and commentary continues.