Oneness of Being - Explained by Shiekh Al-Nabulsi

This article tries to follow and discuss the main points in the explanation of the concept of Oneness of Being as presented in an article (Edah Al-Maqsood Men Wahdat Al-Wujood) by a well-known Sufi Sheikh Abdul-Ghani Al-Nabulsi (1143H/1730G).

Note:
I understand that Sufis consider 'Oneness of Being' a profound concept that requires a Sufi scholar to explain. That is why I selected Sheikh Al-Nabulsi's article to present the concept from a Sufi point of view. I read the explanation and other sources on the subject, but I did not study the subject with a Sufi scholar. I shall try to discuss the Sufi view, but I cannot confirm that I have understood the concept as Sufis would, and I do not claim to be qualified to discuss it.

Introduction

The article is divided into the following parts:


(a) this introduction
(b) Main points of Oneness of Being
(c) Comments
(d) Impressions

Importance of the concept and Sufi's gradual approach

Oneness of Being is a central concept in Sufism. What I have understood, is that it is treated with deep reverence by Sufi masters. A Sufi student starts with studying regular religious subjects like most religious students would, even if they are not Sufis. Many would memorize the Quran too. The aim is to have a thorough understanding of Elements of Islamic Faith (Aqeedah) and a firm grip on basic Islamic religious guidelines (Fiqh: Islamic Jurisprudence). Then students would spend many years in inner purification through Zikr (contemplation / meditation), curbing cravings, and improving their manners and developing their inner sights, etc. (Details can be found in books like expositions of Ibn Ata-Ellah's Hekam and Al-Ghazali's Ihiaa Ulum-Eddin ). Discussing concepts like Oneness of Being in these stages is out of the question as I understand.

I read and heard about incidents of Sufi Sheikhs strictly forbidding students to read for Ibn Arabi. Zarroq (The Principles, P. 188) for instance, advises not to read such books unless one is qualified to read them. That is probably why, only on rare and private occasions, a Sufi master might select an 'eligible' student and specifically instructs him to start reading Ibn Arabi's books, under the supervision of the Sufi master.

It seems to me that Sufis treat Sufi concepts just like experts in any particular field of knowledge would treat concepts of that field. It is natural that one needs to move gradually to deeper and advanced issues. By jumping right to deeper concepts without having covered the prerequisites it might not be unexpected for such concepts to look puzzling or to be misunderstood. However, it seems that prerequisites in Sufism include reaching a certain level of inner/spiritual development. Once that level is realized, it appears that one is more likely to appreciate deeper concepts.

Non-Sufi views of the concept

To many non-Sufis, whether religious scholars or intellectual people interested in Sufism, this concept is probably the most controversial. It has drawn strong criticism from many non-Sufi religious scholars and led some academic efforts, including recent writings, to describe Sufis as Pantheists (example of a Sufi text that may sound pantheistic). However, many Sufi writers repeated consistently that Pantheism is totally off the path of Sufis, and that Sufi texts were misunderstood.

It seems to me that this concept is one about which non-Sufis often tried to find a clear-cut definition, while Sufis appeared to be reluctant to discuss, and their writings on the subject were often symbolic and wrapped in notes on the limits of a verbal explanation of the concept.

Historical Background

It might be true that early Sufis did not write about the concept, which was a point often brought up as an indication that the concept was concocted by later Sufis. However, what I understood, is that Sufis consider this concept part of basic Islamic theology, and that it was implicitly understood by earlier generations of Muslims, but not openly talked or written about. Hence, probably why there were no written 'evidence' of the concept in early writings. What Sufis like Ibn Arabi, Al-Jili (author of Al-Insan Al-Kamil or the Perfect Man), and Ibn Al-Farid (well-known Sufi poet) appear to have done was talking and writing openly about that concept. And that was the start of a strong opposition to Sufism, that earlier Sufis did not experience.

The Importance of Al-Nabulsi's article

I think that Al-Nabulsi's article on the subject is interesting. He wrote few centuries after the controversy's eruption. So, he was familiar  with the original Sufi writings and the writings criticizing the concept as well. Perhaps the most important point regarding Al-Nabulsi's article is that the concept was discussed by Ibn Arabi and Al-Jili at length but mostly indirectly. Al-Nabulsi tried to summarize the concept in few pages with specific words. In his article he tried to explain the concept and to dismiss Pantheism as having nothing to do with Sufism. He iterated the same line consistently adopted by generations of Sufis up to this day, that the latter is a religiously unacceptable perception (just as non-Sufi scholars assert) while the former is a sound perception that is perfectly consistent with the Quran and Sunnah, which, as Sufis indicate, contain explicit statements as well as hints in this regard.

According to Al-Nabulsi, it is a misunderstanding to think that the two concepts are synonymous, and anyone who does not see the difference between them, has not understood Oneness of Being as it was understood by Sufis like Ibn Arabi, Ibn Al-Farid, and Al-Jili, whom he mentioned with reverence. And he attributed the misunderstanding to the depth of Sufi concepts coupled with non-Sufis' unfamiliarity with the special terminology used and understood by Sufis.

He also said that those who did not understand the meaning of 'Oneness of Being' were of two types. Both appear to have read Sufi Texts without seeking help from Sufis masters, and both have concluded that Sufis were Pantheists. However, the first type ended up adopting a Pantheistic view, probably thinking that that is what Sufism is about. He called that a false perception, and quoted Al-Jili criticizing it too. The other type were non-Sufi scholars whom he praised for rejecting Pantheism and for responding to Pantheists but said that they too were unsuccessful to understand the concept clearly enough to help them distinguish between Pantheists and Sufis like Ibn Arabi and Al-Jili.

Because of such widespread misunderstanding, he emphasized the need to explain Oneness of Being. He quoted two other Sufi writers (Al-Kashash and Arsalan) with the same opinion. The decision seems to have been a difficult one for Sufis to take. Since, as they point out, the concept can only be fully appreciated by someone who has reached a certain level of awareness, so most people would not be ready for it. Yet, it seems that he felt that there was a need to dismiss accusations of Pantheism. So, discussing the concept was accompanied with what I think was an important note on the limits of the explanation.

Limits of explaining Oneness of Being in words

In his introduction, Al-Nabulsi mentioned that for Sufis, knowledge starts from clearing the heart and ends with 'sight', while for non-Sufi scholars, knowledge starts from reading books. I think he meant that Sufis read books too but they emphasize that Sufi concepts are meant to be seen/experienced firsthand with help from Sufi masters, rather than analyzed grammatically or logically. Help from a Sufi master seems to be essential. Ibn Arabi said (Al-Hekam Al-Hatimiah, P. 8) that "who does not receive the Path [Sufi teachings] from the Men, is moving from one impossible situation [most likely an impossible to penetrate door/wall] to another". In other words, it appears that there is no chance to fully realize the meanings without help from a Sufi master. Al-Nabulsi was probably hinting to the common position of Sufis regarding the limits of written words, and that even though he would explain the concept, ultimately, a full appreciation of the concept would only happen once it is 'realized'.

