We will start off with what Wahdat Al Wujood is according to Ibn Arabi and I will summarise Ibn Taymiyyah’s response to this kufri belief, and below translate what he says in full.
Ibn Arabi says nothing falls outside Allah’s being, because His essence includes all realities and relations, and he says that only Allah truly exists and that all other things are either manifestations or forms through which He appears. These forms are neither entirely Him nor entirely other than Him, which is what wahdat al-wujūd is: creation is not separate from Allah, yet it is not identical to Him either.
The one who is exalted in and of Himself (al-ʿAli li-nafsih) is the one who possesses perfection that encompasses all existent realities and non-existent relations, such that no attribute, whether of being or non-being, escapes Him. This is true whether the attribute is praiseworthy by custom, reason, or Sharia, or blameworthy by custom, reason, or Sharia.
And this cannot belong to anyone except the One named Allah alone. As for anything other than the One named Allah, such as that which is a manifestation (majla) of Him or a form (sura) through which He appears, then if it is a manifestation, there must necessarily be distinction and gradation between one manifestation and another. But if it is a form through which He appears, then that form is itself the essence of perfection, because it is the very thing in which He manifested. So that which belongs to the One named Allah is what belongs to that form. Yet one cannot say “it is Him,” nor can one say “it is other than Him.”
Abu al-Qasim ibn Qasi hinted at this meaning in his saying: every divine name is named with all other divine names and is described by them. This is because every name points to the essence, as well as to the specific meaning attached to it and sought by it. So inasmuch as it points to the essence, it includes all names, and inasmuch as it points to the specific meaning that is unique to it, it is distinguished from other names, such as al-Rabb (the Lord), al-Khaliq (the Creator), al-Musawwir (the Shaper), and so on. So the name and the named, from the perspective of the essence, are one.
Fusus Al Hikam By Ibn Arabi Pg 79-80
And it has been firmly established among the realised knowers that there is nothing in existence but Allah. Even though we exist, our existence is through Him.
Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya (1/289)
The creed of the people of hulul, ittihad, and wahdat al-wujud is that there is no distinction between the Creator and the creation. In their view, the Creator is the creation and the creation is the Creator. Everything that exists in this universe is both a creator and a created being at the same time, whether praiseworthy or blameworthy.
Not all of the Sufis are upon this creed, but those who hold the belief in wahdat al-wujud were questioned: how can one reconcile between the observable multiplicity in creation and their claim that all of this is one god? Their belief is more heinous than the belief of the Christians. The Christians say: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. So people asked them: how can three be one? But these people brought something even more repulsive.
They responded by saying this universe is like the ocean, and the ocean is Allah the Exalted, and the creation is like the waves. This is the interpretation of their leader who taught them this misguidance, al-‘Afif al-Tilimsani, who is their most dangerous figure, as mentioned by Shaykh al-Islam, and he had the deepest understanding of philosophy among them. He likened Allah to the ocean, and the creation to waves.
According to him, the first wave does not come out from the ocean, rather it is the ocean itself. This is clearly corrupt. If the wave is the ocean, then what about the second wave?
As for Ibn Arabi, the scholars declared him a disbeliever, because this belief is the most disbelieving creed found among the people of the earth.
Shaykh al-Islam said in several places: no one has come with a creed like that of these people. For this reason, they made permissible the prohibited. According to them, if a man were to marry his own daughter, there would be nothing wrong with that, because in their view, the lord marries the lord. This is truly what they believe and what they repeat.
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Refutation of Wahdat al-Wujood
Ibn Taymiyyah explains that the foundation of Ibn Arabi’s belief is that existence is one, and that the existence of the Necessary Being (Allah) is the same as the existence of possible, created things. Ibn Arabi also claims that nonexistent things are fixed realities, and that Allah’s existence “overflowed” onto them, making their existence the very same as Allah’s existence.
He interprets Pharaoh’s statement “I am your lord, the most high” as correct according to this belief, claiming that Pharaoh was outwardly in charge, and therefore had the right to say this. Ibn Arabi goes even further and says everything is Allah, that there is nothing but Him, and that the Creator and creation are one essence. According to him, all names and attributes belong to this one reality, and there is no real difference between the Creator and the creation.
