Definition
(Wahdat-dar-Kathrat)
Human nature is perforce compelled to acknowledge the
existence of a Superior Power which guides and moulds its
destiny. All religious books make a direct appeal and
home-thrust to the heart and intuition of man, which results in
a universal acknowledgement among mankind, thinking and
unthinking, of the existence of this guiding Power (a’ gumentum
ex-concesur gentium), or as Sinā ’ī puts it.
Kufr-o-din har du dar rahat puyan
Wahdu la sharika-lah guyan
David summarized this appeal to intuition, when he sung: “The
heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His
handy work” [Ps. 19-1]
The Quran has also directly appealed to this inner sense, “Do
they not consider the camels how they are created, and the
heaven how it is raised and mountains how they are fixed and the
earth how it is extended?” [Sura 88]
It is only when the question of relationship between God and
man, between the absolute and the limited, between the infinite
and finite, between the unseen and the seen—between Rabb and
‘abd is debated, that opinion and beliefs differ. The debate is
as old as the hills.
^Top^
Aristotle
Aristotle taught that God and matter (or more literally the
reality of the word—mahiyat) are co-eternal; only that God was
unchangeable and mahiyat was changeable. His followers—the
Peripatetic (Mashshain) are the advocates of his theory. Their
motto was, as Mulla Jami has put it:
Qabiliyat bijali jail nist
Fili fail khilafi qabil nist
Aptitude is not the product of the action of the actor.
The action of the actor is not contrary to the aptitude of the
acted.
According to them there are two essences from the very
beginning—the actor did not produce mahiyat; but He only
bestowed His own existence upon it. Take for example, the
reality of fire. God bestowed upon it His own Existence. Fire
has it’s owe peculiar properties and angularities. These
manifested themselves, when fire clothed itself with existence.
When Prophet Abraham was slung into the bonfire by order of
Nimrod (Numrud), God commanded fire thus
“ya naru kuni bardun wa salamun ala Ibrahima”
O fire, become cold and protective towards Ibranim.
God did not command the Essence of Fire to change, it being
co-eternal with God, He commended its properties or quality
(heat) to be changed into cold—the extension was changed and not
the essence; like in the Catholic Church doctrine of
Transubstantiation, in which the substance of bread and wine
changes and not their essence.
^Top^
Doctrine of Transubstantiation
(Catholic Church)
This school says that the knowledge of God is co-eternal with
Him; the known in the first stage is the “Known Unkown” (ma’lum-i-ma’dum).
The a’yan are the known (ma’lum), so far as the knowledge of God
is concerned; and they are the (ma’dum) (non-existent), so far
as there own existence is concerned.
A triangle, for examples, is there in the knowledge of God
but it has no external or concrete existence (so to speak). One
aspect of the triangle is “being ness” in the knowledge of God
and co-eternity with Him, and the other side is its
triangularity in externality—which is ‘adam. God cannot alter
its triangularity or anything else. Its mahiyat is therefore
co-eternal with God. Its mahiyat were absolute ‘adam, then the
Dhat of God would become an absolute ‘adam like 1Í0 = 0. But it
is ‘adam in the sense of ma’lum-i-ma’dum, there being
distinction in knowledge of Himself from mahiyat; so by adding
this cipher, there is no charge in Dhat like 1+0 = 0. This
cipher with the addition of any number of ciphers with plus sign
before them does not affect the oneness of one; but gives it
distinction. In their inward aspect, the a’yan possess
Imtiyaz-i-sulbi and in their outward aspect, Imtiyaz-i-sulb. God
can, however, manifest any particular aspect of a’yan, at His
Will. A potter cannot alter the shape of a Kura into a Jug and
still call it Kura; but he could mould clay into either a jug or
a Kura as he likes. While a’yan could not be altered, their
particular properties (or muqtaziyat) could be suppressed or
brought into prominence by God’s Will.
^Top^
Ahlishara & Ash'aris
The poet Hafiz has sung:
Dar kuyi maik nami mara guzar nadadan
Gar tu nami pasundi ta ghyir kun kara ra
They did not allow me to enter the path of rectitude
It thou dost not approve, change Thy will.
