Conception of God in Sufism
By Hazrat Wahid Bakhsh Rabbani, may God sanctify his secret.
The Infinite Being is incomprehensible for man’s finite sense of comprehensibility. This incomprehensibility has posed some problems for those who want to understand God. Yet, the quest for the Divine Being has compelled many throughout the world to make endeavours towards this end, in the course of which they have agreed and disagreed with each other.
Man, in his attempt to define and explain the Supreme Being (His Zat and Siffat) - Essence and Attributes - has coined terms like Immanence, Transcendence, Monism, Pantheism, Dualism and Monotheism. These terms have created further confusion and ambiguity in the mind of an average man.
In order to untangle this mess of ideas, an attempt is made here to throw the light of research upon the inner meanings of these concepts and to clarify them for the reader.
In common parlance, the concept of Immanence means that God is in the universe and pervades over all beings. Transcendence holds that God is not in the universe but is above and beyond it. Monism is more or less like Pantheism which advocates that God is in everything and everything is in God. However, the Christian and the Hindu versions of Pantheism are different. Polytheism appears to be a corollary or an offshoot of Pantheism as according to it, idol-worship is justified, for the God of Pantheists is in everything. However, the cognitive Doctrine of Pantheism asserts that although the Universe is a part of God, it is not the whole of His Being.
In Islam, although the universe is not separate from God’s Being, the concept of the Universe as a part of God’s Being is both irrational and untenable in that it presupposes divisibility when God is Indivisible. Monotheism stands for one God or believes in the Oneness of God. Although traditionally Monotheism is the underlying characteristic of all the three great world religions - namely Judaism; Christianity and Islam - deviation from Monotheistic principles which created the concepts of Incarnations, Sonship and Trinity, has created important differences between these religions of the Book. In fact these comparatively new concepts are not traceable in the early versions of Christian scriptures.
The Sufi concept of God is essentially Islamic Monotheism. According to Islam, Allah is upheld as One, Unbegotten, Eternal, and Unequalled and beyond partnership of any kind. In Islamic Monotheism God is neither Immanent nor Transcendent, as understood in the West. He is both Immanent and Transcendent. He is Immanent, not in the sense that He is contained in anything, place or person to justify idol-worship, man-worship or temple-worship. According to Islam Immanence means that everything is in God, but God is not confined to anything as no finite being can logically contain the Infinite Being.
Similarly in Islam, God is Transcendent, not in the sense of an anthropomorphic Deity sitting on His throne in the upper regions. He is Transcendent in the sense that He is Limitless and encompasses the whole universe, the whole of space and beyond all space. The only Muslim scholar who pleaded transcendence - in the sense that God is sitting on His throne in the upper sphere - was Ibne Taimiya - who was vehemently opposed by the consensus of Muslim scholars and was sentenced to life imprisonment, as a result of an official decree. Ibne Taimiya based his ideas on the following ayat (verse) of the Quran; “Ar-Rahmano alal arshistawa” which means that Allah firmly occupies His throne in His capacity as Rahman, ‘The Merciful’. The mistake made by Ibne Taimiya lies in interpreting the ayat as meaning that the throne of God is placed somewhere in the heavens, and in ignoring the ayat known as Ayatul Kursi: “His throne encompasses the entire universe.” According to this ayat God is everywhere in the universe and beyond it.
There are many more passages in the Quran which bear testimony to God’s Omnipresence, for instance in one of the verses,. God says, “Wherever you turn, He is there.” The Holy Quran also tells us “Allah is with you wherever you be.” - It is also said in the Quran “He is the first (Awwal) and the last (Akhir) and the Manifest (Zahir) and the Hidden (Batin).” The Prophet of Islam elaborated this ayat as, “He is the First so that nothing was before (Qabl) Him. He is the Last so that nothing is after (Baad) Him. His is the Manifest, so that nothing is above (Fauqa) Him. He is the hidden so that nothing is other than (Duna) Him.”
The foregoing explanation is the essence of Islamic Monotheism called Tawhid which means that God is One, Unlimited and Omnipresent. The universe is nothing but the manifestation of Divine Attributes (Sifat) and since the attributes cannot be separated from the Divine Being, the universe cannot be separated from God’s Being.
The relationship of the universe with God is like that of an author with his book, which owes its existence to the author and cannot be attributed to have a separate or detached existence.
Since God is the Author and Creator of the universe, the creation cannot be said to exist separately. If we do not include the universe in God’s Being, we put a limit on His limitlessness. It must be remembered that in the light of Islamic teachings, limiting the unlimited tantamounts to heresy (kufr).