Oneness of Being as explained by Al-Nabulsi

There appear to be four main points that describe the concept, as follows:

(1) "There is nothing that exists beside God Almighty"

The author starts with a well-known and often quoted phrase by Sufis, on which the concept appears to be based:

لا شيء مع الله تعالى موجود

"There is nothing that exists beside God Almighty." (P. 55).

This phrase has its origin in a Prophet's saying that was transmitted in more than one slightly different versions, one of which is found in Sahih Al-Bukhari (Hadith No. 3191):

كان الله ولم يكن شيء غيره

"There was God and no other thing but Him".

However, the most common phrasing found in Sufi writings appears to be the following:

كان الله ولا شيء معه. وهو الآن على ما عليه كان.

"God was and nothing with Him. And He is now as He was."

Ibn Arabi says regarding this phrase (Al-Futuhat, Vol. 1, Page 41):
" 'Allah was and nothing with Him' [the hadith], to this point his words [the Prophet's], Peace be upon him, have ended. What came after that was added, and that is their [the narrators of hadith] saying "And He is now as He was", they mean in attribute. [Since], "now" and "was" are things that are about us [Creation], because they [such conditions] appeared with us, and similar words [too]. And there is no relation. [between such words and Allah, since present and past do not apply in His regard]."

According to Sufis, the qualities of God are beyond time ('Qadeemah'). In other words they are not affected by time or space (that are part of Creation). Therefore, "God and nothing with Him" is valid regardless of time or space, i.e. it is valid 'right now', as it 'was before' Creation. As Ibn Ata-Ellah said (Lata-if Al-Menan, P. 195):

           وحديث كان وليس شيء غيره      يقضي به الآن اللبيب العاقل

"And the Hadith regarding 'Was and no other thing but Him', is affirmed right now by the intelligent and wise [person]."

That probably explains why the other phrase ("And He is now as He was"), is often quoted in Sufi writings along with the original saying of the Prophet.

(2) 'Union with God' and for 'God to be in things' are impossible

Al-Nabulsi (P. 64) :

الوجود الحق هو عين ذات الحق تعالى وهو وجود واحد لا ينقسم ولا يتبعَّض، ولا يتجزَّأ، ولا يتغير، ولا يتبدل أصلا، وهو مطلق عن الكيفيات والكميات والأماكن والأزمان والجهات، ولا يُتَصَوَّرُ فيه الحلول في شيء إذ ليس معه شيء غيره ، ولا يتحد مع شيء، إذ لا شيء معه.

"Real existence is exactly the Essence of the Truth [God], and it is an existence that is not divided and does not change, free from forms/circumstances, quantities, places, time, and directions, cannot be in things, or unite with things, since 'nothing is with Him' "

A statement based on the first point. Al-Nabulsi, Ibn Ajeeba, Ibn Ata-Ellah (in the Hekam), and Ibn Arabi among several other renowned Sufis kept repeating this point over and over, whether just to explain the concept of Oneness of Being or in response to accusations of Heresy by several non-Sufi scholars.

The Sufi view as I understand it (Ibn Ajeeba, Eqaz Al-Hemam, P. 58), is as follows: Union with God and for God to 'be everything' or in certain things appearing in Creation, require (a) existence of God, (b) existence of things on their own, and (c) material connection between God and things. According to Sufis, point (a) is the only valid one. Point (b) is invalid, because things do not exist on their own (P. 60) (details below). Point (c) is invalid because material connection between God (the Eternal) and Creation (transitory/vanishing) is impossible. As Ibn Arabi mentioned (Ref?) several times, Connection and Disconnection are characteristics of Creation and do not apply with regard to God the Creator of all things. In another place (Ref?) he said that for God, the Creator to have a material connection with man the created, their has to be something common between them, and man being perishable/vanishing cannot have such a common aspect with God the Eternal.

Sufis were often described as preaching man's Union with God and that God is everything, or in things appearing within Creation, despite the specific words as in the above translated statement and emphasizing the impossibility (P. 55) of such ideas (repeated in a similar manner by Ibn Ajeeba, Ibn Arabi, Al-Jili and many other Sufis).

So, if 'nothing exists beside God' and God is not synonymous with Creation, then how do Sufis explain Creation that we are part of?

(3) 'Creation does not exist on its own'

According to Al-Nabulsi (P. 59-60):

إن جميع العوالم كلها على إختلاف أجناسها، وأنواعها، وأشخاصها، موجودة من العدم بوجود الله تعالى، لا بنفسها، محفوظ عليها الوجود في كل لمحة بوجود الله لا بنفسها.
وإذا كانت كذلك فوجودها، الذي هي موجودة به في كل لمحة هو وجود الله تعالى، لا وجود أخر غير وجود الله تعالى.
فالعوالم كلها من جهة نفسها معدومة بعدمها الأصلى. وأما من جهة وجود الله تعالى فهي موجودة بوجوده تعالى، فوجود الله تعالى ووجودها الذي هي موجودة به وجود واحد. وهو وجود الله تعالى فقط. وهي لا وجود لها أصلا.

Translated and arranged in points for clarity:

• Creation exists from nothing.
• Creation does not exist on its own, and cannot sustain its own existence.
• Creation exists because God does exist, and because He sustains Creation's existence every moment.
• Based on the above points: Every moment of Creation's existence is God's existence, and no existence other than God's existence.
• Creation, [viewed] from its existence, is nothing/void [right now], and that is its original [or constant] state. But [viewed] from God's existence, Creation exists because of God's existence.
• So, God's existence and Creation's existence [from nothing, and remains nothing], is [actually] One Existence, and it is God's Existence only. As for Creation, it does not exist in the first place.

Is there is an evidence in the Quran regarding God's existence being the only existence? In Page 70, Al-Nabulsi says about Sufi masters:

تارة يغلب عليهم شهود الوجود الحق، الحقيقي الذي به كل شيء موجود، فينفون ما عداه، ويقولون عما سواه أنه خيال، وأنه سراب، وأنه هالك، وأنه مضمحل زائل لا وجود له أصلا.

"They sometimes are overwhelmed with sight of Existence of the Truth, the Real [Existence] because of which everything exists, so they negate anything other than Him, and say about anything other than Him that it is an Illusion, Mirage, Perished, Vanished, Transitory, or does not exist in the first place."