That is, manifest thyself in the approvable and approvable
points of my a’yan
Those who maintain two eternal essence, one of God—real essence,
and the other of ‘abd an ‘adam—nothingness, neither preceding
the other are the Ahlishara (people of ordinances), and Ash’aris
(of which Sunnis are the prominent sect). They bring forward the
following documentary evidences in their support.
- God does not tyrannize over His creatures (Wullahu laysa
bi Zallamel abd).
- Kalima-i-Shahadat; “there is no God, but God and
Muhammed is His Prophet.”
- The cursed is cursed from his mother’s womb (Ash-shaqiyya
man shaqa fi batni um-mihi).
God does what it pleases Him; and orders what He wills (Yef
Allaullahu ma yashayu wa yahkumu ma yurid).
- Whomsoever God directs in the right path, thou (O
Prophet) canst not direct into wrong path; and
- whomsoever He directs in the wrong path, thou canst not
direct to the right path (man yahdi hillahu fala mudil-la
lahu, wa man yuzlilhu fala hadiyalah.)
- He gives the kingdom to whomsoever he likes; He gives
honor to whom He likes and degrades whom
- He likes. In His hand is good (Tuti-l mulka man tashau,
wa tuizzu man tashashu wa tu zillu man tashau bi-yadi
kal-khayr).
- if a’yanare the reality of Dhat, then who is the cursed
and the blessed?
- If a’yan are ‘adam (nothingness); then who is the cursed
and blessed—the evil-doer and good—doer.
These are the advocates of the theory of A’yni-yat-i-Haqiqi
and Ghairyat-Haqiqi—the dualists; as opposed to those who
believe in A’yniyat-i-Haqiqi (Real Identity of rabb and ‘abd)
and Ghairyat-i-I’tibari. (Suppositional distinction).
Ishraqin or the Realists of Plato believed in a world if
ideas. God Pressed His ideas (the Mahiyat) into externality.
Whatever exists in this world (‘Alam-i-Mulk) has its Archetype
or counterpart in ‘Alam-i-ma’ani (the world of ideas); and these
two—mulk and ma’ani, are conjoined in man—Here the question
arises, whether ideas are distinct from Dhat.
In the knowledge of God, they are not created; but in the
expressed world—the world of manifestation, they are created. (Mahiyat
bi yali jali majul).
Shaykh Muhiyuddin ibn al-‘Arabi believed that there is only
one Dhat from the beginning, the Dhat of ‘abd is hypostatical or
suppositional. Hypostatical distinction begins, as Herbert
Spenser (Essay on Progress: its Law and Cause.) has put it, in
the “appearance of differences in the parts of a like
substance.” The Dhat of God expressing or as it were
crystallizing itself in forms becomes the dhat of ‘abd. The
moment, the unknown descended into its own knowledge, an aspect
of its own, it showed itself to itself as ‘abd—and this was the
stage of Haqiqat-i-Muhammadi. From the first to the last rung,
the Dhat has manifested itself in knowledge; and it is therefore
the Dhat that is manifest. God is thus sensed and the ‘abd is
only inferred, (Al-haqqu mahsu sun wal ‘abd-u-ma’qulun). The
Sifat (attributes) are thus hidden and inferred, and the Dhat is
in the full blaze of evidence; just as the sun is in evidence
and the dhat of the moon is inferred (Ash-Shums-u-mahsu sun wal
Qamaru ma’qulun.) There are, however, others of Ibn ‘Arabi’s
school, who hold that Sifat are in evidence, and the Dhat is
hidden. Al-Ghazzali and Shaykh Ibrahim Gazur-i-Hahi belong to
this school. There are evidences in Hadith to prove this. The
prophet has said:
- I am Ahmad without min (Ana Ahmadun bila mim); without
mim Ahmad becomes Ahad.
- I am Arab without ‘ayn (Ana Arabun bila ‘ayn; without
the letter ‘ayn), Arab becomes Rabb. It may be observed that
herein the Prophet first shows himself as ‘abd, and then
says that when the letter ‘ayn disappears, he becomes Rabb
in the state of self annihilation
- He who has seen me has seen God (man raani faqad
ra-al-haqqa).
Christ himself has also said “He that hath seen me hath seen
the Father.” [St. John 14-9]
- He who knows his Nafs knows his rabb (Man ‘arafa nafsahu
faqud ‘arafa rabbahu) i.e. He who knows his own Nafs, knows
it as God.