The concept of oneness of being - tawhid, unity of Allah in Islam regards halul (incarnationism) and ittehad (juxtaposition) as heretical, for both these notions, as prevalent in Hinduism and Christianity pre-suppose multiplicity as against the unity or oneness of the Divine Being.
This concept of Oneness-cum-Omnipresence of God is neither like the Pantheism of Hindus which justifies idol worship, and incarnation of God in Rama and Krishna nor like the Christian version of Pantheism which justifies the cults of Trinity, Sonship and Incarnation. It differs for the simple reason that the Infinite Being cannot be logically contained by finite beings. The Hindu and Christian interpretations of Pantheism may justify idol-worship or man-worship on the grounds that these are included in God’s Being, but this amounts to giving a part (juzv) the status of whole (kul). Idol-worship or man-worship is as ridiculous from the point of view of Islam as accepting the hand of John as John, but it is not John himself by any stretch of the imagination.
This doctrine of Tawhid e.g. Oneness-cum-Omnipresence of God called Wahdat-al-Wajud, maintained its pre-eminence throughout the early centuries of the Islamic Era and remained both explicit and implicit in the Quran and Hadith, as well as the writing of the esoteric and the exoteric scholars of Islam. Even the ecstatic outbursts of the Sufis, like the utterance of Anal Haque, (I am the Truth) of Hallaj and ‘Subhani’ (I am Glorious) of Abu Yazid Bistami. These undoubtedly shocked some ultra-exoterics, but were accepted by the great Sufi Masters like Junaid, Shibli, Ghazali and others as well as the sober scholastics (mutakallimin) of Islam. They were understood as the culmination of the philosophical proposition of the oneness of being into actual spiritual experience or the realization of the state of unity (Tawhid) with the Divine Being called “Fana-fi-Allah” of which some poor substitutes in the English language are annihilation, merger and unification. They are termed poor substitutes because there is no exact translation available of the described states. The words annihilation, merger and unification pre-suppose multiplicity of being, whereas, as already stated above, multiplicity does not exist. What exists is God’s Being.
It will not be incongruous to mention at this juncture that even great research scholars like Louis Massignon, Annemarie Schimmel and others have stated that everything relating to Sufism including the curious statements of Hallaj like “Anal Haque” are based on the Quran. Massignon says in his massive work, “La Passion de al-Hallaj”:
“It is from the Quran constantly recited, meditated and practised that Islamic mysticis-
ism proceeds, in its origin and in its development. .... From this (Quran) springs even
the curious phenomenon of “shath” (like Anal Haq) in which the mediating mystic
exchanges roles with the Divine Beloved and appears to speak in the first person.”
The question, which now arises, is why Hallaj was condemned to execution when his utterances were in conformity with the tenets of Islam? The answer to this query lies in the answer to another question which asks why Abu Yazid Bistami was saved when he uttered the same apparently heretical cry? Hallaj was executed because, unfortunately, his era coincided with the period, which witnessed the emergence of a heretical sect called ‘Karamtiya’. These people preached anti-Islamic notions such as “Halul” and “Ittehad”, and the ulema, the Sufis and the rulers of the time were determined to nip this evil in the bud.
Such a menace did not exist during the time of Abu Yazid. Infact it was due to the unwarranted execution of Hallaj that his successor Sufis like Ghazali, Sarraj, Kalabadi stressed the oneness of Shariah (Orthodoxism) and Tariqah (Sufism) in their books lectures and teachings. It was done to exonerate the martyr. However, the reason why Sufi Junaid countersigned Hallaj’s death warrant was that Hallaj, by indulging in an outburst, had succumbed to his ecstasy. This display was not in conformity with the Sufistic tradition of containing one’s ecstasies. Great Sufi Masters advocated the practice of extreme sobriety in the midst of the storms of ecstasies. They preached strict adherence to the Prophet’s code. The Noble Prophet was firm like a rock and able to resist intoxication and retain the state of sobriety under all circumstances, as yielding to ecstasies proved an impediment in the path of spiritual progress. The Sufi is great only when he does not get intoxicated with one or two cups of the Divine Wine, but consumes rivers and cries for more and more. “Hal min mazid” (bring more) is his usual cry. That is why, when a Shaikh boastingly wrote to Abu Yazid. “What do you think of a man (himself) who takes a cup and remains intoxicated the whole day?” Abu Yazid retorted, “What do you think of a man (Abu Yazid) who consumes rivers and cries for more?” It was perhaps during his spiritual youth that Abu Yazid was overwhelmed by ecstasies and cried out; “Subhani ma azamo shani (I am great, how glorious am I). On gaining maturity (spiritual perfection) he is reported to have repented for heresies and embraced Islam afresh saying. “There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger.”