Denial of Obligation and Worship
Ibn Arabi says Allah worships me and I worship Him, which Ibn Taymiyyah explains to mean that there is no real commander and commanded, since both are the same. This leads to denying religious obligation (taklif), because if there is no real distinction between the Lord and the slave, there can be no commands or prohibitions.
Translation: Ibn Arabi says: Allah praises me and I praise Him,
He worships me and I worship Him.
In one state I affirm Him,
And in the realities I deny Him.
He recognises me and I deny Him,
And I recognise Him, so I witness Him.
For I am the one in need, yet I am
The one who aids Him, so I delight Him.
For that reason, the True One brought me into being,
So I know Him, and so I bring Him into being.
This is what the report has come to us with,
And it has been verified in its intent.
Fusus Al Hikaam Page 83
According to this belief, every word is Allah’s speech, every doer is Allah, and everything seen or heard is Allah. So, worship, sin, and disbelief all become part of the same essence. For Ibn Arabi, the slave does not really exist with a separate existence, so when one says “slave,” he considers it either dead or negated. This is because, in his belief, the slave is nothing but Allah Himself.
Comparison to Heretical Beliefs
Ibn Taymiyyah says that this belief is similar to the beliefs of the Qaramita and the philosophers, who move from denying Allah’s attributes to claiming everything is Allah. He also mentions that this view was shared by Ibn Sab‘in, al-Tilimsani, Sadr al-Qunawi, and others. It is based on claiming that the fixed essences in nonexistence are real, and that Allah needs them to appear, just as they need Him to exist.
This belief, Ibn Taymiyyah says, leads to the denial of the whole religion: there is no meaning to worship, obedience, sin, or reward and punishment, because everything is one. He refutes the belief that “If you say slave, then that is dead”, affirming instead that the slave is alive and created by Allah, and that real worship, obligation, and distinction exist between the Lord and His slaves.
The Correct View When It Comes To Actions and Responsibility
Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies the correct view of Ahl al-Sunnah, which is that the slave is created, but also has will and action, and is responsible for what he does. Even if Allah created his will and ability, he is still the one who acts, prays, fasts, and chooses. Allah does not pray or fast, nor does He perform the actions of the slaves. To say otherwise is either heresy or madness.
He affirms that the actions of the slaves are real, and they are created by Allah, but still belong to the slave himself. He denies the belief that the slave is just like a dead body being turned over, because the dead has no will or awareness, while the slave has will, choice, and action created by Allah.
The Gathering in Damascus
Ibn Taymiyyah mentions a gathering of many respected scholars in Damascus who reviewed the book Fusūs al-Ḥikam and other writings of Ibn Arabi and his followers. They found clear evidence that their belief was that the universe itself is Allah, including filthy or evil things like pigs, excrement, and the devil.
They read passages where Ibn Arabi says that idol worshippers actually worship Allah, and that Pharaoh was truthful when he said, “I am your Lord, the Most High.” He also claimed that his “Seal of Saints” is greater than the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in some respects. He interpreted the worship of the calf by Banu Israel as valid, and claimed that Musa’s blame of Harun was wrong.
The scholars present unanimously agreed that these beliefs are disbelief (kufr), more extreme than anything believed by Jews, Christians, or idol worshippers. They declared that anyone who praises these figures after knowing their reality is either deceived or misguided.
Ibn Taymiyyah concludes that only Allah knows the final state of Ibn Arabi and those like him. If they died upon belief in Allah and His Messenger, they are judged accordingly. If they died upon these heretical beliefs without repentance, they are judged as disbelievers. Either way, the beliefs themselves are clear disbelief, and the ummah must disassociate from them.
As for the foundation of Ibn Arabi’s view, it is that existence is one, and that the necessary existence is the same as the possible existence. He also holds that the non-existent is something real, and that the fixed essences of nonexistent things are established in nonexistence, and that the existence of the True One overflowed upon them. So, according to him, the existence of everything is the very existence of the True One. This is explained in detail in another place.