Regarding the word 'Perished', there is a verse in the Quran [28:88] that says:

كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه

Yusuf Ali's translation goes:
"Everything (that exists) will perish except His own Face".
(Note: In Arabic the Face of something can mean its Essence (a point Yusuf ali mentioned in his note no. 5189 on verse 55:27)
He translated the word 'هالك' as 'will perish', which is the conventional interpretation. However, Al-Ghazali interpreted the word 'هالك' as 'perished already'. In Arabic, both meanings are possible, it is just that the latter meaning might sound very unlikely and wouldn't occur normally to most people. Al-Ghazali said about Sufis who 'have experienced the sight of the Truth' (Meshkat-ul-Alnawar, P. 137):

فرأوا بالمشاهدة العيانية أن ليس في الوجود إلا الله تعالى، وأن (كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه) لا أنه يصير هالكا في وقت من الأوقات، بل هو هالك أزلا وأبدا لا يتصور إلا كذلك، فإن كل شيء سواه إذا اعتبر ذاته من حيث ذاته فهو عدم محض، وإذا اعتبرته من الوجه الذي سرى إليه الوجود من الأول الحق رؤي موجودا لا في ذاته لكن من الوجه الذي يلي موجده، فيكون الموجود وجه الله تعالى فقط.

"And they saw with 'clear sight' that there is none in existence other than God, Most High, and that 'Everything is perished except His own Face'. Not that [everything] will perish sometime, but it is perished since eternity and forever, it cannot be conceived except in that way. Since everything other than Him, when its essence is considered/seen from/by itself, it is totally nothing, and if considered from the aspect from which existence 'flew' to [a created thing], from the First, the Truth [both are Names of God] is seen as existing but not in itself, rather from the direction of Who created it, hence what is Existing is only His Face."

The same point is confirmed by Ibn Ajeeba in his comment on the same verse when he said (Al-Bahr Al-Madeed, Vol. 5, P. 294):

كل شيء هالك، أي: معدم في الماضي والحال والاستقبال. إلا وجهه: إلا ذاته، فلا وجود معها.

"Everything is perished: nonexistent in the past, in the present, and in the future. Except His Face: except His Essence, since nothing is with His Essence." [Again, interpreting Face to mean Essence]

The word 'فان' which also means 'perished' appears in another place in the Quran [55:26-27]:

كل من عليها فان. ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والإكرام.

Yusuf Ali's translation:
"All that is on earth will perish. But will abide (forever) The Face of thy Lord- Full of Majesty, Bounty and Honor."

However, Ibn Ajeeba's comment is as follows (Al-Bahr Al-Madeed, Vol. 7, P. 273):

كل من عليها فان: كل من على بساط المملكة فان متلاش. ويبقى وجه ربك: أي ذاته المقدسة، فلا موجود معها على الحقيقة... وهذا معلوم عند أرباب الأذواق، مقرر عند أهل الفناء والبقاء.

"All that is in [God's] kingdom [in the widest sense: every creature that exists] is perished and nonexistent. What remains is the Face of the Lord: His Essence, since nothing exists with His Essence... And that is known to [Sufi] people with 'Tastes' [Firsthand Experiences]".

Again confirming the point that nothing exists beside God, and repeating the Sufi position that Oneness of Being is an experience to realize rather than a statement to analyze.

So, there appears to be at least two locations in the Quran that Sufis say are about 'nothing exists beside God'.

It is notable that both Al-Nabulsi and Al-Ghazali clearly stated that it is not any kind of reasoning that has led Sufis to declare that 'nothing exists beside God', rather it is a mystical experience, that several Sufis appear to have been through.

(4) Creation does not have a real existence

[Note: The previous three points are commonly repeated in Sufi writings. However, to explain how existence is unreal, Al-Nabulsi is using an approach that I do not recall that it has been used by any other Sufi. Comment No. 1 below, presents Ibn Arabi's approach regarding the same point.]

Although, as in English, the word 'create' also means 'to bring something into existence', it appears to me that Al-Nabulsi uses the word 'create' as meaning 'to estimate and measure', as in the way a designer would estimate and measure how something should be like. It is a very rare usage, but possible in Arabic.

Because of the clear emphasis on this particular interpretation of 'create' throughout the article, I felt it might be useful to investigate this word.

According to Al-Mu'jam Al-Waseet (a recent Arabic Dictionary) :

خَلَقَ الجلد والثوب ونحوهما خَلْقا: قَدَّرَهُ وقَاسَهُ على مايريد قبل العمل.

"To 'create' leather, dress, and the like: to estimate and measure on what to make the dress for, before working on it.". i.e. it is used specifically to describe the design stage.
 And according to Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet (a traditional Dictionary):

الخَلْقُ: التَّقْديرُ.
خَلَقَ النِّطْعَ، والأديمَ خَلْقاً وخَلْقَةً، بفتحهما: قدَّره وحَزَرَه، أو قَدَّرَهُ قبل أن يَقْطَعَه، فإذا قطعه قيل: فَراه.
التَّقْديرُ: التروية، والتفكير في تسوية أمر.

It is obvious that 'create' here is not synonymous to 'make', since the author says " 'create' leather is to measure and estimate before cutting it." Once cutting has started then that is a different stage and it is not the 'creating' stage anymore.

The author defines 'Al-Khalq' ('creating') as meaning 'Al-Taqdeer' which he defines as meaning 'estimating/thinking deliberately on how to deal with a matter'. It is not doing something, rather just having a plan or thoughts on how a matter might be dealt with.

Al-Nabulsi bases his selection of this particular meaning (P. 66) of 'create' on the Quranic verse [25:2]:

وإنما قلنا بأن جميع المخلوقات مفروضة مقدرة، لأن الخلق معناه الفرض والتقدير، كما قال تعالى: "وخَلَقَ كل شيء فقَدَّرَهُ تقديرا"

"We mentioned that all created beings are assumed and estimated because 'creating' means assuming and estimating, as He, Most High said : "It is He Who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions" [25:2]"

Yusuf Ali translated 'خلق' to mean 'created' and the word 'قدر' to mean 'ordered in due proportion'. Which is in accordance with the common and prevalent understanding of the verse. However, since the word 'قدر' also means to estimate, it seems that the word 'estimate' being in the same sentence containing 'create' was considered as emphasizing or pointing to the rarely used meaning of the word 'create'.

In pages 61 to 72, Al-Nabulsi repeated this particular meaning of 'create' about 34 times. I counted it because it appeared unusual to repeat such usage of the word many times in 12 pages. However, it appears that the reason why he is emphasizing that meaning so often is because the information he is breaking to the reader is unusual.

In page 63, he gives an interesting analogy:

كما أن الماء الصافي، إذا فرضنا وقدرنا أننا وضعنا فيه زاجا، فإنه يصير أسود اللون، من غير أن يتغير هو في نفسه، ولا زال عن صفاته....
ولا حل في الماء شيء، ولا أتحد الماء مع ذلك الزاج المفروض المقدر، ولا الزاج مع الماء.