It is clear from the above discussion that the concept of God in Sufism is strictly Islamic Monotheism. According to it God is one not in the sense of an anthropomorphic Deity sitting on His Throne, but in the sense that He is an Omnipresent Limitless Being. He includes the whole universe and permeates space to the extent of limitlessness. The state of Fana (self-extinction) of the Sufis is the culmination of the spiritual journey, when they realise the truth of the philosophical or logical proposition of the Oneness of Being (Wahdat-al-Wajud) through actual personal experience.
To elucidate the point further, in Sufism there are three degrees of belief in God called Ilm-al-yaqin (conviction based on theoretical knowledge), Ainal-Yaqin (conviction based on seeing), and Haqq-al-Yaqin (conviction based on actual experience of merger, union or Fana in the Divine Being).
Suppose you have not seen fire. If somebody tells you that fire burns, your knowledge of fire will be of the first category e.g. Ilm-al-Yaqin. If you see fire burning wood, your belief will be the second category: Ain-al-Yaqin. However, when you put your hand in it, the degree of your belief in fire will be of the third category: Haqq-al-Yaqin. So the stage of Fana-fi-Allah of the spiritual pilgrim is the category of Haqq-al-Yaqin when his theoretical knowledge of God based on logical reasoning is further augmented or confirmed by direct vision as well as actual spiritual union with the Divine Beloved.
This is called Fana which is characterised by a state of complete intoxication (God-intoxication) in which it is not possible for the pilgrim to attend to his wordly duties such as marrying, looking after his children, earning livelihood, teaching, preaching etc. According to the teachings of Islam, the pilgrim is required not to stay permanently in this state of Fana, but to complete the circle and come down to regain the state of human consciousness from Divine consciousness. Thus he comes out from the state of Divine intoxication to the state of sobriety and is able to perform his duties to himself; his family and mankind in general. He is now better equipped to do this as during his experience of Fana in the Essence and Attributes of God he is bestowed with Divine qualities or attributed as indicated in the following saying (Hadith) of the Noble Prophet:
“Allah says when My servant wishes to come close to Me, I love him and get so close to him that I am his eyes and he sees by Me. I am his ear and he hears by Me. I am his hands and he works by Me. I am his feet and he walks by Me, and I give him what he wants.”
It is at this stage that the pilgrim is capable of performing supernatural acts. Having thus been vested with Divine powers he is commissioned to function as the Vicegerent of the Lord on earth as explained by God’s address to the angels contained in the following verse of the Quran:
“I am to create my Vicegerent (Khalifa) on earth.”
This coming down from the state of Fana (intoxication) to the state of sobriety fully equipped with Divine powers is called Baqa-bi-Allah (Subsisting by God). Thus the spiritual journey in Sufism is characterised by two phrases; Fana-fi-Allah (Journey in God) and Baqa-bi-Allah (Journey with or by God). This is a step ahead of the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and even Neo-Platonic mysticism that do not seem to go beyond Fana.
However, it is not to be understood that once a Sufi comes out of Fana he does not go back to it. The fact is that he has now achieved a station, which empowers him to enjoy the bliss of both Fana (union) and Baqa (separation) simultaneously. The storm of love is so strong in his heart that he is never satisfied at any stage of union and strives to go higher and higher every moment, and goes on enjoying the pleasures of union (Wasl) and pangs of separation (Hijr or sweet sorrow) at one and the same time. It is from this height that Shaikh Saadi of Shiraz spoke:
“The wonder is not that I am burning in love, the wonder is that I am
united and separated simultaneously.”
It is this dualism or dual role of the Sufi, which is hard for the Western orientalists to understand. They cannot comprehend that when the Sufis talk about Wahdat-al-Wajud they are the residents of the domain of Reality (Haqiqat), and when they uphold Wahdat-ash-Shahud, they speak from the domain of physicality, phenomenonality or multiplicity (Majaz).
In the realm of Reality (Haqiqat), they speak the language of the Beloved such as ‘Anal Haq’ (I am the Truth) and “Subhani ma azamo shani” (How great am I, and how great is my glory). When they descend to the realm of duality, multiplicity or physicality, they assume the role of ardent lovers of the Divine Beloved, weep and cry, pray and worship and sing volumes of songs full of fire and love, tears and sighs, sorrows and agonies.
