Qutbi Competition Corner: 1st Quiz - Test Your Knowledge of Wahdat ul-Wujood And The Positions of the Scholars Towards Those Who Express It
Wednesday, January 13 2010 - by Admin
Read more articles at TheMadkhalis.Com

We are pleased to announce a new competition section through which we wish to foster better understanding about the Kharijite, Jahmite, Ash'arite, Rafidite creed and its underlying foundations. This is great news for Qutbists who rate themselves in their shrewdness and capacity in defending baatil against all odds, all for the sake of an individual in whose books nothing remains, after you take out the aqidah of the Khawaarij (a very extreme form of it), the manifestos of secular Atheist Jews, the aqidah of the Raafidah, that of the Jahmiyyah, that of the Mu'tazilah, that of the Ash'ariyyah, that of the Jabariyyah and expressions of Ittihaad, except heart-warming, eloquent, literary expressions (and not even a drop of the sort and type of knowledge you find in "Fath ul-Bari", or "Bulugh ul-Mar'aam" or "Riyaadh as-Saaliheen"!).

So here is our first quiz question, and since this is the first competition, we thought we'd start off with a cracker.

Qutbi Competition Corner: Test Your Knowledge of Wahdat ul-Wujood and The Positions of the Scholars Towards Those Expressing It

As you will know, a very large number of prominent Scholars made Takfir of Muhiyy ud-Din Ibn Arabi because of his expressions of "Wahdat ul-Wujood", and they spoke against him in the most severest of ways. You should also know (as a Qutbi who has a sense of pride in having refuted the Ash'arites, the Hulooliyyah and Ittihaadiyyah), that the Ash'aris counterargue that Ibn Arabi also negates Wahdat ul-Wujood in the most explicit of ways, and that these negations are also found in the very same books, through a variety of expressions.

All the following quotes are documented by Abdul-Wahhab ash-Sha'raanee in his "al-Yawaaqeet wal-Jawaahir" (1/80-81), and they are taken from the Futoohaat of Ibn 'Arabi.

Ibn Arabi wrote:

اعلم أن الله تعالى واحد بالإِجماع، ومقام الواحد يتعالى أن يحل فيه شيء، أو يحل هو في شيء، أو يتحد في شيء

Know that Allaah the Exalted is one by concensus, and the station of al-Waahid is way above from that anything should become incarnate with Him, or that He should become incarnate in anything, or that He should merge and become one with something.

And he also wrote:

لا يجوز لعارف أن يقول: أنا الله ، ولو بلغ أقصى درجات القرب، وحاشا العارف من هذا القول حاشاه، إِنما يقول: أنا العبد الذليل في المسير والمقيل

It is not permissible for a gnostic to say: I am Allaah, even if he reached the greatest ranks of nearness, and far be the gnostic from this saying, far be it. Rather he should say: I am the lowly servant who is in the journey and resting-place.

And he also wrote:

القديم لا يكون قط محلاً للحوادث، ولا يكون حالاً في المحدَث

The Qadeem (Allaah) is not subject to events (i.e. taking place in His Essence), and nor is He incarnate in the Muhdath (that which is brought about, created).

And he also wrote:

من قال بالحلول فهو معلول، فإِن القول بالحلول مرض لا يزول، وما قال بالاتحاد إِلا أهل الإِلحاد، كما أن القائل بالحلول من أهل الجهل والفضول

Whoever spoke with hulool (indwelling) then he is sick, for the saying of hulool is a disease that does not end. And no one spoke of al-Ittihaad except the people of deviation, just like the one who spoke with hulool is from the people of ignorance and excess.

And he also wrote:

وهذا يدلك على أن العالم ما هو عين الحق، ولا حل فيه الحق، إِذ لو كان عينَ الحق، أو حلَّ فيه لما كان تعالى قديماً ولا بديعا

And this indicates to you that the universe is not the very same [entity] as al-Haqq (Allaah), and nor has al-Haqq (Allaah) become incarnate in it, since if it was the very [essence] of al-Haqq (Allaah), or had become incarnated in Him, then He, the Exalted would not have been Qadeem (Eternal) and nor the Originator (of creation).

And he also wrote in poetry:

ودعْ مقالةَ قوم قال عالمُهم بأنَّه بالإِله الواحد اتحَدا

الاتحادُ مُحُالٌ لا يقول به إِلا جهولٌ به عن عقلهِ شَرَدَا

وعن حقيقتِه وعن شريعتِه فاعبدْ إِلهَك لا تشركْ به أَحَدا

And leave off the saying of a people whose Scholar said that the One Deity became in unison (ittihaad)
Al-Ittihaad is impossible, no one speaks with it except an ignoramus who is absent-minded
And with His reality and through His legislation worship your Lord, and do not associate anyone with Him (in worship).

And he also wrote:

من أعظم دليل على نفي الحلول والاتحاد الذي يتوهمه بعضهم، أن تعلم عقلاً أن القمر ليس فيه من نور الشمس شيء، وأن الشمس ما انتقلت إِليه بذاتها، وإِنما كان القمر محلاً لها، فكذلك العبد ليس فيه من خالقه شيء ولا حل فيه

From the greatest evidence for the negation of hulool and ittihaad (divine indwelling and union) which some of them presume is that you know, intellectually, that the moon does not contain the light of the sun at all, and that the Sun has not transferred into the moon with its essence, but the moon is simply a repository for it (i.e. its light). And thus is the servant, there is nothing of the Creator in him, and nor is He incarnate in him.

In general, the defenders of Ibn Arabi adduce the following arguments: a) Ibn Arabi explicitly and clearly negated Wahdat ul-Wujood b) the repugnant statements were inserted into his books c) his sayings are mis-interpreted, for Ibn Arabi simply intends "unity of being", not actual "unity of existence".

