Review Question 9

Review Question 9.
4: Sirhindī and the doctrine of Waḥdat al-Shuhūd
Seyed AmirHossein Asghari
Compare and contrast the two theories and discuss how two distinct interpretations of Tawḥid in
its ontological sense could emerge in this fashion.
In the topic we have two main issues that are apparently differ from each other. One is whadat
al-wujud, (Unity of Being) which is apparently belongs to Ibn Arabi, The great Sufi master of
7th/13th century and the other one is wahdat al-shuhud (Unity of Consciousness)of Sirhindi, also
the Sufi master of Naghshebandi order.
Before going to campare and contrast the two theories, let us to pay an attention to the meaning
of the main words amoung two terms. Wahdat means Unity, wujud is the existence but in the
Sufi terms Wujud according to its Arabic origin which drives from the word wajada, also have
the definition of “Happiness in which one dose not have awareness toward it”1 wujud also
defines as all existence. Shuhud had to do with seeing, inspiration, intuition, vision, witnessing
and presence.
Unity of Being
Wahdat al-wujud is attributed to Ibn Arabi, but the point is that he has never used such a term in
his works. It was among his interpretations, and followers that the term appeared. Never the less,
the concept of seeing God everywhere and knowing all existence as his manifest is emphasized
in his works.according to Ibn Arabi mystic not only sees signs of God everywhere, but also in a
higher level, he sees God everywhere. Therefore the issue of wahdat al-wujud is attributed to
him. The main point is the very different interpretations of this term. One can divide them into
subjective, objective, ontological or epistemological ones, which will have difference results.
The problem rise when the orthodoxy view of Islam considers the Idea of wahdat al-wujud as
opposed to the religious teaching. Especially with the God’s transcendence (Tanzih). According
to Quran, Nothing is like him. And by an exoteric interpretation Unity of Existence can lead to
heresy. Among the opponent of the Idea are Ibn Teimiyah and Ala al-duwlah simnani, both of
them accuse Ibn arabi to blasphemy.
Unity of Consciousness
Paying attention to the accusation of orthodoxies and critics upon the Idea of wahdat al-wujud,
Sirhindi, tried while criticizing the Idea, to establish another concept which seems to be another
1
. Sajjadi, Farhange Istelahat-e Irfani, p.781. Tehran
interpretation of wahdat al-wujud. He says this is an inner state of mystic which in a mystical
station, and in its experience encounter with it. Wahdat al-shuhud, seems to be in a state that
mystic dose not see anything except the One, and this is annihilation in the Unity of God2.
According to some interpretation whadat al-shuhud can be define as below:
1- Not paying attention to the plurality of creations