"If we have pure water, and 'assumed' that we put 'Zaj' [a powder mixed with water to produce black ink] in it, then it will become black [we would 'estimate' that the water will become black], without any change happening to the water [because the estimation did not change anything 'in reality'. Water is still pure (reality), while the 'Zaj' is just an 'assumption' and the water becoming black is just an 'estimation']. Nothing got into water, and water did not mix with the Zaj or the Zaj with water".

Then in Page 66, he repeats point 2 above but now with association with estimation and assumption:

ولا يتصور فيه سبحانه، أن يحلَّ فيما به فرضه وقدره من جميع المخلوقات، ولا بعضها أصلا. لأن المفروض المقدَّر في نفسه عدم صرف، وكيف الوجود يحل في العدم؟ و كذلك لا يتصور أن يتحد معه أصلا.

"And it cannot be conceived, regarding Him, most High, to be in what He assumed and estimated of all created things, or in some of them. Because the assumed and estimated in itself is totally nothing, so how can Existence [the only Existence there is, which is God's Existence] be in nothing? Also it cannot be conceived for [Existence] to be in union with it [creation/nothing]".

While in point 2 above,  Al-Nabulsi said 'union with'/'being in' created things is impossible because 'nothing is with Him', now he offers further explanation saying that creation is not beside God because it is just an 'estimation', then reasserts the same point.

Regarding a phrase like "Creation has an assumed and estimated existence", I think it might be relevant here to consider that the context of the article (as mentioned in the introduction) is to explain the concept while noting the limits of explaining it in words, as they are 'normally' understood. (For further discussion on this point, please see comments No. 1, 2, and 3 below).

Finally, Al-Nabulsi, probably expecting that some readers might be having a problem accepting the idea he has presented, says (P. 70):

ولا يقال لو كان كل شيء من هذه المخلوقات مفروضا مقدَّرا لما كان شوهد محسوسا ومعقولا ثابتا موجودا محققا، لأنا نقول فرض الله وتقديره لوجودات الأشياء في أعيانها ليس كفرضنا وتقديرنا للشيء المعدوم. وقد جعل الله تعالى ما نفرضه ونقدره أنزل رتبة منا ليكون ذلك فينا مثالا لما يفرضه الله تعالى ويقدره من وجودات الأشياء المعدومة وأنها أنزل منه في الوجود.

"It cannot be said that, if all these created things are assumed and estimated, then they wouldn't be 'seen' as 'felt', 'believable', 'still/proven', 'existing', and 'real'. Because we say: God's assumptions and estimations for existence of things is not like our assumptions and estimations for a non-existing thing. And God, Most High, made what we assume and estimate at a lesser level [of existence] than us so that we realize that what God estimates of existence of non-existing things [Creation] are lesser than His Existence."

In other words, there is no comparison between 'our' ability to  'estimate' and that of God. Scholars (Sufis and non-Sufis agree on this point) say that Names and Qualities of God, even when they are expressed in humanly understandable words, cannot be fully appreciated by humans. For instance, we 'know' and God 'knows' but there is no comparison between what and how we know and God's knowledge. As humans we have to use a word that we can relate to, but that word should be considered as only pointing at the specific Quality of God, and not to take it in terms of the human quality with the same name. This basic concept is based on many verses like: 'there is nothing whatever like unto Him' [Quran 42:11].

Al-Ghazali said in his book "Ma'arej Al-Quds" (p. 168) addressing the reader:

خاتمة واعتذار:
إعلم أنّا وإن تدرجنا إلى معرفة ذاته وصفاته من معرفة النفس فذلك على سبيل الاستدلال والا فالله تعالى منزه عن جميع صفات المخلوقات فلا يُوصَف، جَلَّ أن يُوصَف، وجَلَّ أن يقال جَلَّ ، و عَزَّ عن أن يقال عَزَّ ، وأكبر من يقال أكبر، وإذا بلغ الكلام إلى الله تعالى فأمسكوا، "لا أحصي ثناءا عليك أنت كما أثنيت على نفسك"، وفوق ما يصفه الواصفون، فلك العلو الأعلى فوق كل عال، والجلال الأمجد فوق كل جلال، ضلت فيك الصفات، وتقدست دونك النعوت.

"Epilogue and Apology [asking God's forgiveness]:
Know that even though we moved gradually to know His Essence and Qualities, from knowing the self [man's self], it was only as a manner to infer. Otherwise God, Most High, is free from all qualities of creatures. He cannot be described, or glorified enough. 'If talk reaches God [about God], then stop' [Hadith]. 'I cannot glorify You enough, You are as You glorify Your Self' [Hadit]. He is beyond what describers can describe. [Addressing Allah:] To You belongs transcendence over every high, and Glory over every glory. Attempts to describe You have failed. Your Qualities are beyond what [man's] descriptions can note."

Al-Ghazali said that at the end of his book. Denoting that after trying to explain deeper aspects about Qualities of God, his explanation has very clear, inherent, and insurmountable human limits. I think it is important to take this background into consideration when reading about deep subjects Sufis discuss.

Comments

(1) Explaining the unreality of Creation's Existence: Ibn Arabi's View

It seems that the reflection analogy that Ibn Arabi had used was the one frequently quoted in Sufi texts to explain the unreality of Creation's existence. His view appears in several places in his writings, for instance: Al-Futuhat, Vol. 3, P. 443.

As I understand Ibn Arabi's explanation: When one stands in front of a mirror he would see a reflection of himself. The person standing in front of the mirror is real, but the image appearing on the mirror (Creation) is not a real being, it is a mere reflection. That reflection does not have its own existence, it cannot sustain its own existence, it exists because someone is standing in front of the mirror. To exist, the reflection on the mirror needs the person standing in front of the mirror. The reflection is not the person, there is no way for a union between them or for the real person to be within the reflection on the mirror. (The background Al-Nabulsi and Al-Ghazali have noted regarding the limits of human explanation, at the end of point 4 above, might apply here too.)

I think it is interesting that even though the two manners of explaining the unreality of Creation's existence are different (assumption + estimation versus reflection on a mirror), both appear to be 'pointing at' the same idea, using analogies in order to bring a deeply intricate concept as close as possible to readers who have not been through the mystical experience. The difference might also be an example of what Sufis say that even when mystical experiences might differ in expressions or visions, the ideas behind them, being universal, remain the same and mystics can 'see' them through various expressions of mystical experiences by other mystics, even across religious boundaries, as I understand.

