The Deviation of the Sufis from the Methodology of the Righteous Salaf, and an Explanation of the Misguidance of Ibn Arabi

The questioner : You said that Ibn Arabi and the extremists among the Sufis...

The Shaykh : are among those who hold to the Oneness of Existence

The questioner : They hold to the Oneness of Existence. The meaning of the statement is that among the Sufis, there are those who are moderate and do not hold to the Oneness of Existence.

The Shaykh : Yes, excuse me, moderate with respect to him, not with respect to the Sunnah. I do not know if this answer is sufficient or not?

The questioner : No, it is not sufficient; it needs clarification.

The Shaykh : Deviation from the Sunnah has many, many aspects.

The questioner : Do you mean there are some among them who do not hold to the Oneness of Existence?

The Shaykh : Certainly, why not? For example, al-Junayd does not hold to the Oneness of Existence.

The Shaykh : The Shaykh : Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani also does not hold to it, and he is a great figure in Hanbali jurisprudence. Many, indeed most of them, do not hold to the Oneness of Existence—and praise be to Allah. But Ibn Arabi and Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi, a son of our land here in Damascus, yes, these are the ones who hold to the Oneness of Existence. It is enough for you as a title that Ibn Arabi, in the introduction to his large book, not of the specified size, called al-Futuhat al-Makkiyyah, recites poetry. Praise be to Allah, he is a literary man, a man of letters in the truest sense. He speaks of deep, unseen matters, but his Arabic is smooth. Look at his poetry now, along with his misguidance:
"The servant is the Lord, and the Lord is the servant, so tell me, who is the one obligated?
If I say servant, that is a negation, or if I say Lord, how can he be obligated?"
The Oneness of Existence. If I say servant, that is a negation; there is no servant. He says in his commentary: "Everything you see with your eye is Allah; there is no servant, there is no servant and Lord." Therefore, they do not say "La ilaha illa Allah" as Muslims do and as the Noble Qur'an says. They say "La huwa illa huwa" (He is, and He alone is). This is their remembrance. When they summarize the matter, it comes down to "He is He," there is nothing other than Him. Even in the common expressions we have in the Levant, one says: "There is nothing other than Him." "He" does not mean exactly that meaning; "He" means there is nothing other than Him.
That is, as the existence of the Truth, as the scholars say: the Necessary Being. But it stems from that murky source, that it is He and only He, there is nothing other than Him.
The point is that most Sufis, praise be to Allah, do not hold to it. But Sufis in general deviate in their conduct. They deviate, for example, in their extremism in asceticism and their turning away from the world. Sometimes their extremism reaches matters related to creed, but not from the side of the Oneness of Existence. They might tell you, for example, "Knowledge is a veil." Knowledge, in the view of people—jurists and scholars—is light. They call it a veil, meaning a veil from the deviation they have deviated to. The exaggeration in asceticism has many stories recorded in the book "Rawdat al-Riyahin fi Hikayat al-Salihin" (The Garden of Flowers in the Stories of the Righteous) by one of the later scholars—about two hundred years ago. It recounts strange things regarding asceticism. I have some summaries left. One of them, for example, would dive into the river on a cold day, on a cold night, and climb onto the roof of the house. He would soak his cotton jacket by dipping it thoroughly in the water and put it on his body in this cold weather, with the winds blowing. Why? He said it was for disciplining the soul, for training the soul. This is tormenting the soul, and it is prohibited by the Shari'ah.

The questioner : With a shiver.

The Shaykh : With a shiver, well done. One of them would desire something but not eat it. They would ask him why: "Are you incapable?" He would say: "No, but to force the soul." Well, this person has rights. A human being is not property. Allah created him with instincts, and these instincts require satisfaction. One of them, without offense, is intercourse. There is no monasticism in Islam. So some of them become monks. Why? They narrate a hadith in this regard, and praise be to Allah, it is a fabricated hadith . So they become monks so as not to be lost among the laps of women. Well, the Messenger, peace be upon him, is your model, as you claim. So why do you not say what he said and do what he did? He did not just marry four; he married nine, he married eleven, but he died leaving nine. But he made the ruling specific for the general people that they marry up to four only, meaning you may not have even one. Was the indication of the Messenger to his Ummah and his guidance for them specific? Until you come and complete it, while he is the one who said, as in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: . So whoever cannot do so, let him fast. Then, when they fasted, they contradicted the Sunnah. They fasted the fast of continuous fasting (wasal), and the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited wasal. It is following the day with the night. So if he eats the pre-dawn meal (suhur) one day, he continues it; when the first part of the evening comes, he does not eat. So for the next suhur, he does not eat suhur. So for the next evening, and so on, until he becomes a skeleton. Why? He wants to train his soul.
But the Master of Teachers did not teach us to train our souls this way. So they went to extremes in their conduct in the name of training the souls, and they followed the path of non-Muslims, like the Brahmins.