2- According to this term the perfect wayfarer is one who had attained the annihilation in
the Unity of God and annihilated from this annihilation and heedlessness of all parts of
existence and existing beings except seeing the existence of the Truth.
3- the annihilation in the Unity of God, is that the wayfarer riches to the station in which he
does not see in the existence except Him.
Some say that the result of this term is Wahdat al-mashhud3 (the unity of witnessed) not unity of
consciousness.
Comparing:
“ Pir Syed Mehr Ali4 describes the differences between this two term as below:
“ 'Wahdat al-Shuhud' represents the initial stages of suluk (spiritual journey), and the basic
essence of faith (nafs-e-iman), whereas 'Wahdat-ul-Wajud' constitutes the acme of suluk and the
perfected state of faith (kamal-e-iman).
Wahdat-al-wajud represents the vision and clairvoyance of the elect among the sufia, and it is
related to inner vision rather than to outward and oral pronouncement only”.5
Some of the scholars see the unity of existence as a philosophical theory while Unity of
Consciousness, as a mystical theory. Even if one study the history of Christian mysticism, can
find the same behaviour toward a saint like Meister Eckhart. Church attacked him, therefor
Tawler, of his follower says that: “I am not saying that all distinguish between God and Soul
disappears, But soul will not see any distinguish”6.
It seems that all problems appears from the viewpoints. Tanzih and Tashbih. Rumi describes it
in the below story in his book, Fihi ma fih:
Sayyid Burhan al-Din was teaching. In the midst of his words a fool said, "We need words
without any analogies." He replied, "Come without analogy! Then you will hear words without
analogies." After all, you are an analogy of your self; you are not this. Your bodily person is
your shadow. When someone dies they say, "So-and-so has gone." If he was only that body,
then where has he gone? Hence it is realized that your outward is the analogy of your inward,
so that men may judge your inward from your outward. (F 219-220/ 226-227)
2
. Muhammad Fanaari, Misbah al-ons.p 274. Tehran, 1374
3
. Marziye Akhlaqi, Wahdate wujud va wahdate shuhud, http://www.isu.ac.ir/publication/Meshkat-AL-
Noor/Meshkat-Al-Noor_26-27/Meshkat-AL-Noor_26-2705.htm
4
. Hazrat Pir Syed Meher Ali Shah Gilani(R.A) (Urdu: ‫پیر م‍ﮩ‍رعلى شاه‬ ) was born 14 April 1859 (1 Ramadan,
1275 A.H.) in Golra Sharif,[1] which is located midway between Rawalpindi and Islamabad, in present-day Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pir_Meher_Ali_Shah
5
. Internet.
6
. Bernard Mc Ginn, Love, Knowledgeand Unio Mysticainthe Western Christian Tradition, Mystical Unionin
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Edited by Moshe Ideland Bernard Mc Ginn, New York, Continuum, 1996, P. 78
Whatever I say is an analogy, not an equivalence. An analogy is one thing, an equivalence
another. In order to draw an analogy, God the most High compared His Light to a lamp and the
existence of the saints to a glass (cf. Koran XXIV 35). This is for the sake of analogy. His Light
cannot be contained by created existence or space. So how should it be contained in a glass and a
lamp? (F 165/174)7
Orientalists and the Issue of Wahdat-alWujud and Wahdat al-Shuhud
The theory of Wahdat al-shuhud and wahdat al-wujud, has been a controversial problem during
the history and in the contemporary and present time. Among the orientalist of 20th century, one
could take Massignon as an example. According to William c. Chittick, “The Indian distinction
between wahdat al-wujud and wahdat al-suhud taken up by several orientalists, including
massignon. Anawati, and Garden who then read this distinction back into Islamic history
onhighly questionable grounds. Massignon had a well-known preference for the love mysticism
off al- Hallaj and a deep aversion to al-Ibn al-Arabi’s approach. For him and those who followed
him, Wahdat al-Wujud become “static existential monism” while Wahdat al-Shuhud was
“dynamic testimonial monism” the later far to be preferred over the former, not least because it
accorded with “orthodoxy””8
William chittick, while objecting the Idea of Massignon and his followers, emphasizes on the
reason why the later Sufi masters advanced the Idea of Wahdat al-Shuhud. He says:
Massignon attribution of a “static” mysticism to those who supported Wahdat al-Wujud

Illustrates the typical sort of oversimplification indulged in by those who place labels on Ibn Al-
arabi, thus mutilating a highly complex doctrinal synthesis. …later Sufis came to distinguish
between Wahdat al-Wujud and wahdat al-shuhud for internal reasons, to some of which I have
already alluded….though one can’t deny that Sufis Illustrate deep differences of perspective, one
can be certain that scholars who attempt to redefine terms such as wahdat al-wujud and wahdat
al-shuhud in terms of western philosophical and psychological categories only add to the
confusion already present in our perception of Sufism history9.
7
. William C. Chittick, Sufi path of knowledge, p.276
8
. William C. Chittick, "Rumi And Wahdat Al - Wujud", In Poetry Mysticism in Islam, Ed. Amin Banani,
Cambridge University Press, 1994, P.90
9
. ibid
As the above quotation shows, the theories still make the discussions. It is still the viewpoint,
tanzih and tashbih, which makes debates over the issue.

Review Question 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Question 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Question 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Question 9.

4: Sirhindī and the doctrine of Waḥdat al-Shuhūd

Seyed AmirHossein Asghari

1- Not paying attention to the plurality of creations

Orientalists and the Issue of Wahdat-alWujud and Wahdat al-Shuhud

Massignon attribution of a “static” mysticism to those who supported Wahdat al-Wujud

You might also like