This letter, written for
Muhammad Hâshim Keshmî ‘qaddas-Allâhu
ta’âlâ asrârahum-ul’azîz’, explains how the hearts of the ’ârifîn see Allâhu ta’âlâ:
Bismillah-ir-Rahmân-ir-Rahîm. Hamd be to
Allâhu ta’âlâ. Salâm to His slaves whom He has chosen!
Question: Some people among
the superior guides of Tasawwuf have said that they have been seeing Allâhu ta’âlâ with the eyes of their
heats. For instance, the Shaikh-ul-’ârif ‘quddisa sirruh [Shihâb-ud-dîn
Suhrawardî] states in his book entitled ’Awârif-ul-ma’ârif: “Allahu ta’âlâ will
be seen with the heart’s eyes.” On the other hand, Abû Is-haq Ghulâbâdî
‘quddisa sirruh’ is one of the earliest guides in the blessed group of Awliyâ
called Sôfiyya-i-aliyya. He states as follows in his book entitled Te’arruf: “It has been
unanimously stated by our superiors that Allâhu ta’âlâ cannot be seen in this world; neither with the eyes on the head,
nor with the heart’s eyes. Only, a yaqîn and qanâ’at are felt in the heart.”
How can these two statements be reconciled?
Answer: On this subject, I, the
faqîr, like the statement made by the blessed author of the book entitled Te’arruf. What falls to
hearts’ lot concerning Allâhu ta’âlâ in this world culminates in an attainment of ‘yaqîn’. Call that
‘ru’yat (seeing)’ or ‘mushâhada (beholding, contemplating)’ as they may. When
the heart cannot see, then a fortiori the eyes cannot see, either. In this world it is impossible for the eyes to see
Allâhu ta’âlâ. The ‘yaqîn’ that occurs in the heart is seen as ‘ru’yat (seeing)’ in the ’âlam-i-mithâl. For, in the ’âlam-i-mithâl every thought and every
meaning has a shape each. In this world the best ‘yaqîn’ for the human being occurs by way of ru’yat (sight, seeing). The ‘yaqîn’ that occurs in the heart, on
the other hand, is seen as ‘ru’yat’ in the ’âlam-i-mithâl. (Please see the sixth chapter of the third fascicle, and the appendix to the thirty-ninth chapter of
the first fascicle, of Endless
Bliss,
for ’âlam-i-mithâl.)
As the ‘yaqîn’ that
occurs in the heart is seen as ‘ru’yat’, likewise something of which ‘yaqîn’ is
attained feels like something that is being seen. When the sâlik (devotee
making progress in a path of Tasawwuf) sees this ‘yaqîn’ in the mirror of
’âlam-i-mithâl, he forgets that the ’âlam-i-mithâl is a mirror and supposes
that the sûrat [appearance] is the haqîqa [essence, origin]. So he says that he
has attained ‘ru’yat’. He cannot realize that what he has seen is the appearance
of ‘yaqîn’. This state is one of the most widely-known mistakes of the
wayfarers of Tasawwuf. When sighting in the ’âlam-i-mithâl gains strength, the
sâlik thinks that the sighting he experiences takes place with his eyes. The
fact, however, is that the event of seeing is out of the question, neither with
the heart nor with the eyes. Most of the (great Awliyâ who are called the)
Sôfiyya-i-aliyya have laboured under the delusion that what they have been
experiencing is an event of ‘seeing with the heart’.
Question: When something of
which a ‘yaqîn’ occurs in the heart has a ‘sûrat’ in the ’âlem-i-mithâl, won’t
this lead to the conclusion that Allâhu ta’âlâ must have a sûrat, an appearance.
Answer: “Allâhu ta’âlâ does not have a mithl (equal). Yet He has a mithâl. A sûrat will be seen in the ’âlam-i-mithâl,” they
have said. As a matter of fact, the blessed author of the book Fusûs, [Muhyiddîn ’Arabî,] ‘rahmatullâhi ’alaih’ stated that the event of seeing (Allâhu ta’âlâ) in Paradise would take place in a manner of seeing the ‘sûrat’ in the ’âlam-i-mithâl. The ‘sûrat’ in
the ’âlam-i-mithâl is not the ‘sûrat’ of Allâhu ta’âlâ in the ’âlam-i-mithâl.