(2) Sufi View and Modern Scientific View

There are few points probably worth noting:

* Reading about Al-Nabulsi's discussion regarding an 'estimated' and 'assumed' existence of Creation, it might be tempting to compare his view with modern Computer Simulations. These days, Airplane manufactures design and build a whole plane with all its details, then they fly it and test it in different conditions, all on computers and without having a single material part of the plane manufactured yet. It is all just 'assumptions' and 'estimations' using a large number of mathematical relationships. But while a simulated Airplane can get manufactured and come into 'our reality', Al-Nabulsi's view appears to be that Creation as it is right now, remains as assumptions and estimations.
[Note added in March 2016: Probably related to this point is the talk in modern Physics about the universe being a Simulation and also about it being a Hologram.]

* The second point is about the common Sufi view presented above in Al-Ghazali's quotation, regarding Creation: "when its essence is considered/seen from/by itself, it is totally nothing". Modern Physicists' quest to find a clear view of how this universe is structured might come to mind. I remember a Radio interview few years back, when a Physicist said that there are questions in Modern Physics that are like Koans (a term in the Zen tradition for statements that do not make sense when considered analytically).

* Ibn Arabi's 'Reflection on a Mirror' analogy is interesting too. First of all, the difference between a two-dimensional surface in the reflection analogy and the multi-dimensional nature of the universe we are aware of, should be obvious. It is possible that Ibn Arabi used a two dimensional analogy for simplification. Anyway, there are certain points that apply in any case. Here are some thoughts regarding the analogy and its implications: (a) the two-dimensional reflection has two sides, one facing the person looking at the mirror and the other facing the mirror. Is there a 'negative'/ 'reverse' view of the reflection?. (b) considering the set of all points on the surface of the reflection (Creation), examining coordinates on the reflection, no matter how extensively, means only movements restricted to the two axes and confined to points within the set. That probably means that, being in creation, one cannot see the reflection from outside the reflection. (c) while any point on the surface can be considered an Origin point, there is a need to specify a single origin point that all other 'relative' origin points are related to. Now, who gets to determine where is it or to determine a unified unit of scale? Both are needed for a 'universally' consistent measurement of distances between points.

However,
Having mentioned the above three points, I am not sure that computer simulations, or issues of modern physics, or the mathematical implications of the reflection analogy would sound interesting to Sufis. Since, if I understand their approach correctly, they do warn against seeking 'convenient', 'analytical', 'material', and 'immediately sensed' interpretations of Sufi concepts. When it comes to deep spiritual concepts, it is exactly 'abstaining from', 'transcending' such tendencies, and to try to 'mystically see' the concepts that they urge. While some Sufis refuse to use analogies altogether, others like Al-Nabulsi are using them, but as I understand their position, the general context of using analogies and allegories is to help the reader to see beyond the analogy, to what it is 'pointing at'. I do not think it helps in understanding Sufis to take everything they say literally. As I understand, several Sufis thought that non-Sufis typically focus their attention on Grammar and Logic when they consider Sufi writings. According to Sufis the analytic faculty belongs to the Mind level of awareness, which is higher than the Self (sensuous) level but lower than the Heart level, at which Sufis say that finer meanings may start to be realized. (More details here: Levels of Awareness according to Sufis, in Hekam Ibn Ata-Ellah).

(3) Sufi Texts and Sufi Knowledge

The following are few points on why I think Sufi texts have a certain nature that distinguishes them from other texts, and thus the need to study them carefully.

* Some readers of Sufi texts seemed to be treating the texts as philosophical treatises containing theoretical discussions or opinions. While Sufis kept noting that they were talking about firsthand experiences ('Tastes' as they called it), regardless of how articulate each Sufi writer was in describing or discussing those experiences.

* What appears to me is that Sufis wrote in a style (frequent hints through analogies and poems) that was aimed at fellow Sufis and not at non-Sufis. Sufi books and sayings are clear regarding the insufficiency of written texts alone for a proper understanding of Sufism. It appears that even Sufis who have written extensively, did not write everything they knew. Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, and Al-Jili among others, would stop sometimes and decline to go any further while discussing a subject. And the parts that they accepted to write about were, in many cases, written in their style. Ibn Arabi and Al-Jili mentioned in the beginning of their books (Al-Futuhat and Al-Insan Al-Kamil respectively) that they did not intend to talk about all concepts in specific words. It appears that they intentionally left deeper elaborations of subjects to Sufi teachers. I guess at advanced levels, in any field of knowledge, it is natural for a teacher to ensure that ideas are transmitted as intended, and that they are not prone to ambiguity or misunderstanding.

* Sufi texts might not be as crucial as some might think, in spreading Sufi teachings. It seems that because, historically, some readers of Sufi texts paid too much attention to allegories and analogies (Sufis often complain about non-Sufis weighing Sufi concepts using logical, grammatical, or material measures) instead of trying to 'see' the idea itself as Sufis seemed to had hoped, that some later Sufis, like Abdul-Aziz Al-Dabbagh, thought it is inappropriate to use analogies. Others, like Abu Al-Hasan Al-Shazli and his student Abu Al-Abbas Al-Mursi decided not to write books (Al-Sha'arani, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol. 2, P. 13). It appears that they insisted on personal meetings with Sufi students and oral transmission of Sufi knowledge. The reasons probably were to have a chance to evaluate how much of prerequisites a student has mastered and what he still needs to cover. What I understood is that the prerequisites are not about books a Sufi may have read, rather about awareness levels and mystical states (Hal and Makamat) he has experienced (a possibly related story). In other words, Sufis seemed to be treating Sufism like we treat engineering and medicine, where it is known that learning cannot be confined to books, but books go hand in hand with real-world practice. And that is what Al-Ghazali appear to have realized about Sufism when he studied Sufi books and what later led him to leave his teaching post to 'practice Sufism' (Al-Munkiz).

Sufis' notes (like Al-Nabulsi's, above) on widespread misunderstanding of Sufi concepts (like Oneness of Being) appear to be linked to their notes on the nature of Sufi knowledge and the characteristics of Sufi texts.

(4) The word 'Create' as estimate and design
Al-Ghazali (Al-Maqsad Al-Asna, P. 72) explained Allah's Name 'Al-Khaleq' in the same way as Al-Nabulsi did, meaning to estimate and design. However, he said that this Name is associated with two other Names: 'Al-Bari' which is to bring something into existence according to the design, and 'Al-Musaw-wer', which is to give something the final form. So, even though 'Al-Khaleq' alone is about estimating, the three names together give: estimating, then bringing into existence, then giving a final form.

(5) The Basis of the concept in the Quran and Sunnah

As far as I can tell, the Hadith and the three verses of the Quran quoted above, appear to be the foundation on which the concept of Oneness of Being is based.

The Hadith is well-known and is clear about 'God was and nothing with Him', and God's qualities being beyond time, then Sufis conclude: 'He is now as He was' means 'nothing exists besides God' right now. This phrase is widely cited in Sufi texts (here is an example from the Hekam).