The questioner : ... These are not among those who held fast to the Book and the Sunnah.

The Shaykh : How? I mentioned to you just now Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani.

The questioner : Following?

The Shaykh : No, no, we are not talking about following. Following, just as the followers of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, did, the followers of al-Jilani did so, and even more. Do you think that the followers of Muhammad, peace be upon him, who came after him followed his path? Of course not, and here we are living now.

The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The same topic of the Sufis.

The questioner : Yes, this is the same topic... It may have seeped into Islam from other religions. For example, the issue of the Oneness of Existence. The Oneness of Existence—in my personal opinion, of course, I may be wrong—resembles exactly the issue of incarnation that the innovators or the Christians hold to. That Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He—of course, according to their claim—incarnated in the person of the Lord Jesus. Of course, some people say He incarnated in him while he was in the cradle, and He incarnated in him after he became ten years old, and He incarnated in him after he became thirty years old. The issue of incarnation among the Christians—that Allah incarnated—resembles exactly the issue you mentioned and explained, which is that the servant is the Lord and the Lord is the servant, according to his claim. I think, I mean, I believe it is exactly similar, or there is a thin thread between them. It is as if some religions or some other ideas seeped into these people, so they tried to attribute them to Islam. What you mentioned regarding the tormenting of the soul, the one who dives into the water and comes up on top, it resembles exactly the Indian religion of Buddha, of the Brahmins. It does not differ from it in any way, except an attempt to wear the garment of Islam, unfortunately. Do you not think that these people—whether they understand or not—transferred some other religions and tried to apply them in Islam? Allah knows best, it may be more...

The Shaykh : This is true, but I tell you, without offense, what is the benefit of this misguidance stemming from themselves or them being transmitters from others? This misguidance, whether it is this way or that way, and our duty is to know it and avoid it, as it was said:
"I know evil not for evil, but to avoid it, *** And whoever does not know evil from good falls into it."
But for the sake of history, or rather, for the sake of accuracy, there is no need for it as long as it is all misguidance. Ibn Arabi the insignificant contradicts you in what you said, because he says in his book: "The Jews and Christians went astray because they confined Allah to a person. The Jews confined Allah to Uzayr, and the Christians confined Allah to Isa." He said about himself: "As for us, we generalized Him in everything." So he is responding to you now, heh heh.

The questioner : ... He called it incarnation, and he called it the Oneness of Existence, and he called it indwelling (hulul).

The Shaykh : Look, Professor, the scholars have two things: they have the Oneness of Existence, and they have indwelling (hulul), as the brother said. And there is no doubt that in terms of reality, there is a difference between the two beliefs or the two ideas. But both stem from what? From misguidance, and that is disbelief.

The questioner : The unity of existence and the doctrine of indwelling... the essence is one. Indwelling is the original Indian religion, Hinduism... it indwells from one to another until the end. And because of this, they do not eat the flesh of animals, believing that the spirit of a human or other being has indwelled in it, so they consider it to be that being. It is even said that this Indian religion is what seeped into Christianity...

The Shaykh : ...The unity of misguidance, we agree with you on that. But in terms of the idea and the creed, it is very different. Those who believe in the unity of existence, like Ibn Arabi, do not believe in a Creator and a created being. Those who believe in indwelling say that there is a Creator and a created being, and that the Creator indwells in whichever of His creations He chooses. So there is a very big difference. But the truth is, without offense, if I tell you—wasting time on such philosophy is of no use to us. These details are all misguidance. The matter is finished. There is no god but Allah, and that is all. Yes.