Because of this, he said: since Pharaoh was in the position of control and power, he was the master of the moment and the caliph by the sword, even if, according to conventional law, he was a tyrant.
For this reason, he said, “I am your lord, the most high,” meaning that even though all are lords in a certain sense, he is the highest among them due to what he was given outwardly in terms of authority over them. And when the magicians knew that what he said was true, they did not deny it, rather they affirmed it for him. They said to him: “Decide whatever you want to decide, for you only decide in this worldly life,” meaning the rule belongs to you. So Pharaoh’s statement, “I am your lord, the most high,” was correct according to this view, even though he is the very essence of the True One.
Ibn Arabi also said: one of His beautiful names is al-Alaa (the Most High). High over what? When there is nothing but Him. Above what? When there is only Him.
Until he said: whoever understands what we have explained about numbers, and that their negation is itself their affirmation, will know that the truly transcendent Lord is the same as the resembling creation. So the matter is the Creator and the created, and the created is the Creator. All of this is from one essence. In fact, it is the one and same essence.
He said: do you not see that the True One appears with the attributes of the creation? So all the attributes of the True One truly belong to Him, just as the attributes of created things truly belong to the Creator, and so on. This is found frequently in his words.
This man follows a sequence in his spiritual path that resembles the sequence followed by the heretics, the Qaramita. The first stage is adopting the beliefs of the Mu‘tazilah and the Kullabiyyah, who negate the reported attributes and affirm seven or eight intellectual attributes. Then comes the stage of adopting the beliefs of the philosophers, who deny all attributes and affirm only a necessary existence that is abstract, from which the possible things proceeded.
After that, he considers this necessary existence to be the existence of every existing thing. So, according to him, there are not two existences, one necessary and the other possible, nor one Creator and another created.
Rather, the very existence of the Necessary Being is the same as the existence of the possible beings, with the variation of ranks. And these ranks, according to him, are the fixed essences in nonexistence, as claimed by those who say that the nonexistent is something real. There is no doubt that whoever says that the nonexistent is something fixed outside the mind, his claim is false.
However, those people say that the Creator gave existence to those essences and created them. But Ibn Arabi says that His very existence overflowed upon them. So they are in need of Him for their existence, and He is in need of their fixedness.
That is why he said: “He worships me and I worship Him, He praises me and I praise Him.”
Based on this, according to him, obligation is invalid, because obligation involves a commander and a commanded, and this distinction does not exist in his view. So obligation is impossible.
For this reason, he compared things like speech and hearing to the saying of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned my ummah for what their selves whisper to them, as long as they do not speak of it or act upon it.” So when the one who whispers is the very one who utters, he made this a parallel for the existence of the Lord. In his view, every word that exists is His speech, and He is the speaker and the one who hears.
That is why he said:
“If you say ‘slave’, then that is dead.”
And in another place I saw in his own handwriting:
“If you say ‘slave’, then that is negation.”
Because in his view, the slave has no created existence of his own. Rather, his existence is the very necessary, eternal existence. This is explained in detail elsewhere.
For the words of this man interpret each other. And this principle, the belief in the unity of existence, is his view and the view of Ibn Sab‘in, his companion al-Shushtari, al-Tilimsani, Sadr al-Qunawi, Sa‘id al-Farghani, Abd Allah al-Balyani, Ibn al-Farid the author of Nazm al-Suluk, and others from among the heretics who believe in unity, indwelling, and union.
As for the meaning of the line of poetry, “Oh how I wish I knew who is burdened with obligation,” it is a rhetorical question meant to deny obligation.
Then he said:
“If you say ‘slave’, then that is dead.”
And in another place he said: “then that is negation.” Both are false. For the slave exists and is affirmed. He is not nonexistent or negated. But Allah is the One who made him exist and affirmed his being. This is the religion of the Muslims: that everything other than Allah is His creation and has existence by Allah’s making it exist. Nothing has existence except by Allah giving it existence. In and of itself, it only deserves nonexistence.