The verse on the meaning of 'create' as 'estimate' has a basis in the Arabic language, but Al-Nabulsi's interpretation of the verse is unconventional.

The verses on the meaning of 'Perished' and that it means perished right now as Al-Ghazali and Ibn Ajeeba said, again has a basis in the Arabic language, but the interpretation is unconventional.

So, according to at least some Sufi views, there are texts in the Quran and Sunnah supporting the concept. The Sufi interpretation is linguistically possible, but I think it might sound unconventional to many people.

It is true that several major Sufi masters confirm the validity of this concept/experience. However, as I understand, what most scholars consider as binding are clear statements in the Quran and Sunnah. Not seeing explicit statements regarding the concept in the Quran and the Sunnah, and noting Sufis dependence on what appears to be unconventional interpretations, I think it is understandable why many scholars did not find a good basis to accept the concept of Oneness of Being.

My understanding is that the manner in which most scholars go about verifying valid religious concepts is recognized by Sufi scholars. However in addition to that, Sufis recognize that there is a mystical experience (not recognized and not binding to non-Sufi scholars) that plays a role in how they realize concepts. It is not a different way of verifying religious sayings, rather it is a way to confirm the concept by actually 'seeing it'. It is going further from the level of believing in a concept to the stage of 'realizing' / 'experiencing' what the concept is about. Sufis consider this method, part of the level of 'Ihsan', the highest rank believers can reach.

(6) Justification for Sufis' unconventional interpretations

I think that it might look unusual how Sufis approach and perceive the Prophet's sayings and the verses of Quran. I will try to explain what I mean.

Let's take Al-Ghazali's quote above:
"And they saw with 'clear sight' that there is none in existence other than God, Most High, and that 'Everything is perished except His own Face' "

In other words, it appears that realizing what the verse was pointing to came after the mystical experience, or perhaps with it. But it does not appear to have happened before it. Again, examining Al-Nabulsi's quote:
"They sometimes are overwhelmed with sight of Existence of the Truth, the Real [Existence] because of which everything exists, so they negate anything other than Him, and say about anything other than Him that it is Illusion, Mirage, Perished, Vanished, Transitory, or does not exist in the first place."

It seems to be the same story. They 'see it' first then express themselves, each with the word/expression that comes to mind regarding the experience. Al-Nabulsi did not specifically say it, but I think that his insistence on using the word 'create' to mean 'estimate', could have been based on 'seeing it' too.

The conventional way of presenting an idea, starts from facts, premises and heading towards a conclusion. As for Sufis, it seems that they 'see' / 'realize' the 'final conclusion' and which certain verse or saying of the Prophet is connected with it, then try to build an argument using manners of expressions available at the time, in order to present the idea in a more 'conventional' form.

Maybe the Sufi approach should not sound strange. It is known in the history of Science that scientific discoveries often come first, while establishing the philosophical grounds usually comes afterwards. And of course, it is understood that a philosophical attempt in explaining a scientific phenomenon is just that, an attempt, to understand the 'phenomenon as it is'.

But, I am not sure that Sufi experiences can be treated the same way.

(7) Oneness of Being (وحدة الوجود) vs. Oneness of Sight (وحدة الشهود)
Oneness of Sight is to reach a state of losing sight of anything other than the Existence of God Almighty. Some writers said that it is different from Oneness of Being since the latter denies that the World (Creation: anything other than God) has a real existence, while the first is explained as a 'temporary loss of sight' but without denying the World's 'real existence'. In other words, it seems that adding a statement denying the World's real existence transforms a 'Oneness of Sight' statement to one about 'Oneness of Being'.

As I understand, compared to Oneness of Being, Oneness of Sight is acceptable to much more scholars including Kalam scholars. It is probably also notable that several Kalam scholars who were critical of Oneness of Being noted that it is impossible to deal with, in a rational fashion. I.e. it cannot be accommodated in the logical framework that Kalam scholars presented as compatible with beliefs of Ahl Al-Sunnah (for further details the comment on God's Existence in Al-Ghazali's Elements of Faith, where arguments about God's existence start with premises like creation exists 'out there' and its existence is a possible event).

Based on the distinction between the two concepts, statements like Al-Ghazali's and Al-Junaid's have usually been classified, by non-Sufi scholars, as being in line with 'Oneness of Sight', since they were not accompanied with unambiguous statements regarding the World's nonexistence. However, what I understood from Sufis like Ibn Ajeeba is that they saw clear signs of adoption of Oneness of Being by earlier Sufis. It appears to me that Al-Ghazali's expressions (similar to the one quoted above) contained at least quite strong hints about Oneness of Being, even though it is true that he did not use the consistently clear statements that appeared in expressions of later Sufis like Ibn Arabi and Al-Nabulsi on this point.

(8) Kalam and Sufi Approaches

A probably interesting point is that later Sufis like Al-Nabulsi (having understood the positions of Kalam scholars and other non-Sufis with regards to Oneness of Being) noted that what Kalam scholars call a 'distinct and real creation that is out there' is exactly what the Sufis call 'assumptions and estimations without a real existence' (see pages 61, 65, & 67). The impression I get is that Al-Nabulsi considered both views to be valid, each within its respective context (Kalam and Sufism). If I understood his opinion correctly, Sufis and non-Sufis were not talking about totally different things, rather the difference between them is that of expressions, levels of awareness, and angles from which the same things were being looked at.

I am not sure if Al-Nabulsi's view compared to the Kalam view, can be considered to be similar, in a way, to views of the Universe in Physics, particularly Newtonian Physics and later on in Modern Physics. The new view does not discard 'laws' regarding 'matter' found in Dynamics or Fluid Mechanics for instance, yet provides a deeper and more intricate view of 'matter', a view that was quite different and so perplexing to some people accustomed to the classical view of the Universe. It was apparent to physicists that it was a waste of time and futile to use the 'laws' provided by the classical view to consider 'particles' at subatomic levels. It is notable that Kalam scholars insisted on using their way of approaching religious concepts to evaluate Sufi views, and Sufis reassured that the Kalam approach, while suitable at certain levels of awareness, was unsuitable when deep Sufi views are considered.

Another point comes to my mind, this time in Economics. The two major branches of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics for studying economic behavior, are interesting. The two branches can be seen as two levels, one for studying individual consumers and producers, and the other for studying consumption and production at the economy level. Now, one might expect that understanding the behavior of the individual consumer is enough to understand the behavior of consumption at the Macro level, but economists do not simply generalize or aggregate the consumption behavior of individual consumers, rather they have different approaches of treating consumption at the two levels. The same happens for production. What I would like to point out is that different levels of treating a certain idea, like consumption, might require different approaches, but that does not mean that there is a contradiction between the two approaches. Rather it is simply an indication of different angles or levels of considering a subject, a difference that necessitates using different approaches, probably because a level of awareness has not been reached where the different levels can be considered consistently within a single approach. Whether the difference in views between Micro and Macro levels can apply when considering the Sufi and Kalam views, might be worth considering in an attempt toward understanding the relationship between the two.