- Some, however, interpret this, as meaning that he who
understands his Nafs as “ignorant”, understands his rabb as
“knowing”. He who understands his Nafs as “created”
understands his Rabb as “Creator” and so on.
^Top^
Heqaya (Story)
Shaykh Ibrahim Gazur-i-Ilahi relates a story in his
“Irshadat” (Kitab-ut-Tasawwuf) that a certain fakir entered the
cloister (Khanqah) of Junayd, wrapped in a black blanket, Junayd
asked him the reason for his mourning. He said “my God is dead”.
Junayd ordered the fakir to be peremptorily turned out. This was
done three times. On the fourth occasion, the fakir was asked to
explain himself. He said “Not knowing that my Nafs was a
manifestation of God, I have killed it and therefore I am in
mourning for it.”
This Hadith about Nafs is sometimes said to be a saying of
Hazrat Ali. It is akin to the Socratic dictum “man know thyself”
which is further traceable to the Delphic Oracle.
Muhammad is not the father of any one amongst you; but he is
the messenger of God and the seal of the Prophets (ma kana
Muhammadan aba ahadin min rijalikum wa lakin rasullah wa
khatim-ul-Nabiyyin). This is interpreted as meaning that
Muhammad (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) was not of your world.
Among the elders of the Islamic house of worship, Bayazid
Bistami said in his ecstasy “Holy I am, how great in my glory” (Subhana
ma azam-a-shani) and Mar’uf Karkhi said in the same state “I am
your Rabb—Obey me” (Ana rabbakum fabuduni).
^Top^
One in Many
(mundaraj)
Thus according to Ibn Arabi of the Wujudiyyah School, there
is only one Dhat, which has manifested itself. It is the Indian
juggler’s piece of pottery that being thrown up in the air comes
down in the shape of a silver Rupee. This school believes in
there being one Dhat—but at the stage of asma, the Dhat of ‘abd
differentiates itself from the Dhat of Rabb. In the stages above
this, the Dhat of ‘abd is hidden in the Dhat of Rabb (mundamaj),
like fire in stone or like 5,000 (say) in number one. This is
Kathrat-dar-Wahdat (many in one). The reverse process (one in
many) is Wahdat-dar-Kathrat, they call mundaraj. There is a
distinction in knowledge after the expression of asma’i-ilahi in
the form of asma ‘i-kiyani; and this distinction in knowledge is
a great purdah (Al-‘ilmu hijabun ahbar); and from this stage
begin the two streams which never commingle but flow on separate
for ever (maraj al-bahryni yaltaqiyan bayna huma barzakun la
yab-ghiyan).
The Shuhudiyyahs are, however, the Realists of Plato, in as
much as they place the a’yan immediately below the Shuyunat of
Dhat.
Through a’yan, God sees himself as one. According to this
school, a’ayan are the mirrors through which God is reflected.
The Dhat of Allah (God) is one—and His manifestations are
many—the number of mirrors do not affect the individuality of
the observer. Hence the Hadith “He is now as He was” (Huwal ana
kama kana). He was and nothing was with Him (Al-lazi kana wa lam
yakum ma-a-hu shayun.) Jami says:
Dar ayina garchi khud numai bashad
Pai vastha zi khistan judai-bashad
Khud ra bi labas-i-ghayr didan ajab ust
Kin bul ajabi kari khudhai bashad.
Although in mirror, there is constant self-expression,
And there is also separation from self;
Yet to show one’s self in the garb of another is a wonder;
This wonder-doing can only be the work of Allah.
Shaykh Ibrahim Gazur-i-Ilahi says that the book of Nufhatul
Uns of Jami contains over 600 names of Sufis of whom 300 side
with Ibn ‘Arabi in maintaining that ‘abd and Rabb are like ice
and water; or s William James (The Varieties of Religious
Experience, p.383) has put it “Each is all in God”. “The finite
realized as such is already the infinite in posse.” Shaykh
Shihab-uddin Suhrawardi leads the other school of 300 savants
who maintain that the relationship between ‘abd and Rabb is like
that of iron and fire. Temporarily iron becomes fire, but
reverts to its essential condition.
^Top^ |