It is the ‘sûrat’ of the thing that occurs in the heart. And the thing that
occurs in the heart, in its turn, is attained by way of ‘kashf’; it is not
the Dhât-i-ilâhî (Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself). It is one of the nisbats and i’tibars[1] of the Dhât-i-ilâhî. Since the ’ârif’s business is with the Dhât(-i-ilâhî), such fancies appear. No sûrat or mer’î (observation, vision) takes
place. For, the Dhât-i-ilâhî does not have a sûrat in the ’âlam-i-mithâl. What they have taken for granted as the sûrat of the ru’yat (seeing
Allâhu ta’âlâ) is the sûrat of the yaqîn.
The ‘âlam-i-mithâl does not contain the sûrats (appearances) of substances and dhâts (persons). It
contains the sûrats of meanings. The ’âlams (creatures) are the appearances of the Names and Attributes of
Allâhu ta’âlâ. They do not have their own persons and beings, which in turn means that the entire ’âlam consists in
meanings. [The ’âlam does not contain any matter.] Therefore, there are no ‘sûrat’s in the ’âlam-i-mithâl. Since the Names and Attributes of Allâhu ta’âlâ stay on with the Dhât-i-ilâhî (Allâhu ta’âlâ Himself), they are like meanings. The ’âlam-i-mithâl may have their sûrats. Yet it can never have the
sûrat of the Dhât-i-ilâhî.
A ‘sûrat’ will have
borders and limitations. The ’âlams are His creatures. No creature can border
Him or keep Him within certain limitations. To say that Allâhu ta’âlâ has a mithâl does not
mean to say that the Dhat-i-ilâhî has a mithâl; it means to say that He may
have mithâls in some respects and from some viewpoints. However, I, the faqîr,
find it rather hurtful to say that He may have mithâls in some respects and
from some points of view. The sûrat of a dhil (shade) that is quite far from
the (actual) dhils might be the case. Let us repeat that the ’âlam-i-mithâl
contains the sûrats of attributes and meanings, and not the sûrat of the
Dhât(-i-ilâhî). Then, the statement, “In Paradise Allâhu ta’âlâ will be seen in His sûrat in the
’âlam-i-mithâl,” which belongs to the blessed author of the book entitled Fusûs, is not expressive of
a ru’yat of Him, (i.e. seeing Him.) In fact, not even of a ru’yat of His sûrat.
For, the Dhât-i-ilâhî does not have a sûrat. How can something nonexistent can
be seen? The sûrat in the ’âlam-i-mithâl is the sûrat of one of the dhils far
away from His dhils. To see it does not mean to see the Dhât-i-ilâhî. Muhyiddîn
’Arabî ‘quddisa sirruh’ proves to be no less good than the group of Mu’tazila
or philosophers in the denial of the fact that Allâhu ta’âlâ will be seen in Paradise. So good is he in proving that Jenâb-i-Haqq (Allâhu ta’âlâ) will be seen in Paradise, that his argument
---------------------------------
[1] The lexical meaning of ‘nisbat’ is
‘attribute’, and that of ‘i’tibâr’ is ‘indication’.
-270-
contradicts itself so as to minister to
one that would have been intended to prove that He could not be seen. In other
words, he perfectly proves that He cannot be seen (in Paradise). For, allusive
remarks have more expressive power than do direct remarks. However, whereas the
group called Mu’tazila and pilosophers are misguided by their own minds,
Muhyiddîn ’Arabî follows his inaccurate kashf. Perhaps, the evidence produced
by philosophers and by the Mu’tazila put down roots in Muhyiddîn ’Arabî’s
imagination and caused his kashf to err and follow them. However, because he
was a Sunnî scholar, he adduced that kashf of his as evidence to prove that the
ru’yat (of
Allâhu ta’âlâ in Paradise) is a fact.
As for the word
‘unanimously’ that is used by the blessed author ‘qaddas-Allâhu ta’âlâ
sirrah-ul’azîz’ of the book entitled Te’arruf; ‘unanimity of the people of Tasawwuf contemporary with him’ must have been meant.
Allâhu ta’âlâ, alone, knows the truth of everything.