(9) Al-Ghazali and the concept of Oneness of Being

There are some interesting points regarding Al-Ghazali's quotation (under point 3 above):

(a) It appears that Al-Ghazali adopted the concept. However, I am not aware of anyone clearly classifying Al-Ghazali with Sufis like Ibn Arabi. Ibn Taimiah (Manteq Ibn Taimiah, P. 300) for instance, had a lot to criticize about Al-Ghazali's writings, but he did not classify him with Ibn Arabi and Ibn Al-Farid. There could be a reason for that.
Many non-Sufi scholars considered Al-Ghazali a 'moderate' Sufi. His works, especially introductory texts like Al-Ihia, are widely accepted. Even scholars who had reservations about his writings, followed the structure of the chapters of Al-Ihia in their own books, which can probably be interpreted as an acknowledgement of the pedagogical value of Al-Ghazali's approach in teaching religion. Sairawan, who researched the manuscript of Al-Ghazali's 'Meskat-ul-Anwar' said in the introduction that he noticed hints to Oneness of Being in Al-Ihia (he did not specify locations, but the second book, titled 'Principles of Faith' appears to be one such place). Probably, the reason why there were only hints in Al-Ihia and clear and specific words in Meshkat-ul-Anwar, is that, as I understand, Al-Ghazali wrote for two groups of people: (1) The General public of Muslims and (2) Advanced Sufis. The books for the latter group contain clear statements on passing copies of the books only to people who can appreciate and understand them (there is such a statement in Ma'arej Al-Quds, P. 181). That is why I think they were not spread widely and some people weren't totally sure they were written by Al-Ghazali (Manteq Ibn Taimiah, P. 301). However, at least Meshkat-ul-Anwar was known to have been written by Al-Ghazali, within Sufi circles (Al-Zabeedi, Ithaf, V. 2, P. 4,  and Al-Subki, Tabaqat Al-Shafi-iah, V. 6, P. 225).

(b) Al-Ghazali lived before Ibn Arabi, Ibn Al-Farid and Al-Jili. The quotation, which appears to be about Oneness of Being, might be an evidence that they (Ibn Arabi in particular) did not 'make up' the concept. Rather Oneness of Being was known before them, and not just to a single person or two, since Al-Ghazali said 'they' (which is used in Arabic for a group of more than two people). Saying 'they saw' seems to indicate that he was talking about a group of people before him. If that is true then Oneness of Being seems to have been known before Ibn Arabi was even born. Actually, there appear to be signs that the concept was known way before Al-Ghazali. For instance in sayings of Al-Junaid and Abu Al-Hasan Al-Nouri (Ibn Ajeeba, Eqaz Al-Hemam, P. 58-59), but not as specific statements as appeared in Al-Ghazali's writings and onwards.

(c) By saying "they saw", Al-Ghazali could have been referring to himself and his own experience. It is a personal view that such indirect sentences are common in Sufi writings (Ibn Arabi comes to mind). As it appears to me, Sufis do that probably out of Sufi humility and avoiding showing off. Even if he was referring to himself, the previous point remains quite likely, that the concept was known before Ibn Arabi's birth.

(10) Sufi concepts and their effect on the daily life of a Sufi scholar

I did not get the feeling that being aware of a concept/experience like Oneness of Being, changed anything in how Sufis practiced religious duties.

Al-Nabulsi continued to teach the Hanafi school of jurisprudence. Al-Ghazali, a renowned Shaf'ee scholar himself, continued to write for young students and beginners on the Sufi path, while Ibn Ata-Ellah was a Maliki scholar. All had the same dedication on teaching Shari'a and emphasis on following religious guidelines. All appeared to have been role models and fine examples of scholars for many later scholars, until this day. Their books are still important references and their opinions are still quoted today.

It might be worth noting that a couple of Al-Nabulsi's books are about explaining the mainstream Ash'ari view of elements of faith (Aqeedah) ("Sharh Al-Muqaddimah Al-Sanoosiah" and "Sharh Ida-at Ad-Dujunnah"). Al-Ghazali was an Ash'ari scholar, and Ibn Ata-Ellah used Kalam arguments in his Sufi writings. Such background information probably indicates that those scholars actually did not see inconsistencies between 'Oneness of Being' and basics of Islamic faith.
The writings of the three scholars were within the context of confirming earlier generations' teachings and experiences and stressing continuity and conformity and never about glorification of personal experiences.

Realizing deeper concepts of religion does not mean losing touch with 'reality' or taking things lightly. For Sufis who gain deeper insight, it appears like it is the scope and depth of awareness that has changed not the subject of awareness. Our world as we know it with all its rules and regulations is still intact as it is. It is a deeper perspective of this same existence that Sufis were talking about.

Losing touch with our world or treating things in any way that contradicts the common rules and established regulations of society and religion is considered an ailment by Sufis. Al-Ghazali said (Meshkat-ul-Anwar, P. 160) that to concentrate on inner aspects alone is as wrong as concentrating on outer aspects alone. The proper view is the one combining both, keeping both aspects in sight, and maintaining a balance between the two.

(11) 'Creation' as it is has a meaning

A Muslim believes that creation (as it is) is not without meaning:

"Did ye then think that We had created you in jest?" [23:115].
Yusuf Ali's Comment: "God's Creation is not without a high serious purpose. It is not vain, or for mere play or sport."

"We created not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, merely in (idle) sport. We created them not except for just ends: But most of them do not understand." [44:38-39]
Yusuf Ali's Comment: "All creation is for a wise and just purpose. But men usually do not realize or understand it."

(12) Referring to oneself as 'Nothing' in popular culture (added in 9/2017)
The expression 'لا شيء' in Arabic, and the word 'Naacheez' which is used in Farsi, Urdu and Hindi, have been traditionally used to refer to oneself or to point to oneself in a polite and humble way. It generally means 'this insignificant person'. But it is notable that both 'لا شيء' and 'Naacheez' literally mean 'Nothing' or 'Nonexistent'.
I noticed some contemporary Sufis using it. I have no idea when did using that meaning started or who was the first one to start using it.

Impressions

Based on what I have understood about the Sufi view on the subject, here are my impressions:

* Is 'Oneness of Being' a concept that can be stated clearly?
As far as I can tell, there does not seem to be a simple and precise definition for it offered by Sufis. Instead, there are certain points Sufis mention whenever they talk about the concept, but those points are clearly coupled with notes on the limits of a verbal explanation. Sufis noted that Oneness of Being was typically treated by non-Sufis as a philosophical proposition that can be analyzed logically or grammatically and it was often judged in light of such analysis. What Sufis have asserted consistently, was that Oneness of Being is a deep mystical experience that can be 'seen first hand', yet not simple to describe to someone who has not been through that experience.

