Continuation of the Response to the Doubts of the Advocates of the Unity of Existence
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : ... He says: The claimant of gnosis, the claimant of gnosis, Ibn Arabi says: This universe is Allah, and what we observe are parts, like the organs of a human being. I, for example, am one, and this is a hand, this is a leg, this is a face, this is an eye, this is a nose, and this is a mouth. He says: The creation, meaning the existing things, is one thing, and the separation is in the position of parts. So he is the whole, and the created things are his parts. Do you understand now? And as for the second, Ibn al-Tilimsani said, and Ibn Sabin said:
"Rather, it is a universal, and these are its particulars" The difference between the universal (kulli) and the particular (juz'i) in terms of meanings, and the whole (kull) and the part (juz') in terms of bodies. That is why he says: These are genera. Ibn Sabin says: These are genera, and these are the species of the created things. The created things are species, and the Creator is a genus. So it is from the category of the difference between the universal and the particular. The sign of the difference between them, if it is valid to inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is from the category of the particular. And if it is not valid, then it is from the category of the part.
The student: The universal?
The Shaykh : No. If it is valid to inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is a particular. And if it is not valid, then it is a part. Is that clear? This is the discussion. Now, the word is a noun, a verb, and a particle. The division of the word into a noun, a verb, and a particle is from the category of dividing the universal into its particulars. Why? Because you say: Is the noun a word or not? Is the verb a word? You inform about the smaller by the larger. Is the particle a word? So this is a universal and a particular. For the whole and the part, it is not valid to inform about the smaller by the larger. Is it valid for me to say: The hand is a human? It is not valid. If I say: A human is this, what would that be? A whole and a part. If you do not inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is from the category of the whole and the part. If you inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is from the category of the universal and the particular. This is how they distinguished between them.
Now, another one came and said: Al-Tilimsani said: You are all wrong. The thing is one thing; it does not mix. But its being... this is an illusion. This is an illusion that occurred... only. And the reality is that they are one thing... So what is it? One action. So your believing that this is a sentence and this is a donkey and this is a dog is according to illusion, imagination, and false assumption. And the truth is that they are one thing. Can this be imagined? Never. Just as we do not imagine what the Asha'irah said, that the speech of Allah is one thing, and that the report, the inquiry, the command, and the prohibition are all one meaning. We do not imagine this thing. These people say: This is al-Tilimsani, the chaste one, chaste except for falsehood. We ask Allah for safety. And he is dead, but he says: The whole world is one thing. The sky and the earth, and the earth is the sky. Now, men, I see the sky is blue and this is gray. He says: This is according to your illusion, your eye... You now see, sometimes, if you look and... for example, a fly flies in front of your eye and there is nothing there, right or not? Sometimes, when you get up from sleep, you see something... in front of your eye and there is nothing there. This that you are differing in now is an illusion, or is the thing one thing? This man made all the people... or not? All the people in front of him, they are all nothing. We ask Allah for safety. This is an illusion. They say: We are the people of intellects. Where are the intellects, my brothers? So we now have three opinions. Pay attention to them.
The opinion of Ibn Arabi: That the existing thing is one, and what is observed are its parts. Whose opinion is this? Ibn Arabi's.
Ibn Sabin says: The existing thing is a universal, and what we observe are its particulars.
... Al-Tilimsani says: What we observe is all a part, and dividing it into a thing and a thing and a thing is an illusion. Otherwise, the thing is one thing. Now, my brothers, do these schools deceive people? They do not deceive them. But what deceived people about these people is that they display asceticism, Sufism, and chastity. And the common people, as Ibn al-Qayyim said at the beginning of the al-Nuniyyah:
"Most of the people are people of appearances" They see that these people have asceticism, chastity, and conduct, so they say: This is the truth. Therefore, they deceived the people. All these whom the author mentioned are all from the Sufis. So the people become ascetic in them, they are deceived by them, and they think that they are upon the truth.
"Rather, it is a universal, and these are its particulars" The difference between the universal (kulli) and the particular (juz'i) in terms of meanings, and the whole (kull) and the part (juz') in terms of bodies. That is why he says: These are genera. Ibn Sabin says: These are genera, and these are the species of the created things. The created things are species, and the Creator is a genus. So it is from the category of the difference between the universal and the particular. The sign of the difference between them, if it is valid to inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is from the category of the particular. And if it is not valid, then it is from the category of the part.
The student: The universal?
The Shaykh : No. If it is valid to inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is a particular. And if it is not valid, then it is a part. Is that clear? This is the discussion. Now, the word is a noun, a verb, and a particle. The division of the word into a noun, a verb, and a particle is from the category of dividing the universal into its particulars. Why? Because you say: Is the noun a word or not? Is the verb a word? You inform about the smaller by the larger. Is the particle a word? So this is a universal and a particular. For the whole and the part, it is not valid to inform about the smaller by the larger. Is it valid for me to say: The hand is a human? It is not valid. If I say: A human is this, what would that be? A whole and a part. If you do not inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is from the category of the whole and the part. If you inform about the smaller by the larger, then it is from the category of the universal and the particular. This is how they distinguished between them.
Now, another one came and said: Al-Tilimsani said: You are all wrong. The thing is one thing; it does not mix. But its being... this is an illusion. This is an illusion that occurred... only. And the reality is that they are one thing... So what is it? One action. So your believing that this is a sentence and this is a donkey and this is a dog is according to illusion, imagination, and false assumption. And the truth is that they are one thing. Can this be imagined? Never. Just as we do not imagine what the Asha'irah said, that the speech of Allah is one thing, and that the report, the inquiry, the command, and the prohibition are all one meaning. We do not imagine this thing. These people say: This is al-Tilimsani, the chaste one, chaste except for falsehood. We ask Allah for safety. And he is dead, but he says: The whole world is one thing. The sky and the earth, and the earth is the sky. Now, men, I see the sky is blue and this is gray. He says: This is according to your illusion, your eye... You now see, sometimes, if you look and... for example, a fly flies in front of your eye and there is nothing there, right or not? Sometimes, when you get up from sleep, you see something... in front of your eye and there is nothing there. This that you are differing in now is an illusion, or is the thing one thing? This man made all the people... or not? All the people in front of him, they are all nothing. We ask Allah for safety. This is an illusion. They say: We are the people of intellects. Where are the intellects, my brothers? So we now have three opinions. Pay attention to them.
The opinion of Ibn Arabi: That the existing thing is one, and what is observed are its parts. Whose opinion is this? Ibn Arabi's.
Ibn Sabin says: The existing thing is a universal, and what we observe are its particulars.
... Al-Tilimsani says: What we observe is all a part, and dividing it into a thing and a thing and a thing is an illusion. Otherwise, the thing is one thing. Now, my brothers, do these schools deceive people? They do not deceive them. But what deceived people about these people is that they display asceticism, Sufism, and chastity. And the common people, as Ibn al-Qayyim said at the beginning of the al-Nuniyyah:
"Most of the people are people of appearances" They see that these people have asceticism, chastity, and conduct, so they say: This is the truth. Therefore, they deceived the people. All these whom the author mentioned are all from the Sufis. So the people become ascetic in them, they are deceived by them, and they think that they are upon the truth.