It is a living, speaking, willing, acting being, capable of choice. But none of that prevents the affirmation of its essence, attributes, and actions.
He, Exalted is He, is the One who made the living person alive. He is the One who made the Muslim a Muslim, and the one who prays, a person who prays, just as al-Khalil said: “Our Lord, make us submit to You” and: “My Lord, make me one who establishes the prayer, and from my offspring.”
This is the issue of the creation of the actions of slaves. It is the view of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah, who also agree that the slave is commanded and forbidden, rewarded and punished, promised and warned. And He, Exalted is He, is the One who made the white person white, and the black person black, the tall one tall, and the short one short, the moving one in motion, and the still one still, the moist moist, and the dry dry, the male male, and the female female, the sweet sweet, and the bitter bitter.
Despite this, essences are described by these attributes, and Allah is the Creator of essences and their attributes.
So what is strange about a created essence being described by its own attributes? How can He be the Creator of all that in truth, and then the one who says “the Lord is real and the slave is real” be misunderstood?
If by it he means that this reality is the very same as that one, then this is union and heresy. This contradicts obligation. But if he means that the slave is a real created being, created by the Creator, then this is the doctrine of the Muslims, and it does not contradict the Creator enabling the created, just as He created him.
His statement, “If you say slave, then that is dead,” is a lie. The slave is not dead. He is alive, brought to life by Allah, as He said: “How can you disbelieve in Allah, when you were dead and He gave you life?” Allah does not obligate the dead. He only obligates the living.
And if it is said that he meant by “dead” that the slave has no life in and of himself, we say: interpreting his words this way is invalid both in wording and in meaning. As for the wording, his statement does not indicate that. And as for the meaning, because if that is the meaning, then it does not negate obligation.
So if he was dead until Allah gave him life, and Allah gave him life, then he became alive through Allah giving him life. At that point, Allah only obligated one who is alive, not one who is dead. As for what the heretical brothers and their defenders say, that he said “Oh how I wish I knew who is obligated” while knowing that obligation is real, so he was amazed that he was assigned this responsibility, and then said, “If you say slave, then that is dead,” and the dead has no motion of its own, but is turned over by another as he wills, and likewise the slave, even if he is alive, is with his Lord like the dead with the washer, having no action of his own apart from Allah, then it is said to them: this excuse is false for several reasons.
First: there is no confusion here. The one obligated is clearly the slave, with no doubt or hesitation. Allah, Exalted is He, cannot be the one obligated with fasting, or circumambulation, or stoning the pillars. Rather, He is the one who commands that.
The slave is the one who is commanded. And whoever is confused about whether the one commanded is Allah or the slave is either insane and mentally deranged, or corrupt in his religion, a heretic and a disbeliever.
The fact that Allah is the Creator of the slave and his actions does not negate that the slave is the one commanded and forbidden. No one has ever claimed that Allah is the one who bows, prostrates, circumambulates, stones the pillars, or fasts the month of Ramadan. Rather, the entire ummah is agreed that the slave is the one who bows, prostrates, fasts, and worships. There is no dispute on this among Ahl al-Sunnah and the Qadariyyah.
Second: the statement that the slave, even if alive, is like the dead with the washer is false. The dead has no awareness, no will for the motion that happens to him, no ability for it, and cannot be described as loving or hating an act, or wanting it or disliking it, nor that he bows or prostrates or fasts or performs pilgrimage or strives in battle.
Those who make this claim say: the dead is not praised for the washer’s action, nor is he blamed, rewarded, or punished. But the slave, Allah made him living, willing, capable, acting.
He fasts and prays, performs pilgrimage, kills, or fornicates by his own choice and will. And Allah is the Creator of his essence, attributes, and actions. He has will, and Allah created his will, as He said: “For whoever among you wills to be upright, and you do not will except that Allah, Lord of the universe, wills.”
He has ability, and Allah created his ability. He is a person who prays, fasts, performs pilgrimage, and makes umrah, and Allah is his Creator and the Creator of his actions. So comparing him to the dead is false.