* Does it have anything to do with Pantheism?
Every single major Sufi writer I have read about (including Al-Nabulsi), clearly described Pantheism as a false perception, and emphasized that it is a misunderstanding to mistake Oneness of Being for Pantheism.

* Is it consistent with basic Islamic teachings?
Sufis confirmed that Oneness of Being is perfectly consistent with basic Islamic teachings. Hence, their criticism of any behavior contradicting basics of Islam, especially if it is claimed to be based on Oneness of Being. As Sufis noted, any such behavior indicates a misunderstanding of Oneness of Being.

* Is it out of touch with reality (as normal people know it)?
Not according to Al-Nabulsi, who believed it is just a different and a deeper view of the same existence we are experiencing.

---

References:

(1)

إتحاف السادة المتقين بشرح إحياء علوم الدين، العلامة محمد بن محمد الحسيني الزبيدي، دار الكتب العلمية، بيروت 2005.

[Al-Zabeedi, Muhammad, "Ithaf Al-Sadah Al-Muttakin Be-Sharh Ihiaa Ulum-Uddeen", Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 2005.]

(2)

إيضاح المقصود من معنى وحدة الوجود، عبدالغني النابلسي، تحقيق سعيد عبدالفتاح، دار الأفاق العربية، القاهرة 2003.

[Al-Nabulsi, Abdul-Ghani, "Edah Al-Maksood Men Wahdat Al-Wujud" or "Explaining what is meant by Oneness of Being", Original Manuscript researched by Sa'id Abdulfattah, Dar Al-Afaq Al-Arabiah, Cairo, 2003.]

(3)

إيقاظ الهمم في شرح الحكم، إبن عجيبة الحسني، المكتبة الثقافية، بيروت.

[Ibn Ajeeba, "Eqaz AL-Hemam Fi Sharh Al-Hekam", Al-Maktaba Al-Thaqafiah, Beirut.]

(4)

البحر المديد في تفسير القرآن المجيد، الإمام إبن عجيبة الحسني، تحقيق عمر الراوي، الطبعة الثانية، دار الكتب العلمية، بيروت 2005.

[Ibn Ajeeba, "Al-Bahr Al-Madeed", Manuscript researched by Omar Al-Rawi, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 2005.]

(5)

الحكم الحاتمية، محي الدين بن عربي، مراجعة وتعليق عبدالرحمن حسن محمود، عالم الفكر، القاهرة 1987.

[Ibn Arabi, Muh-ye-deen, "Al Hekam Al Hatimiah", Reviewed and commented on by Abdul-Rahman Mahmoud, A'lam Al-Fikr, Cairo 1987.

(6)

صحيح البخاري، الإمام محمد بن إسماعيل البخاري، تحقيق وتخريج أحمد زهوة و أحمد عناية، دار الكتاب العربي، لبنان 2004.

[Al-Bukhari, Muhammad, "Sahih Al-Bukhari", Researched by Ahmad Zahwah and Ahmad Enayah, Dar Al-Kitab Al-Arabi, Beirut 2004]

(7)

طبقات الشافعية الكبرى ، تاج الدين السبكي، دار إحياء الكتب العربية، القاهرة.

[Al-Subki, Taju-ddin, "Tabaqat Al-Shafi-iah Al-Kubra", Dar Ihiaa Al-Kutob Al-Arabia, Cairo.]

(8)

الطبقات الكبرى ، عبدالوهاب الشعراني، دار الفكر، بيروت.

[Al-Sha'arani, "Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra", Dar Al-Fikr, Beirut.]

(9)

الفتوحات المكية، محي الدين بن عربي، دار الفكر، لبنان.

[Ibn Arabi, Muh-ye-deen, "Al-Futuhat Al-Makkiah", Dar Al-Fikr, Beirut.]

(10)

القاموس المحيط ، الفيروزابادي، الطبعة الثانية، مؤسسة الرسالة، بيروت 1987.

["Al-Qamoos Al-Muheet" is a classic Arabic Dictionary.]

(11)

قواعد التصوف ، أحمد زروق ، تحقيق عثمان الحويمدي، الطبعة الأولى، درا وحي القلم، بيروت 2004.

[Zarroq, Ahmad, "Qawa'ed Al-Tasawuf" or "Principles of Sufism", Manuscript researched by Usman Al-Howimedi, Dar Wahi Al-Qalam, Beirut 2004.]

(12)

لطائف المنن ، الإمام إبن عطاء الله الاسكندري ، دار البشائر، دمشق 1992.

[Ibn Ata-Ellah, "Lata-if Al-Menan", Dar Al-Basha-er, Damascus 1992.]

(13)

معارج القدس في مدارج معرفة النفس ، حجة الإسلام أبي حامد محمد بن محمد الغزالي، الطبعة الخامسة، دار الأفاق الجديدة، بيروت 1981.

[Al-Ghazali, "Ma'arej Al-Quds Fi Madarej Ma'rifat Al-Nafs", Manuscript researched by the Committee for Revival of Arabic Culture, Dar Al-Afaq Al-Jadida, Beirut 1981.]

(14)

المعجم الوسيط، مجمع اللغة العربية، الطبعة الرابعة، مكتبة الشروق الدولية، القاهرة 2005.

["Al-Mu'jam Al-Waseet" is a common Arabic Dictionary published in Cairo by the Center for Arabic Language.]

(15)

مشكاة الأنوار ومصفاة الأسرار، الإمام الغزالي، تحقيق عبدالعزيز السيروان، عالم الكتب، بيروت 1986.

[Al-Ghazali, "Meshkat-ul-Anwar Wa Mesfat-ul-Asrar", Manuscript researched by Abdul Aziz Sairawan, A'lam Al-Kutub, Beirut 1986.]

(16)

المقصد الأسنى في شرح أسماء الله الحسنى، الإمام أبو حامد الغزالي، تحقيق محمد عثمان الخشت، مكتبة القرأن، القاهرة 1984.

[Al-Ghazali, "Al-Maqsad Al-Asna Fe Sharh Asma' Allah Al-Husna", Manuscript researched by Muhammad Al-Khusht, Maktabat Al-Quran, Cairo 1984.]

(17)

منطق ابن تيمية ومنهجه الفكري، محمد حسني الزين، المكتب الإسلامي، بيروت 1979.

[Al-Zain, Muhammad, "Manteq Ibn Taimiah", Al-Maktab Al-Islami, Beirut 1979.]

(18)
Ali, Abdullah Yusuf, "The Holy Quran, Text, Translation and Commentary", Hafner Publishing Company, New York, 1946.