The Question(s)

Now we can pose our questions:

  • Does the presence of two mutually exclusive views arising from the one and same individual, either in his speech or in his writings at different times in his life (no matter which way around it is) prevent from refuting what is clear manifest falsehood in some of that speech or writing, given the fact that this pure manifest falsehood is still present and distributed the world over and read by millions of people?

  • Do the principles of "an-nasikh wal-mansookh" and and "al-aamm wal-khaass" and "al-muhkam wal-mutashaabih" and "al-mujmal wal-mufassal" (thanks al-Ma'ribi!) apply to the sayings of men in which there is the clear admissibility of both truth and falsehood - or are these principles applicable only to the revealed texts in which there is nothing but the truth, absolutely, and thus these principles allow the actual intent of the Sharee'ah to be determined in the presence of seemingly contradictory texts. And can these principles be employed in order to excuse and explain away statements of pure baatil arising from a person?

  • If we accept that a person recanted from a statement of kufr, then that is between him and his Lord, but does that prevent from exposing, refuting, and warning from that baatil which he wrote or uttered that remained within his books, with his knowledge and consent, published, distributed, and now in the homes of millions, read and studied? Especially when you have dedicated followers who propagandize for this man and his books and hate that the value of these books diminish in the eyes of the people!?

  • Given the saying of Jalal ud-Din as-Suyuti in his book "al-Haawee lil-Fataawaa" that the mere use of such language like "ittihaad", even if it was with the intent of exaggeration in Tawhid, confused a lot of people who misunderstood it, and made them fall into kufr and perish - and given the fact that we have people today with ignorance that is multiple times more profound than that in the past, and given the presence and vigour of the da'wah of the Soofiyyah and the people of Ittihaad and Hulool is it permissible and acceptable therefore, for a person to choose to remain blind to the fact that whether a person has two views or not, or whether he recanted or not, and whether his falsehood came first or came later, his books containing expressions of what amount to kufr are distributed the world over and read and propagandized for, despite what they contain. Is Allaah pleased that books containing the innovations of the Khawaarij, Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Ash'ariyyah, Jabariyyah, and expressions of Hulool and Ittihaad be propagandized for and the hearts of millions of people be attached to them, when they are founded upon nothing but "fikr" and not true and real Sharee'ah knowledge, and contain the greatest of innovations and heresies, amongst which are statements amounting to wahdat ul-wujood?

How to Participate

Please send us your answers and explanations through our contact page. This competition will last for one week starting today. Note: We reserve the right to update, modify, improve and add to the questions above.

How You Will Be Marked

We think its fair that we explain how our marking scheme works so nobody's efforts are wasted. We are not really looking for "right" answers to the above questions. That is not really the actual intent. What we are looking for is that fervor, zeal and passion in rushing out, taking to the seas and mountains, and using all of one's faculties with vigor to defend baatil and its people in a manner that most likely never will and has never manifested itself for the defense of the honors of Uthmaan (radiallahu anhu) and Mu'aawiyah (radiallaahu anhu) and for the Islamic aqidah against the bid'ahs of the Khawaarij, Jahmiyyah and Rafidah - and we mean here the sincere and genuine defense, not the fake (crocodile-tear) reactionary defense that only came about with the motive of seeking revenge for the sake of one's Qutb (pole and axis) and what amounts to mere political expediency in the arena of da'wah ("Hey, you attacked my ramz (symbolic figurehead) now I am going to attack your Shaykh") - learn all about that here!

So we are not really looking for correct, Shar'iyy, Sunni, Salafi, free-from-desires, straight-up, honest answers as much as we are looking for strong signs of dedication and passion. You will be marked for zeal, fervor and being the first off the mark. Normally we mark out of 10, but since this is a more complex situation with more complex factors we will be marking out of 100.

Manifestations of shrewdness and wit will obviously earn bonus points. Good knowledge-based observations will also earn bonus marks. And since we've got most angles covered inshaa'Allaah, those who go in the direction that we actually want them to go in, will then be allowed to participate in our follow-up competition where the noose will be tightened a little more.

All the best!


Wednesday, January 13th 2010: No takers.

Thursday, January 14th 2010: No takers.

Friday, January 15th 2010: No takers.

Saturday, January 16th 2010: No takers.

Sunday, January 17th 2010: No takers.

Monday, January 18th 2010: No takers.

Tuesday, January 19th 2010: No takers.

Competition Closed: No Sign of the Qutbiyyah Anywhere

The competition was closed without participation from the Qutbiyyah.

Looks like we can excuse Ibn Arabi for his statements of Wahdat ul-Wujood just because there exist clear explicit negations of Wahdat ul-Wujood in his books - and both those books in which there is clear negation and those in which the doctrine is clearly outlined and affirmed are present today, published, distributed, read and studied. It doesn't matter what doctrine he outlined first or last, the issue is the presence of his books, and a people expending efforts to print, distribute, and promote them - that's the issue here.

This was the aim of Abu al-Hasan al-Ma'ribi with his doctrines of "al-mujmal wal-mufassal" - he innovated these principles in order to defend the realm of Bannaawiyyah and to protect the Innovators and their works from being abandoned and thrown in the closet. He was simply continuing the work of the likes of Abdur-Rahman Abdul-Khaliq, and Salman al-Awdah and others who brought their own attempts to accommodate, defend and protect the innovators and groups of innovation. It's not surprising that we see Salman al-Awdah sitting with Sufis and Sh'ites these days and calling for nearness and understanding with them.

Related Articles: