The Sufi Removal of the Veil

The Sufis do not consider removal of the veil sound, unless it originates in straightforwardness.

People who do not eat and who retire from the world, such as sorcerers, Christians, and other ascetics, may obtain removal of the veil without the existence of straightforwardness. However, we mean only that removal (of the veil) which originates in straightforwardness. It may be compared with the reflections of a mirror. If it is convex or concave, the object reflected by it appears in a distorted form different from the actual form of the object, but if themirror is flat, the object appears in its correct form. As far as the “states” impressed upon the soul are concerned, straightforwardness means to the soul what flatness means in a mirror.

The recent Sufis who have occupied themselves with this kind of removal of the veil talk about the real character of the higher and lower existentia and about the real character of the (divine) kingdom, the spirit, the (divine) throne, the (divine) seat, and similar things.

Those who did not share their approach were not able to understand their mystical and ecstatic experiences in this respect. The muftis partly disapprove of these Sufis and partly accept them. Arguments and proofs are of no use in deciding whether the Sufi approach should be rejected or accepted, since it belongs to intuitive 478 experience.

Some 479 details in explanation:

Hadith scholars and jurists who discuss the articles of faith often mention that God is separate from His creatures. The speculative theologians say that He is neither separate nor connected. The philosophers say that He is neither in the world nor outside it.

The recent Sufis say that He is one with the creatures, in the sense that He is incarnate in them, or in the sense that He is identical with them and there exists nothing but Himself either (in the) whole or (in) any part (of it).

Separateness has two meanings. It may mean “separateness in space and direction.” 479a The opposite, then, would be connectedness. In this sense, the statement of (separation) 480 implies (that God is in some) place, either directly - which would be direct anthropomorphism tajsim or in directly - which would be indirect anthropomorphism (tashbih) 481 in the way in which one speaks about God’s having direction.

It has been reported that an early Muslim scholar similarly professed the separateness of God, but a different interpretation is possible.

The speculative theologians, therefore, did not acknowledge this (kind of) separateness. They said= It cannot be said that the Creator is separate from His creatures, and it cannot be said that He is connected with them, because such a statement can be made only about things in space. The statement that a particular thing 482 can be described as devoid of one concept and at the same time of the opposite of that concept depends upon whether the description is sound in the first place or not.

If it is impossible, (the statement is) not (correct). It is, in fact, permissible to describe (a certain thing) as devoid of one concept and at the same time of the opposite of that concept. Thus, a solid substance may be described as not wise and not ignorant, not powerful and not weak, not causing harm [?] and not being harmed. 483 Now, the correctness of describing God as separate in the way mentioned is predicated upon the possibility of ascribing direction to Him in the proper meaning of the word, but this cannot be done with the Creator, who is free from such a description.

This was mentioned by Ibn at-Tilimsani 484 in his commentary on the Luma’ of the Imam al-Haramayn. He said= The Creator can neither be said to be separate from the world, nor to be connected with it. He is not in it and not outside it. That is what is meant by the philosophers when they say that He is neither in the world nor outside it.

They base themselves (on the assumption) that there exist substances (atoms) that exist not in space. The speculative theologians did not acknowledge their (existence), because they would have to be considered equal to the Creator in the most specific qualities.

That is fully dealt with in the science of speculativetheology. The other meaning of separateness is “being distinct and different.” The Creator is called separate from His creatures in His essence, identity, existence, and attributes.

The opposite is being one, mingled, and merged (with something else). God’s separateness in this sense is assumed in the dogmas of all orthodox people, such as the great mass of early Muslims, the religious scholars, the speculative theologians, and the ancient Sufis, such as the men mentioned in (al-Qushayri’s) Risalah, and those who follow them.

A number of recent Sufis who consider intuitive 485 perceptions to be scientific and logical, hold the opinion that the Creator is one with His creatures in His identity, His existence, and His attributes. They often assume that this was the opinion of the philosophers before Aristotle, such as Plato and Socrates.

That is what the speculative theologians mean when they speak about the oneness of God with His creatures in theology and try to refute it. They do not 486 mean that there could be a question of two essences, one of which must be negated or comprised in the other as a part (in the whole).

That would be clear distinctness, and they do not maintain that to be the case. The oneness (assumed by the Sufis) is identical with the incarnation the Christians claim for the Messiah. It is even stranger, in that it is the incarnation of something primeval in something created and the oneness of the former with the latter.

The oneness assumed by the Sufis is also identical to the opinion of the Imamiyah Shi’ah concerning their imams 487.

The Shi’ah 488 consider two ways to attain the oneness of the Deity with the imams.

1. The essence of the primeval Deity is hidden in all created things, both sensibilia and intelligibilia, and is one with them in both kinds of perception.

All of them are manifestations of it, and it has control over them-that is, it controls their existence in the sense that, without it, they would not exist. Such is the opinion of the people who believe in incarnation.

2. There is the approach of those who believe in absolute oneness.

It seems as if in the exposition of the people who believe in incarnation, they have sensed the existence of a differentness contradicting the concept of oneness. Therefore, they disavowed the (existence of differentness) between the primeval (Deity) and the creatures in essence, existence, and attributes.

In (order to explain) the differentness of the manifestations perceived by the senses and the intellect, they used the specious argument that those things were human perceptions that are imaginary. By imaginary, they do not mean imaginary as part of the sequence= known, hypothetical, doubtful, but they mean that all those things do not exist in reality and exist only in human perception. Only the primeval (Deity) has real existence (and nothing else) either outwardly or inwardly. Later on, we shall, as far as possible, 489 establish this.

This sort of insight corresponds to angelic perceptions and is transferred from them to human beings. Prophets have it through natural disposition. After them, saints have it through divine guidance. But one errs if one wants to obtain it by scientific methods.

Authors have occasionally tried to explain the (Sufi) opinions concerning the revelation (kashf) of existence and the order of the realities of existence according to the approach of the people who (have the theory of) “manifestations” (mazahir). 490

As compared to people who cultivate speculation, technical terminology, and the sciences, (it must be said that) they have always added obscurity to obscurity. An example is al-Farghani,491 the commentator on Ibn al-Farid’s Poem 492

He wrote a preface at the beginning of his commentary. In connection with the origin of the world of existence from the Maker and its order, he mentions that all existence comes forth from the attribute of uniqueness (wahadniyah) which is the manifestation of unity (ahadiyah) 4 93

Both of them together issue from the noble essence that is identical with oneness and nothing else. This process is called “revelation” (tajalli).

The first degree of revelation (tajalli), in (Sufi) opinion, is the revelation, as such 494 of the essence. This implies perfection, because it emanates creation and appearance, according to (God’s) statement in the prophetic tradition transmitted by (the Sufis)=

“I was a concealed treasure. I wanted to be known. Therefore, I created the creatures, so that they might know Me.” 495 This is perfection in creation descending to the level of existence and particularization of the realities. It is, in (Sufi) opinion, the world of ideas, the nubilous (‘amd’iyah) presence, 496 and Muhammadan reality. It contains the realities of the attributes, the writing tablet and the pen, the realities of all the prophets and messengers, and the whole of the people of the Muhammadan nation. All this is the particularization of the Muhammadan reality.

From these realities, other realities issue in the atomic (haba’iyah) presence, 497 which is the level of the ideas (mithal). From there, then, issue in succession the (divine) throne, the (divine) seat, the spheres, the world of the elements, and the world of composition. All this is (originally) in the world of mending (ratq), but when these things manifest themselves, they are in the world of rending (fatq).

End of the quotation.

This school is called that of the people of revelation, manifestations, and presences. It is a theory that people cultivating (logical) speculation cannot properly grasp, because it is obscure and cryptic.

There also is a great gap between the theories of people who have vision and intuitive experience and those of people who cultivate logical reasoning. 498

Sufi systems are often disapproved of on the strength of the plain wording of the religious law, for no indication of them can be found in it anywhere.

Other Sufis turned to affirming absolute oneness. This is a theory even stranger than the first one to understand in its implications and details. They believe the components of everything in existence to possess powers that bring the realities, forms, and matters of the existing things into being.

The elements come into being through the powers that are in them. The same is the case with matter, which has in itself a power that has brought about its existence. Composite things contain such powers implicit in the power that brought about (their) composition.

For instance, the mineral power contains the powers of the elements of matter and, in addition, the mineral power. The animal power contains the mineral power and, in addition, its own power. The same is the case with the human power as compared to animal power. The firmament contains the human power and something in addition.

The same applies to the spiritual essences.

The power combining everything without any particularization is the divine power. It is the power distributed over all existing things, whether they are universals or particulars, combining and comprising them in every aspect, with regard to appearance and hiddenness and with regard to form and matter. Everything is one. (Oneness) is identical with the divine essence. In reality, (the divine essence) is one and simple. The thing that divides it is the way (we) look at it.

For instance, as to the relationship of humanity to animality, it is clear that the former is included under the latter and comes into being when it comes into being. At times, (the Sufis)represent the relationship as that of genus to species, (which exists) in every existing thing, as we have mentioned. 499

Or, they represent it as that of the universal to the particular, according to the theory of ideas (mithal). At any rate, they always try to get away from any thought of composition or manifoldness. They think that manifoldness is brought about by fancy and imagination.

It appears from the discussion of Ibn Dihaq, 500 who explains this Sufi theory, that what the (Sufis) say about oneness is actually similar to what the philosophers say about colors, namely, that their existence is predicated upon light.

When there is no light, no colors whatever exist. Thus, the (Sufis) think that all existing sensibilia are predicated upon the existence of some (faculty of) sensual perception 501 and, in fact, that all existing intelligibilia and objects of imagination are predicated upon the existence of some faculty of intellectual perception.

Thus, every particular in existence is predicated upon (the existence of) 502 the human faculty that perceives it. If we assumed that no human being with perception exists, there would be no particularization in existence. Existence would be simple and one.

Thus, heat and cold, solidity and softness, and earth, water, fire, heaven, and the stars, exist only because the senses perceiving them exist, because particularization that does not exist in existence is made possible for the (person) who perceives.

It exists only in perception. If there were no perceptions to create distinctions, there would be no particularization, but just one single perception, namely, the “I” and nothing else. They consider this comparable to the condition of a sleeper.

When he sleeps and has no external sense perception, he loses in that condition all (perception of) sensibilia, with the exception of the things that the imagination particularizes for him.

They continued by saying that a person who is awake likewise experiences particularized perceptions only through the type of human perception (that exists) in him. If he had not that something in him that perceives, there would be no particularization. This is what the (Sufis) mean when they say “imaginary.” They do not mean “imaginary” as a part (in the sequence) of human perceptions. 503