Third: if he is like the dead with the washer, then the washer is the one obligated, which would mean that Allah is the one obligated. That leads to the claim that the Lord is the one being commanded.
Fourth: the rational people of mankind agree by natural disposition that the living slave is commanded and forbidden, praised and blamed for his voluntary actions. They agree that whoever uses predestination to justify injustice or immorality, it is not accepted from him.
If someone wronged another, no one would accept from him that he excuses himself by saying it was destiny. As for the dead, none of the rational people blame him or command or forbid him. So how can the two be compared?
As for the statement: if Allah had not empowered the slave to bear the obligation, he would not have been able to carry it out, this is true, but it does not contradict the fact that he is obligated, commanded, forbidden, praying, fasting, killing, or fornicating.
As for the claim that “the act is Allah’s in reality, and the slave’s only figuratively,” this is a false statement. Rather, the slave is the one who prays, fasts, performs pilgrimage, makes umrah, believes, disbelieves, commits immorality, kills, fornicates, and steals, all in reality. Allah is not described by any of these attributes. He is above and beyond them. But He is the One who made the slave do those actions. These are His creations and outcomes in reality, and they are also the actions of the slave in reality.
However, a group of theologians who affirmed qadar imagined that the action is the same as the outcome, and that creation is the same as the created. So when they believed that the actions of the slaves are created outcomes of Allah, they said: so they are His actions.
Then they were asked: are they the actions of the slave? They became confused. Some of them said: they are his acquisition (kasb), not his action, but they did not provide a clear distinction between acquisition and action. Others said: it is an action between two doers. Others said: Allah created the essence of the action, and the slave created its attributes.
The correct view is that held by the imams of the Sunnah and the majority of the ummah: that there is a difference between the action and the outcome, and between the creation and the created. The actions of the slaves are, like other created things, created outcomes of Allah, just as the very essence of the slave and all his attributes are created outcomes of Allah. But that is not the same as saying they are His very action and creation. Rather, they are created and brought into existence. These actions are the actions of the slave who performs them. They do not belong to Allah, nor is He described by them. He is not described by His created things or His outcomes.
Rather, He is described by His creation and His action, just as He is described by what resides in His own essence. The slave is the one who does these actions. He is the one described by them. He has ability over them. He does them by his choice and will. And all of that is created by Allah. So they are the actions of the slave, and they are the created outcomes of the Lord.
However, these attributes were not created by Allah through the intermediary of the slave’s will and ability. That is unlike his voluntary actions, which were created through the intermediary of Allah creating his will and ability, just as He created other things through other intermediaries. This is explained in detail elsewhere, but this is as much as this paper can contain. Allah knows best.
Majmu Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (2/112-120)
As for what follows, then the noble shaykhs arrived in Damascus: the great shaykh Abu al-Qasim, his brother Shaykh Muhammad, and Shaykh Harun al-Maqdisi. T
hey gathered in a sitting with the distinguished shaykhs and masters who are looked to as examples, such as our master Shaykh Imad al-Din al-Hizami, Shaykh al-Qudwa Muhammad ibn Qawam al-Balsi, the gnostic Shaykh Abdullah al-Jazari, Shaykh Taj al-Din al-Fariqi, Shaykh Shihab al-Din Ibn Jabbara, and others from among the shaykhs.
There was a discussion in that gathering regarding the issue that had become widespread concerning the doctrine of the ittihadiyyah (those who believe in the unity of existence), such as Ibn Arabi, al-Tilimsani, Ibn Sabin, and others like them.
The book Fusus al-Hikam by Ibn Arabi was brought, and several passages were read from it. Some writings were also read clarifying the reality of their doctrine and exposing the hidden nature of their beliefs.
The truth of the matter became clear to the gathering: that the reality of his doctrine is that the existence of all beings, including dogs, pigs, corpses, excrement, disbelievers, and devils, is the very same as the existence of the Creator. That the essences of created things are eternal and uncreated by Allah, nor originated by Him, but rather that His existence appears in them. And that His existence can only appear within them. That they are His nourishment through rulings, and He is their nourishment through existence. That He worships them and they worship Him.