Even Hallaj, who is condemned by some Sufi masters to have yielded to ecstasies at the expense of sobriety, used to offer four hundred voluntary bowing (rakats) of prayers (Salat-e-nafil) daily in prison as compared to only the twenty five bowing of obligatory prayers offered by those who were out to kill him. Similarly, Shaikh Mohayyodin Ibn Arabi who is supposed to be the greatest exponent of Pantheistic Wahdat-ul-Wujud was a staunch Zahirite (orthodox) and would never budge an inch from Shariah (Orthodoxy) of Islam. Yet some Orientalists, in sheer ignorance, have made it a case of the forsaking of Islam and accused them of conversion to Christianity.
It can be concluded from the arguments presented above that the Islamic version of pantheism is not incompatible with Islamic Monotheism; according to which God is One, Limitless and Omnipresent, and His Being includes all beings in the Universe.
Wahdat- al- Wajud and Wahdat- ash- Shahud
Another weapon in the armoury of the Orientalists is the so-called controversy between Wahdat-al-Wajud of Ibne Arabi and Wahdat-ash-Shahud of Shaikh Ahmad Sarhandi. It is true that after inheriting Wahdat-al-Wajud from his father Shaikh Abdul Ahad, Shaikh Ahmad entertained this cult of oneness of being for years as is clear from his Maktubat of early age. However, during the middle of his spiritual journey, he had visions of Wahdat-ash-Shahud and started preaching it.
In a nutshell Wahdat-ash-Shahud is nothing but a stage of Baqa-bi-Allah (subsistence by God) elaborated in the foregoing pages. As a matter of fact, Shaikh Ahmad thought that in advocating Wahdat-al-Wajud, Shaikh Ibne Arabi was neglecting the stage of Baqa-bi-Allah in which the pilgrim regains sobriety and plays the role of a staunch follower of orthodox Islam (Shariah). Towards the end of his life, the truth of Ibne Arabi’s stand dawned upon Shaikh Ahmad and he admitted in part-IV of his Maktubat that Ibne Arabi was right and that difference between them were only of a verbal nature (naza-i-lafzi). Shah Wali Ullah and Shah Ismail Shahid, who belonged to Shaikh Ahmad’s order, have also admitted in their books that the difference of opinion between the two Shaikhs of Islam was verbal not real.
It is due to the misunderstanding of the nature of Islamic Monotheism that one of the contemporary Orientalist has said:- “Such (Pantheistic) verses have led a number of authors particularly Hindus who studied this aspect of Indo-Muslim religious life, to believe that here Indian Advaita mysticism gained a complete victory over Islamic Monotheism.”
The writer says this without realising that Advaita (non-duality) of Sankra also means Monotheism which, though incompatible with Hindu and Christian pantheism is positively compatible with the Islamic version of Pantheism called Wahdat-al-Wajud. Therefore, the Hindus need not feel jubilant about the so-called triumph of Advaita over the Monotheism of Islam.
Perhaps the Orientalist concerned does not know that Sankra’s Advaita (non-duality) is the product of Muslim influence and means exactly the same thing as Monotheism.
Eminent Hindu research scholar Dr. Tarachand has made it perfectly clear in his book called “The Influence of Islam on Hindi Culture”, that the Hindu mystics including prominent names like Sankara, Rama Nauja, Ramananda, Kabir and their followers and disciples were tremendously influenced by the Indian Sufi Sheikhs. So much so that they abandoned Hindu customs of idol worship, burning the dead or believing in Transmigration etc., and adopted all Muslims beliefs instead. Full account of this conversion is coming in the next issue of Sufi Path. Sankara Advaita (Monotheism) is the result of Muslim influence and does not clash with Islamic Monotheism.
The conclusion is that the Sufi concept of God is strictly Islamic pantheism called Wahdat-al-Wajud or Wahdat-ash-Shahud, which is compatible with Islamic Monotheism (Tawhid), but not compatible with Hindu and Christian versions of pantheism which upholds multiplicity of gods. In Islam, God is one Omnipresent, Limitless and includes all beings in the Universe and cannot be contained by anything or any person. The simple reason being that the Infinite cannot logically be contained by the finite like in the Hindu and Christian versions of pantheism which uphold incarnation-ism or descent of God in Jesus Christ, Rama, Krishna and all the idols stored in the temples.