That the very essence of the Creator is the same as the essence of the creation, and the very essence of the transcendent Lord is the same as the created being that is likened to Him. That the one who engages in intercourse is the same as the one being engaged, and the one who insults is the same as the one insulted. That those who worship idols only worshipped Allah, and that no one can worship other than Allah.
That His saying, “And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him” (al-Isra: 23), means: He has judged and determined it, and whatever Allah decrees must occur. So no one has worshipped other than Allah in any object of worship.
That the idol worshippers only fell short because they worshipped some of the divine manifestations, and had they worshipped everything, they would have been complete knowers. That the complete knower knows what he worships and in what form Allah manifested so that he worshipped Him. That Noah, peace be upon him, praised his people with the language of blame. That the essences of created things are the very essence of the Creator.
That the person he claimed to be the Seal of the Saints is more complete than the Seal of the Prophets Muhammad in some respects. That the Seal of the Prophets is like the place of one brick, whereas the Seal of the Saints is like the place of two bricks.
That he is more knowledgeable than the Seal of the Prophets. That he takes from the same source from which the angel takes who brings revelation to the Seal of the Prophets. That Moses only rebuked Aaron when he criticised their people for worshipping the calf because of Aaron’s limited understanding, for he did not know that they were in fact worshipping Allah.
That the sorcerers recognised the truth of Pharaoh’s claim when he said: “I am your Lord Most High” (al-Naziat: 24) and “I do not know of a god for you other than me” (al-Qasas: 38). This is among many such doctrines, which are not believed by Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sabians, or idol worshippers. Rather, it is the belief of those who deny the Creator, who reject that Allah is the Lord of the universe, the Creator of creation. It is the same as the doctrine of Pharaoh and the Batini Qarmatis who deny the Lord of all creation.
Those prominent figures among them themselves admit that their view is the view of Pharaoh. They stood upon his statement: that the worshipper of Allah has no reality. That the people of Hell do not suffer in it, but rather find delight in it just as the people of Paradise find delight in Paradise.
When the scholars present heard this, their hearts were united and they all agreed that this is disbelief and atheism. They declared themselves before Allah to be free from those who believe in hulul (indwelling) and ittihad (union), whether they claim indwelling or union in a specific person, as the Christians say about the Messiah, or the extremists say about Ali or some of Ahl al-Bayt, or some say about al-Hallaj, or al-Hakim of Egypt, or Yunus, or others.
Or whether they say that the essence of Allah exists in every place, as some groups of the Jahmiyyah say. Or whether they say what these people say, that He is the very being of all that exists, and that the universe has no Creator distinct from it, nor a Lord with an existence other than the existence of creation. Rather, they deny the Creator and nullify the existence of the Maker.
Their agreement was unanimous that anyone who praises some of these individuals, after hearing that one of them was a righteous man or a gnostic, or after coming across some of his words which seem good, such as some of Ibn Arabi’s statements in al-Futuhat or some of what he says in Mataliʿ al-Nujum, or some of the stories mentioned in al-Durra al-Fakhira and the like, yet only heard or read that, without having seen the reality of what he says in Fusus al-Hikam, and without knowing the hidden meaning of his creed, then such a person did not agree with his actual doctrine.
Rather, when the truth of his false speech became clear to him, he disassociated himself before Allah from these disbelieving statements found in Fusus and similar works, and from those who believe in them.
As Allah the Exalted said: “You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their clan.
Those are the ones in whose hearts He has written faith and whom He has supported with a spirit from Him, and He will admit them to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein. Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him. They are the party of Allah. Truly, the party of Allah, they are the successful” (al-Mujadilah: 22).
As for the person who actually uttered these statements, like Ibn Arabi and others, it is possible that he repented from them, and it is possible that he did not. If he died believing in Allah and His Messenger, then he is among the believers. If he died otherwise, then he is among the hypocrites. Allah knows best what lies in his heart. To Allah is their return, and upon Allah is their reckoning.
Jaami’ Al-Masaail By Ibn Taymiyyah (7/248-252)
